Skip to main content

tv   BOS Replay Budget and Finance Commmittee 2917  SFGTV  February 9, 2017 6:00pm-8:01pm PST

6:00 pm
audits for better light for streets and pedestrian and they're even better for this vitally lasting longer and consuming up to 50 percent less energy upgrading takes thirty minutes remove the old street light and repeat 18 thousand 5 hundred times while our street lights will be improving the clean energy will remain the same every san francisco street light is powder by 100 percent godfathers hetch hetchy power in one simple word serious as day tur
6:01 pm
>> good morning. all right. all right, party people, you guys ready to rock and roll? >> all right, that is what i like to hear, thank you. good morning, everyone. i would like to welcome you, this is the regular meeting of the budget and finance committee, i'm supervisor cohen chair of this committee, and to my right is supervisor tang no to my left is tang and to my right is yee and he is going to be joining us shortly, and our clerk is linda wong and i want to thank our friends at sfgtv. for broadcasting this committee meeting, do you have any announcements. >> yes, silence all phones, and cards to be included should be
6:02 pm
submitted and items acted tonight today will be on the february, 28th, board of supervisor's agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> folks you heard that february 28leth, the matters that we are dealing with today will be at the board of supervisors that is important to know. we have madam clerk, could you call item one? resolution retroactively authorizing the office of the district attorney to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $982,348 from the california governor's office of emergency services for the victim witness assistance program for the grant period july 1, 2016, through june 30, 2017 >> all right, great. thank you we have got dr. gina r rodreguz. here. >> i have to apologize, she actually took a spill and boek her arm a few days ago, so i will be pitch hitting this morning. so she wanted me to let the
6:03 pm
board that she apologizes for missing this, what is your name. >> my name is delia montiel. >> okay, the floor is yours. >> good morning, board members. i am with the san francisco district attorney office of victim services. thank you for having me here today. i am here to give you an overview of the services we provide at the victim services division. this funding allows us to serve victims of crime. in the year 2016, our division served over 8,000 victims. the 40 percent increase from 5 years ago. this funding has allowed our division to meet the growing needs of the community. we have been able to expand our services outside of our offices and placed our advocates in the community in order to proviet immediate assistance to our immigrant victims, our lgbtq
6:04 pm
victims, victims of hate crimes, human trafficking victims, campus sex assault victims, our homeless victims, and our most vulnerable the elderly. with this funding, we now have two courthouse dogs that assist our victims, one of whom cleared his calendar and made it today, red is here. although i think that he is napping. he is up. and these dogs are available to our clients in order to support and comfort them through the court process, we hope with the expanded we hope to keep expanding our services with two our clients with continued funding. thank you. does the board have any questions for me? >> thank you, let's see, any questions? >> no, supervisor yee? >> no, thank you. thank you very much. i just want to let the folks know that we do not have a budget and legislative analyst report on this particular item. and so what we are going to do
6:05 pm
is go to public comment at this time. ladies and gentlemen, it is time for public comment, you will have two minutes and you will a soft chime, please come up to the podium if you like to speak on item two. >> item number one. >> excuse me, item number one, thank you madam clerk. >> seeing none, public comment is closed at this time. thank you, colleagues any discussion or a motion? >> i will make a motion to send forth this resolution to the full board with positive recommendation. >> thank you. could we do that without objection? all right, and without objection, that motion passes. thank you. madam clerk, next item. >> item two,resolution retroactively authorizing the department of the environment to accept and expend grant funds from prospect silicon valley in the amount of $150,000 to perform stakeholder engagement and knowledge transfer for the marketzero project to bring an existing local grocery store to near net-zero energy over the term of may 17, 2016, through march 31, 2020. >> all right, and we have got
6:06 pm
mr. germo rodriguez back with us. welcome. he is representing the department of the environment and he will be making a brief presentation on this item. the floor is yours. >> good morning, supervisors i hope that you are staying dry in this weather. the department of the environment has the accept and spend the resolution to you today, it is part of a larger grant from the california energy commission. that we partnered with prospect sil con valley, and berkeley national lab. it is the over all project is of the 2.9 million dollar grant, essentially what the department and our partners are trying to do with this project is to take an existing commercial building, in this case, a grocery store and to put together a demonstration project, to illustrate and show case the ability of reengineering an existing commercial building, into a zero net energy building by using advanced solar, solar
6:07 pm
storage, and advanced metering in order to manage or demand on this project. this grant allows the department to work as a partner, and to provide our resources to this project. we urge your support of this resolution, and happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much, let's see. colleagues, is there any discussion for mr. rodriguez? >> all right. there is no bla analyst report on this item, that is good. let's go to public comment. >> public comment is opened on item two? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. any discussion or motion? >> go ahead and make a motion to pass this out of committee with the positive recommendation for the full board. >> without objection it passes. >> madam clerk, item three. >> item three, resolution authorizing resolution authorizing the san francisco public utilities commission (sfpuc) general manager to accept an award of up to $3,000,000 through the sfpuc's memorandum of understanding with the association of bay area governments for implementation
6:08 pm
of the lower cherry aqueduct emergency rehabilitation project funded in part by grant funds from the california department of water resources. >> we have dan wade. >> thank you, for the opportunity to speak to this item, i am here to speak to the items, and this is a facility that is part of the hech, hechy water power facilities that supplies, 2.6 million people in the san francisco bay area. and in 2014, the city issued an executive order for the departments to reduce all water used. hard to mreefbelieve that we ar this wet year after five years of extensive drought and we did start implementation of the emergency project and to be able to take the water from these reservoirs and in case it was
6:09 pm
needed. in addition to that, we have the 2013, room, fire which burned excuse me, 250, 700 acres which damaged the critical facility. and i am showing a few photos here with the destroyed photos to the head gates of the canal, as well as the damaged prejudice bridge and the foot trail to the head gates. as well as the debris that came off of the slope into the canal and so it needed repairs and cleaning. which were critical to be being able to supply water in case needed during the excessive drought. and so we did start work. and in phase one and phase two. it includes, temporary access to the head gates, and we did need to install some gates to keep bats out of the attic and to
6:10 pm
make sure that we met our mitigation requirements for the environmental permits as well as cleaning the debris from the tunnels that take water to the aqua duct. and so phase two. the work that is shown on the slide and i am not going to read through it all, but we had to divide the work up into two phases because we discovered a right-of-way issue with a portion of the alignment that dates back to the early 1900s, when the facility was constructed and so we need to get that corrected with the federal government, before we can move forward with phase two. and so we need to extend the project as a result. and in terms of budget and schedule. the cost to date are 9.29 million tlarz, and we have projected the future costs of 4.7 million dollars. and you can see the schedule listed here and so our request is to authority the general manager of the sfpuc is to accept and spend a grant for up
6:11 pm
to $3 million through sfpc, with the association of the barrier governments and this will allow us to partially fund the project and we are committed to fund the rest of the project which has a total budget of 14 million dollars. >> does that conclude your presentation? >> it concludes my presentation. >> thank you, supervisor yee has a question for you. >> just a quick question, just curious, what is a bat gate? >> a bat gate? >> yeah, these are outer or keep it in? >> yeah, to keep them out. >> so that we can essentially do the work that is required that the repair work that is required inside of that structure. and not be you know, if the bats are there, we can't do the work and so we exclude them during the non-nesting period. so that they don't nest in those areas. >> just looking at the picture, it looks like it is maybe it has a screen on it on the gates? yes. >> i see the bars, but it seems
6:12 pm
like bats could go through them. >> yeah. i believe that well, the openings are designed to be able to keep them out. i vnlt haven't seen that gate myself, so i can't speak to the size of the openings, but this is the structure itself. i am sure that he keeps it out. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good work. all right, let's go to public comment. oh, excuse me before we go to public comment, we are going to go to the budget legislative analyst who has a report, sevron? >> we actually do have a couple of recommendations on this and the resolution actually is to accept and not to spend the grant and so we need an amendment to clarify that you are approving expenditure of the 3 million, also as mr. wade said
6:13 pm
it is a 14 million, where it is a 11 million dollar, matching grant and so it needs to be amended acknowledge the 11 million matching grant. otherwise we do recommend approval as amended. >> thank you. thank you. let's go to public comment and then we will deal with the amendments all right, ladies and gentlemen it is your opportunity to weigh in, two minutes on item three, anyone? >> no. okay. public comment is closed. thank you. >> colleagues, let's take up the issue of the amendments. >> all right, i will make a motion to accept the amendments and adopt it out with the positive recommendation to the full board. >> do that without objection, that motion passes. all right next item please? >> item four. >>resolution authorizing the san francisco public utilities commission general manager to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $404,208 from the federal emergency management agency through the california governor's office of emergency services for the hazard mitigation grant program.
6:14 pm
>> thank you very much, and again, we have dan wade presenting. >> good morning, again, supervisors and this is the second item which is the early intake switch yard slope stablization project and this map shows the regional water system extended from the national park in the east, and 167 miles across the state to the san francisco peninsula and the city of san francisco and the early intake switch yard is near our facilities in the up country near the reservoir as shown on the map. now, in june of 2016, fema awarded the sfpuc a grant of 404,000 in federal funds for what we called the preaward and phase one studies of the early intake slopes stabilization project. this includes preparation of the hazard mitigation grant, and subapplication as well as definition of the project scope and cost benefit, and the phase one work is limited to the
6:15 pm
design and studies and so this money is for preconstruction work and then we will also apply for funds for construction on this project. now, what is the issue here, this is an arial view of the switch yard, these are critical facilities to supply the clean hydropower that comes to benefit san francisco and what you see on the lower left of the slide is a very steep slope that comes down to the switch yard, the switchaard is that gray area and you can see the power house on the right and there are as a result of the room fire there are a number of additional slope hazards that did not exist prior to the rim fire, namely a lot of the vegetation and so there is not as much supporting roof structures in the slope and we also have a number of rock falls into the area. this shows an example of some of those where we have fallen rocks triggered by the rim fire along
6:16 pm
the edge of the switch yard and you can see that relatively flipcy fence that is no match for a large rock coming down the slope and so we have boweled boulders bouncing into the fence and threatening the viability of this facility. we also have the trainage issues as a result of the fire where the slope is really not retaining as much water arz it used to and so we need to install the drainage and control the flood and control active mud flows and slides down the slope. and so we are looking at alternatives as part of this preaward of phase one work. our budget estimate is billion dollars 600,000 and so the grant money will go a long way to funding this phase one and free award work and then we would go forward with detailed design, and environmental review, and eventually construction measures to support the project. the kinds of things that we are looking at are vegetation, and some rock fall fences which are
6:17 pm
very strong fences that you know, that support the slope, and possibly some other alternatives. >> and so that strong fence that you are describing would >> so there are a couple of things that you can do. you can put fencing up at the source. high up on the slope to prevent the rocks from dislodging in the first place, and you can also put very strong fencing with cables that take a lot of energy mid slope and at the bottom of the slope to prevent these rocks from bouncing in to the switch yard. and so the request here, again, is to accept and expend a grant for 404,000 from fema through the california governor's office of emergency services through the housing grant program. >> what is a switch yard? >> a switch yard is where we switch from the hydropower facilities that generate the electricity to the transmission facility that transmits the electricity to the city.
6:18 pm
>> okay. thank you very much. >> yeah. >> thank you for the presentation, colleagues any questions? all right. in our report we note that the 400,000 is actually replacing the funds that the puc allocated to the project, and through the 195,000 match and it is the money that were appropriate ated and we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. >> let's go to public comment, open it up for the public. public comment is opened. and public comment is closed seeing no public commenters. all right, colleagues, the matter is in our hands. >> go ahead and move this with positive recommendation to the full board. >> with a recommendation, without objection that motion passes unanimously, thank you very much. madam clerk, call the next item. >> item number five,resolution authorizing the sheriff's department to submit a funding
6:19 pm
application to the board of state and community corrections pursuant to california state senate bill 844 (2016) for $70,000,000 for a proposed project to renovate county jail no. 2; outlining the matching cash contribution of $8,200,000 and additional funds of $3,800,000 for a total of $12,000,000 needed for the proposed project; and conditionally approving the form and execution of associated financing and construction documents. >> we have the sheriff joining us and making the presentation this morning, good to see you sheriff. >> good morning supervisors. thank you very much good to see you as well. so today i stand before you requesting a resolution and for you to forward that to the full board to allow the sheriff's department to apply for a $70 million grant from the board of state and community corrections to renovate number two facility, it was designed to be a work furlough, and it was opened in 1994, i was part of that opening. this facility has always been used as a jail from day one. but it was not built to be a jail because of that it is presented constant challenges to us. >> may i interject. >> it was not built to be a jail what was it build to be. >> a full work furlough facility. >> what does that mean? >> the people with jobs would be living in it or going to school at night and they would be let out in the day to do their jobs
6:20 pm
or go to school. >> so these are not people that were, this is a vision not for people that were in custody, >> they were in constructive custody of the sheriff's department. >> thank you. >> yes. >> thank you. >> it was built to a full work furlough, since we used it as a detention facility because of the number of people we have had in custody at the time. >> so we are asking today, for a resolution to allow us to apply for a grant for $70 million. and that will primarily provide renovation of our two dorm only podz aand d to allow us flexibility and more safety to the inmates and the ability to house the people from the county jail four which is located at the hall of j us, it will not add any beds or eliminate our need for the hall of justice. but before we start and i do have chief deputy matsut who is going to do the presentation, before i start i want to thank the controller's office and the
6:21 pm
mayor's office of budget and the department of public works, a few of you who are here today that can answer the questions for you, to all of the work they did. this rfp was released on december, 30, 2016, and the due date for the application, is february 28th, that gave us 60 days and everybody has been working very hard and cooperating with us and i can't tell you how much that i appreciate it. it has to be at the full board by next week in order to make the deadline of the dates. so today i am asking you to forward this immediately. so here is chief deputy matt free man. >> great, thank you. good to see you. >> good to see you supervisors, always a pleasure. to come and talk with you. is someone else doing, sfgov tv could we have the powerpoint. >> you just need to put it on slide show. >> there you go. >> here, excuse me. here we go right here.
6:22 pm
okay. we are not technically gifted over here. i got it. >> great. >> no problem. >> so good morning, as always, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to come to speak with you. and when the technology works, it is even better. >> there is. >> we have a picture here for you, and it was opened in 1994, 245 seven street, contains two jail facilities, number one which is the intake and release center, it is for hold only, for the arrival and departures and also, houses san francisco, county number two, which is a housing jail, and rated of 392, and it is the location in the san francisco county jail system where we house our female inmates. and as a sheriff talked about it
6:23 pm
was originally designed and constructed as a minimum security work furlough, and since day number one, we have operated its a medium to high security prison that houses presentence felon, deferred maintenance in the failure of multiple critical security systems in the building and it does require significant improvement and up gra idz in all areas, we have done extensive work with the department of public works and a complete retrofit and repair of the facility will come in at a cost of over, 220 million dollars. and that is without adding any beds to the facility. so that is not the project that we are here to talk to you about today. we are here to talk to you about today is participating in the sb844 request for proposals, where we have the potential to receive, 70 million award in the large county category, the main
6:24 pm
competitors and if we were to receive an award it would require a ten percent match from the city and county of san francisco and we have been informed that $12 million has been identified in the general fund certificate of participation program from the city's capitol planning program. there are some elbility requirements to participate in this proposal. we meet all of those requirements. design and renovation and we must provide on site inmate visitation and when we do that, the sheriff department fully embraces on site, face-to-face loved one inmate, family visitation. the proposal must include a sdipgs of efforts to address sexual abuse in your local facility, and the sheriff's department subdescribes to a zero tolerance, to sexual abuse and harassment and we have trained all of our lines staff and staff that work in the
6:25 pm
county jail on preprotocols, and once again, zero tolerance, all of our criminal investigators are well trained at how to investigate these types of crimes i think that we do a wonderful job seeing that the prisons in our jail are free from sexual harassment and abuse. >> and it is only opened this proposal is only open to counties that have not as of yet received funding from the state of california for adult local, detention construction. so we meet all of those requirements. we will also include language in our proposal that speaks to how this project will expand our ability to deliver program content to those who are incarcerated in our jails to include a mental health and treatment space and later on in this, i will talk a little bit about how we can do some significant improvements for our jail behavior health services. a little bit about our project budget estimate. total construction costs are
6:26 pm
estimated at approximately, 45 million, and 20 million dollars, and soft costs and these costs always kill me when i look at what we have to do in terms of these costs but they are necessary in the $16 million and you can see the total budget cost of $82 million. so, what is included? what is available within this budget of $82 million? we will upgrade housing podz aand d, to safer standards to house and provide programs to a high security level of inmate. this is critically important when you think in terms of the inmates that are you are can ently housed in jail, number four, the old jail, located on the 7th floor of the hall of yus and by upgrading hes two podz, you will afford us the opportunity to rehouse those inmates to this pod, but not only rehouse them to this pod but to have the ability because of the improvements to offer programs to a higher security of inmate that while they are currently housed on the 7th
6:27 pm
floor, very difficult to provide programs in the facility that was built in 1958, when none of this was on noon's radar. what do we do in >> replace the open bay dorms with 12 two person rooms. in the upper levels. we will install safety and sound barriers on the level, and this will eliminate from anybody from jumping off are being thrown from the second level but they will provide a sound buffer, so when the program people are in there doing their programs, the noise level is reduced and they can get some good work done. also put in flexible classification dividers that will allow us to subdivide the population and create individual living quadrants and also, add two ada rooms in aand d, pod which is a good thing, and then inmates that do have some sort of disability can receive the full range of programs that we offer. >> additionally, 4257 street was
6:28 pm
built with the open air atree ums and one on the east and the west side of the building. we will infill those, which will generate an extra, 1500 square feet of useable space. we will use that -- and we think that we have the ability to link those infield up to the housing pods that neighbor them and so what we will be able to do is offer an expanded array of programs and we may be able to expand our one family program which is our inmate, child visitation program, contact, visitation program, we may be able to designation, one of these infilled to our jail behavior health so that they have confidenceal treatment spals, where they can meet wub on one on one with their patients and we could increase our ability to offer vocational training with our relationships, with sil con valley, companies, for computer literacy, and for our inmates and so there is a whole wide range of things, that we can do by infilling these atree ums and we are going to
6:29 pm
renovate a non-operational kich in number two, this is critically important because what we currently use is the kitchen on the 7th floor of the hall of justice, which is fallen into significant disrepair and it is in a delap tated condition and we spent a lot of money to maintain it and keep it operating, that feeds the 7th floor and both jails and 425, 7th street and so this 82 million will allow us to renovate and remodel the kich in cj number two so that they can shut down the kitchen on the 7th floor. we will also replace dilapidated systems and repair the roof areas and there is intake handlers on the the roof of the building that we need to fix and we have a significant problem with water intrusion in the building and it is raining today and so i would imagine that we will get a call that something has shorted out due to the weather and so while it is not very sexy, it is something that we need to do. >> and we will perform targeted
6:30 pm
strengthening of the building. >> well, there are some things that while not included in phase one of the project scoping. they are identified as possible enhancements. if the budget allows, these are some additional things that we would like to do once again, if it fits, within the scope and the budget of 82 million dollars, and that is replaced the entire roof membrane on the roof of 425 seven street it is like what they call the reverse membrane system and having a lot of problems with it and so we would like to do that, with he would like to bring the entire facility up to ada and we will install the safety and sound barriers in the other podz that don't have them, b, d and e, podz and we would like to retrofit, the cells to meet the current code, the safety cells are of critical importance because they are used for people that are suffering acute, and important, psychiatric episodes and it is to everyone's benefit to get those up to code and we
6:31 pm
would like to get up to the cpod and that is the medical observation pod. where we house very vulnerable and sick individuals. and if the budget permits as an enhancement we would like to get in there and do the work to make it better. >> so let's talk a little bit more on effects about what we will do in the a and d podz to make them better. you can see the pictures here and in the slide. and that compare and contrast the current state to what it will look like post renovation, and you noticed that both on the upper and the lower levels on the picture on the left side it is open dorm housing. we will go in to the upper level and we will replace those open dorm beds with double occupancy rooms. you can see that on the picture on the right-hand side, what it will look like. you will see the approximately 3 and a half foot railing there on the second level, we will replace that with poly glazing that will run from the floor all the way to the ceiling, once again providing good sound buffering and so programs can go
6:32 pm
on unimpeded but also, to prevent people from jumping off to the first level. the next slide you see a more close up view of an open door bed situation. compared to a double occupancy room. the double occupancy rooms are certainly critical for facilities and security, inmate and staff safety, but what they also do is they reduce inmate stress. inmates are less stressed when they have the personal space to retreat to as opposed to constantly living in an open environment where they have to share a rest room, with you know, 24 other individuals, as opposed to having, their own personal space, their own area to go to to decompress, and so there is real benefits there. >> we will also do in these upper a and d, we will install what we called, classification sliders, and you see a picture here of the hallway without one and then you will see the example of what it will look
6:33 pm
like post renovation, and this allows us to further subdivide these groups of populations so they are safe from one another, separated from one another and you can have a lot of programming that can go on in the day room space associated with these rooms. where they can receive services right in the housing areas. the other great thing about it is, that if we want to cross poll enate and we want to open it up to a larger group, we can simply open the door. >> the safety barriers and aand d podwise we have a picture where we do the compare and contrast, the picture on the right-hand side is san francisco county jail number five on the grounts of the san brunhoshgs jail complex, and you can see on the second level of that pod the glading that we are talking about that serves as a barrier and a sound buffer. this goes back to the original design of number two in the late 80 and 90s when they were
6:34 pm
designing it and they didn't put in these barriers, but when you are housing presentenced overwhelmingly felony population and it does not make any sense to not have any of these barriers in the jail. and an exciting part of this proposal is the infill of the atree ums. the addition of 1500 square feet is no small matter whatsoever. the sheriff in the san francisco county jail, in the way that we operate our jails we certainly do not subscribe to idle time. what we see is that there is a fusion between the incustody time and post release readecember lags in the community, and successful completing of probation, patrol. and the way that you do that is that you have to start that reentry process from day one when someone is incarcerated you have to determine what are the underlying factors.
6:35 pm
what is it that they need? how can they be served to be successful. but you need the facilities that will allow you to do that. so by infilling these, we significantly expand the sheriff's department ability to offer even more programs to more inmates and now that is really where the whole industry is moving. it is fantastic to offer levels and, when you can offer the programs to a wider range of the population that is where you are hitting when it is at. there is additional views of the atree um on the next slide and you see that they are open air. we will go in and infill them and that is where we will generate the additional space. >> many of the parts and of the
6:36 pm
appliances with vn csupport, an it is in significant need of infusion to get it back up to speed. but once it is done, not only will this be a modern kitchen, capable of feeding all of the it, but allow us to increase the vocational programming in the culinary arts and this goes a long way in the reduction of resid vichl because it allows them to get jobs. we have the pictures here of the kitchen that is in use. and then you will see, that it is in a sad state and we teep it clean. this kitchen receives, 100 percent scores from the department of public health when they come to do the inspections but keep tg clean is one thing, but keeping it operational is another. and that is a daily struggle. >> we talked about the hvac
6:37 pm
systems on the roof of the building, the targeted seismic strength and this building was designed prior, and so there may be things that we need to do to shore up there. we will achieve partial code compliance and ada, partial because we are not touching the whole building. in the parts of the building that we go in and do some remodelling and redesign, in those areas, we certainly will achieve full ada and fire life safety compliance. and in repair and replace portions of the roof due to water intrusion, and there are pictures here and you can see where we have a lot of tarping on the roof of the building to keep the rain water out. and i can tell you that in a building such as this, where it is adult secure detention, short circuiting the electronic systems is a very bad thing because that is what you use to keep the doors opened and closed in the jail facility.
6:38 pm
>> so what will this funding result in? it is going to result in enhanced safe, and secure house and that is a good thing and it is going to provide more flexibility for housing, of some higher risk inmates outside of cj four, that is a very good thing to be able to bring some of the inmates over from cj four and additional program availability and increased opportunities for family visits. so some of these enhancements in the infill and some of the this ingz that we can do in the multipurpose rooms of the pods could have a significant impact in our ability to offer even more visits to loved ones, family members and so forth. repairs to the roof and the hvac systems and renovation of the kitchen and that is important because it does start that divestment process, from the hall of justice. some considerations for you. when this project begins in approximately, 2019, we will need to vacate county jail
6:39 pm
number two. in order for the contractors to go in and do their work. so we will need to rehouse the inmates that are currently housed in cj two, based upon our current synthesis data, we believe that this will necessitate finding other housing for approximately, 200 other inmates and what are the couple of the ways that we can do that. well, one way that we can do that is by preparing san francisco county jail number three, which is currently vacant and it is the sixth floor of the hall of justice and we spend, 3 million on cj number three and retrofit and it prepare it to house these inmates just for the 18 to 24 month time period of the project of cj two. and at which time we will move them back. and another consideration would be to rent beds out of county. and we have contacted some of our surrounding bay area counties. and we estimate that this will cost, $125 per inmate, per day. and at a total estimated cost of
6:40 pm
$13.5 million, for 18 months. but remember, that is just the cost that we would pay the other county. it does not take into account the transportation costs that the sheriff's department would incur to go back and forth bringing in the inmates to and from the court, which is a significant cost. due to the limited budget, there are some other things that the project does not address and there are many remaining deficiencies in county jill number two included but not limited to the complete repair of the facility roof, the roof is actually in pretty bad shape to be frank with you, replacement of showers throughout the facility, and replacement of the bunks, and the bunks in this facility are not to ada and life safety standards, there are a lot of places where they can tie off. >> replacement with access slots and gives the sheriff the ability to engage the inmates
6:41 pm
without having to actually open the door. >> movement of our master control room to the interior of the facility, and i don't like to talk too much publicly about that other than to say the current location of our central control room is not in the best interest of anybody. and the installation of security doors, this is someone asked me recently, if the sheriff's department was ever in danger of having an shaw shank moment, i don't think that we are in jeopardy. but the installation of the sally port doors would go a long way to prove me correct. and a significant thing that the project doesn't dow is divest us from the need to continue the use of the two hall of justice jails and more specifically county jail number four because 4257 street operates off of a life line that is supported from 850 bryant street to include the data lines, steam lines, and 425
6:42 pm
does not have its own boiler, and emergency generator, and the 425, seven street was built without a loading dock and without redundant refridgeation and freezers for the inmate food service and a loading dock, and central store rooms and the significant thing that we will not have in order to fully divest from the hall of justice jails is court holding and inmate staging, you have to remember, we have a sizeable facility in san bruno and we have to pans port inmates to and from on a daily basis to attend courts. wi concluded with the photos of with the jail, of county jail number four and the comparisons between the rooms, cells, conditions of confinement, the ability to deliver programs, between the hall of justice jails and the county jail number
6:43 pm
two is striking. you may have read in the paper that ve had the issues in the hall of justice with plum and flooding. we have some pictures here of some of the delap tated fluming systems in the building and we had a very large flood in county jail number four on january, 27th and we have had building engineers come in and install what they called the trapper hooks in many of the plumbing lines that run off from the 7th floor and while that will mitigate and address not flooding the tenants on the lower floors, what it has done is it has transferred the flooding problems from the lower floors to the inmates that are housed in the jail. so neither of those solutions is going to work well for anyone. before the capitol committee on february 6th and we are here talking to you today. on february 14th, our hope is that this will be referred to the full board.
6:44 pm
for a vote authorizing us to participate in the request for proposal. i guess that is valentines day. so you know maybe i will bring in chocolates or roses or something. be nice day and everybody is going to be feeling the love that day and on february 28th, our request for proposal that is the submission deadline, our proposal must be in the board by 5:00 p.m. on that day. and i would just tell you one other thing, the team of people from the city family that we have been working on with this are simply fantastic, a lot of professional dedicated people working on the project. it has been a pleasure to work with them. that concludes the presentation and happy to answer any questions that you have. >> i see supervisor yee? thanks for your presentation, i have a few questions, regarding the budget itself, i guess. i see that the construction
6:45 pm
contract award is at a 38 million, or 38 million, 300,000 and in total, of construction is about 65 million. so, i guess what i don't have anywhere is a break down of what it is going to do in terms of the construction and i think that part of it was triggered because you said several times that if we had adequate or funding, you know, on what you thought that you are going to do, we would do ab& c, so it makes me think, what is the -- do we actually have a break down of what the other projects and the little projects and that we
6:46 pm
would total to 38 million? or is it just that we only have 38 million and we will do whatever we can with the 38 million. >> we actually have our project manager here from project manager here from dpw, and it may be that i will ask her to come forward and speak directly to that issue. but what i can tell you is that the sheriff spoke to the very aggressive schedule that we have been placed under to participate in the program. so working with department of public works, some very high level cost estimating has been done, on the project. to identify i believe, which you may be referring to as sort of itemized, line by line, list of what each part of the project specifically cost and there certainly has been estimating on each of the things that i listed to you. that would be in the project cope as developed. but at this point in time in the project, these are estimates.
6:47 pm
a much more refined cost estimating process will be undertaken as the project goes forward. >> i think that part of my concern with this is everything that you presented was like very lovely and i would support getting it done and it almost feels like these are things that we are going to get done with this money and that is why wait a minute you are saying some of these things may not get done. and if i didn't kind of catch that, i would just assume that everything is going to get done, and then part of then, the other question related to this, is then, if we have a list, and we, if we find it further in the cost and we will find out that maybe, we have too much money or not enough money and so the question becomes what is the priority?
6:48 pm
what comes first, what comes second? and i don't want you to rattle it off, but it seems like we need to have a list. >> i need to have a list. >> and we do, and we can in addition to this presentation, certainly provide that to you. the priority has been completed and that is what you see in the project scope phase one, the items that i talked about in here, that is the prioritization, and there is a high level of confidence that everything that has been identified as phase one project scope will happen in the 82 million dollar budget. >> the things that are listed as enhancements, there may, and i use the word may, there may be room within that budget to make those things happen. the reason that they are put in the enhancement category, is that they are not, and they do not make the prioritization
6:49 pm
list. they are critical, and they are important, but they are in the second tier of the prioritization. but the things that were listed in phase one, project scope, will happen. >> okay. that is helpful, and if you, do you have a break down i don't need a presentation, just make some time before we vote on it. on the full board, i would like to see it. >> no problem. >> the other question that i have in regards to the budget if everything works out well and we need to and you choose to upgrade jail number three, i believe. so that we could, you know, house the inmates, and these are budget for that? i mean is it some, where are we getting the money for that? is it budgeted within the 82 million? >> it, that is not included in the 82 million, there are
6:50 pm
actually funds that already exist for that process to take place. >> okay. >> and --. >> could i agree that. >> hi, supervisor budget director, the funds for that would need to come out of the city's general fund cash capitol budget each year and so we will see the department will need to submit that request to the capitol planning program and go through the regular budget process. >> so it has not been approved. >> it has not been approved, i believe that it was not requested at this time because we are not aware of this expense. so my guess is that it will be requested this year, although i haven't see the submissions yet from the capitol planning committee, i know that brian strong is here if you want him to comment on it or the sheriff's department can let you know. you will see it this year in the two year, or possibly next year, i am not sure if the expense
6:51 pm
would hit in the up coming two budget years. but probably. >> so brian are you here? " he that i have for you is that if the request is made, the question that i have is what is the likelihood that sts going to be received with a positive sort of reactions snchlt >> yeah, i mean that it is certainly going to depend on a lot of different factors but brian strong the director of capitol planning also the chief officer, and you know, getting folks, you know, this is related to improving a building that we know that we are going to have for a long period of time. so i think that there is, you know, i really see this as an investment in jail one and two, and the capitol planning committee sees it that way and
6:52 pm
that is a building that we will have for four or 50 years and given that it is renewing a building, it will be more likely to receive a favorable reaction. this is about taking care of assets that we own and that is one of the funding principals that we have that is at the high principals. again, i didn't expect you to make it 100 percent commitment but that is helpful. >> yeah. >> and i just want to make sure that we are covered on all of the things that we need to make this happen. so thank you. >> yeah. >> that is my questions. >> thank you, supervisor tang. >> thank you, just to build on the questions around cj three. and soy i wanted to know if we were to be able to provide the 3 million and get that request through the capitol planning committee would it be able to house the 200 inmates that will need to be moved. >> it would.
6:53 pm
>> and then if we were to go with that option, then would that be seen as also a permanent it would be permanently remain open. >> i don't think so. i think that it would remain open for the period of time that it takes us to do the renovations and county jail number two. and at that point in time, with he will move the inmates back. >> okay. soap the three million is kind of just your bear bones to be able to put the people in there. but there is no plan to continue to have them in there? >> i don't think so. >> you continue to have cj three vacant. >> yeah, the facility will be retrofitted and be capable of housing inplatemateinmates, but believe that it is the intent of the sheriff's department to use that facility. >> and i am sure that we will not get into the discussion about all of that right now. about you in terms of just the comparison, of potentially transporting the inmates to other counties, at a cost of
6:54 pm
13.5 million dollars for that 18 month period, that is not including transportation. you know, i will just say that you know, my preference is to go with the 3 million option. and clearly, i think that it is a koon traft here and so i just wanted to kind of put my word in for that. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you for your presentation, we are going to go to public comment at this time. >> thank you. >> i have got a few. before we go to public comment we will go to sevren. >> this is the resolution to apply for the grant and we do have a couple of recommendations based on that. and in one, is that we wanted to make it very clear that the 70 million dollars, if the grant is awarded does come back to the board for appropriation approval and the other is that we want to clarify in the resolution that this would be the city's match of 12 million dollars would initially be funded with commercial paper and financing
6:55 pm
of 12 million, and which is not clearly defined in the resolution. certificates of participation in that amount would have to come back to the board for approval, i believe that there is going to be substitute legislation? >> amended legislation? has that been submitted? >> okay. there is amended legislation that will address these two recommendations. >> thank you. okay, i have got a few sfeeker cards, i want to invite up roma guy followed by woods ervin, brad hern. gabriela pelsinger and andrew, sito and mohammed sheik. >> so cue up when the next speaker is completed we can get to the next speaker, good to see you.
6:56 pm
>> good morning, supervisors, chair cohen, five years ago we came to you as tax payers for public safety and we had a huge struggle about not rebuilding the jail. at the hall of justice today we are in a totally different context and it does fit in to where taxpayers was coming from. five year ago. no new jail renovate cj 1 and 2, and move all the other offices out of the hall of justice. so this could be on the right track. but we do have some concerns. so we are you know we are trying to be a little skeptical because we do have the evidence from a history of over building like at ygc, and which is great and there are fewer youth there, but we could have known that many years ago.
6:57 pm
now we are going to be spending all of this money to renovate cj2, when we had no intention, politically to use that as a work for a forlow as the sheriff mentioned from the first second that it opened it was a jail, an adequate. so we are going back and correcting these errors, but we still remain skeptical and because this is the first day that we have actually seen any detail. so we appreciate your questions, and especially we want you to be skeptical on that this is not an expansion, we support the conference rooms, we support the renovation in general, but we are concerned about is this going to be a high security level? and what that looks like and concerned about not expanding beds. today we saw some numbers, no ex-392, but we need you to pay
6:58 pm
attention to that. >> thank you next speaker. >> my mame is woods and i am from tji justice project and the sf jail coalition. so this proposal continue to not address the immediate need to close 850, but it continues to one rely on the hall of justice and and is part of a bigger plan that has san francisco rely on jail construction when we have been calling for city officials that other straggys should be
6:59 pm
prioritized. and so while we did get the details today about 392 beds remaining the same. we do want to make sure that as the sort of history in construction or occurs, that things like greater isolation, which can be positive as a relief but actually, has been in some entanses like in many instances proven to actually harm prisoners, or folks who are incarcerated. when we further restrict their movement, and now the project which was a charter of the board of supervisors of which i was on. overwhelmingly, prioritized policies services and resources. and in community strategy. community, as an extra strategy.
7:00 pm
and so if the priorities is to reduce the population rapidly, we should >> thank you, next speaker please. >> brad. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is gabriella i am a member of california united for a responsible budget and as well as the no new jail. there are several points in the sheriff's renovation plan that are deeply disturbing to me. first of all the plan to vacate vy 2 for 18 to 24 months while the renovation takes place, both of the options that have been presented today are highly irresponsible. repopulating the vacated facility at the hall of justice while we know this building is unsafe and while both prisoners
7:01 pm
held there and the city employee labor unions made it clear that the city suffers from lead paint, row dents and sewage leakage and many more unsafe situations. and this san francisco city administrator has made her position clear that they believes that the building should be empty by 201 #, which is when the renovation will begin, moving people into an unsafe and dangerous facility is not an acceptable plan for us prelocating people, to other facilities in the bay area instead of looking into the decar ration is also not a feasible or a pro-active solution, that will address the larger issues at play here. and so last year, when the board of supervisors voted unanimously to invest in alternative to jailing, and not to spend more money on jail construction, we want to know where the programs are to take people out of
7:02 pm
incarceration and to reduce the population and to invest in bail reform and prearrest and deversion programs instead of just putting more and more money into jail construction and expansion. >> thank you. >> good morning, my name is andrew, and i am with the critical resistance and the no new sf jail coalition. the folks have said the board of supervisors all three of you voted against funding proposals for expanding the county jail system. and for the past year the work group to reenvision the jail system alternatives to the jail met and concluded as said that funding alternatives and not pie prioritizing, and renovating cj 2 was one of the lowest votes on the proposal and received one of
7:03 pm
the lowest percentage of the votes concerns that we have is in regards to the 392 beds that the sheriff is proposing that will remain the same for the prerenovation to the post renovation, and as far as i have been informed, that 8 beds are so will be renovated and will be added to the bed capacity of the jail through ada, and renovations and it is unclear to us whether the 392, includes the eight additional beds or that eight additional beds will be added to the 392 beds of the prerenovation jail. so some clarification on that will be helpful. additionally, the isolation that prisoners, you know, isolating prisoners in smaller, two cell, podz, and does not actually help with their safety or mental health and as was said again, isolating prisoners and the
7:04 pm
health conditions and so it is unclear to how moving the people from the bunk style to an enclosed unit will make people safe. and finally, we have a request that the board of supervisors vote on the entire 82 million dollars of when it is received from the fcc and not the 12 million. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> good morning, my name is brad and i am with the housing rights committee of san francisco. and in addition to my work on house and against displacement i am a certificated substance abuse counselor, and experienced mental health worker with deversion programs and community based alternatives to incarceration. so i appreciate the intentions to expand services in the jail in the setting, but the problem with the intentions is that they do not line up with evidence based out come that mental health professionals have said again and again. what i don't see in the pro-he
7:05 pm
posal is recommendations or opinions from the mental health experts, and the workforce development field. who work with returning citizens. so i urge that this body as well as the board of supervisors consider rejecting the funding as a part of the proposal. and in addition from the perspective of housing, i feel that it is posht important to say that the displacement of the vulnerable residents, many of whom end up in the jail, because 25 percent of inmates have been homeless before and will be homeless again, the displacement increases incarceration and if the over all strategy is decars ration and so we need to invest in alternatives. in light of a judge's order to evict a 100-year-old black woman with 56 of the population in the
7:06 pm
jail being black residents and that population declining in the city of san francisco, i feel that also needs to be considered and i urge continued investment and community based alternatives and recommendations from the mental health field. thank you. >> thanks. >> next speaker? >> good morning supervisors. i want to thank you for asking questions and hearing us in public comment. many speakers have said that the supervisors last year unanimously voted to reject funding for expansion of the county jail system. and that funding is the same coming from the same source the board state and community corrections and now one that i think this i want to you consider and i want us all to remember as has been mentioned by the sheriff is that this facility, was intended to be a
7:07 pm
work furlough facility. now, here we are talking about inshrining it as a maximum security facility. that is exactly the proposal that you all rejected last year. is a new maximum security, facility. and in terms of renovations i also want you to consider the fact that currently the california department of rehab and corrections is considering a plan to look at it.
7:08 pm
we ask you to consider what you heard when you rejected the proposal last year, is that the people going into jail. --. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> final speaker come on up. >> hi there, my name is brad and i am on the board of the harvy milk democratic club and we have a letter for you. so the executive board of the harvy milk club stands with the no new jail, demanding more transparency about the 82 million jail proposal, we have serious concerns about the application for funding to renovate a facility, and anticipation of the closure of
7:09 pm
the neighboring 850 bryant facility, and the information about the criminal injustice, and san francisco, we value science and transparency as the trump administration attacks immigrants are political leaders have vowed to project the immigrants and the sanctionary city and in order to do this most effectively, we must recognize that the communities are stronger and healthier when we prioritize preventive mental health and healthcare as well as crime mechanisms our core values as san franciscans are tested in the country with the landscape full of risk and uncertainty. while the trumle administration threatens to defund public services we must continue to be a leader, and pro-he vied care and help to lift the people out of poverty, it is critical that we invest in education and presentative resources in an era where increased funding to jails could be decreased funding and vital resources. we must prioritize the needs of
7:10 pm
vulnerable san franciscans and we are concerned about the devastating impact on incarcerated people, particularly immigrants, who may face greater levels of surveillance and isolation in this time, we are aware of the fact of prioritizing healthcare and transit and education above the jails mechanisms not only helps to prevent san franciscans from coming into contact with the criminal justice system including immigrants at increased risk of deportation but also saves lives, consider whether spending 82 million of much needed state and city funds should be a priority for san francisco. please come up. >> thank you very much supervisors, my name is jessy, and i am a member of the new new jail, and it is really railing out there today, i live in soma near the yale and i would like to request that the board of supervisors have the jail construction project proposal from the serve come back to the
7:11 pm
board before going to the controller. first i see that the proposal has been talked about in the press and might include smaller cells than what is currently in the and second, that i understand that the proposal may call for as many as eight more beds, and that these are going to be improved mental healthcare beds we want to see the specific standards placed on that and that the over all capacity for san francisco's jail system decreases instead of increases since we know that the jail has not been fully here, and so we would ask that the jail construction proposal come back to the board to make sure conditions improve. in eis there any other member of the public? public comment is closed. the matter is in the hands of
7:12 pm
the board, what would you like to do? >> i know that they asked about the eight potential new beds, i would like to have the sheriff's department clarify. >> the minute we touch these pods we are required to bring them up to ada, compliance, when we talk about the eight beds and it turns out if we have room and i mreefsh that we will because we will be able to take out m of toilets because each will have thair own toilets. and with he will be able to take out the sinks that this will leave room for ada compliance and because we have to have it up to code will be to have ada cells available is important. >> we do not.
7:13 pm
>> there will be eight new. >> right, and i just want to add one thing, the cells are not going to be any smaller than any other cells. the living conditions that we have at the hall of justice which are not very appropriate. >> and as for the adc cell, or accommodations is that only if inmates actually need ada accommodations and would go there and you would not put someone who does not need those accommodations in there? >> i can't say that, because if i have, if i have a need for an individual sell and that is the cell that is available and i don't have a requirement for an adc person in there i might have to put somebody in there. i can't say that you know, honestly, and say that
7:14 pm
deliberately. >> and one question in chatting with you, i understand that there is a lot of public demand for you know, more service and more rehabilitation, and mental health services and so forth, and you know, we had talked about deversion rates and just what that looks like in our jail system and so i am wondering if you could shed light on that, i saw that the numbers were. >> i think that it is important to remember that in san francisco, we have been ahead of the curve on having presentenced people out of jail, today we have 45 percent of the people that would otherwise be in jail out of jail. and i realize that had we can always do better and we are going to continue to work to do better i was part of the reenvisioning process and a number of things that we can do keep the people out of jail. but as the sheriff of san francisco i am not the person who puts them in jail, but i am responsible for their safety and their had you main treatment in
7:15 pm
jail, and i think that this provides a better location for people than the 7th floor of the hall of justice and you no he if we are able to do acombination of things to reduce the population more but still have a facility, that operates effectively and safely, at county jail two, i think that is important. this money once again, is money from the state and this is not city funds for the most part, and i also believe that as we go forward with this, that it is something that is almost like you know free money, these are things that i have said in the beginning of when it became sheriff, these are things that need tho be done to county jail two. county jail two is in need of repairs, and in need of up grades and if we want to get rid of the hall of justice, we need to renovate the kich sxn do the other things, and so it is important. and as to the transparency that i am welcome to sit down with people and talk about the plan.
7:16 pm
we have 30 days to get this ready because we had a short time line on this grant and so this and remember, that this is just asking you to forward it to the board, the full board for consideration, so that we can apply for the full grant and there will be a time down the road where we will be asking if we received the award, and that we would be asking for an accept and spebd xend and so that you get two bites of the apple. >> thank you, and i will just say that i hear what the public is saying about obviously we don't want to have more jails built and so forth. but i do believe that you know we do have a responsibility to the people that are currently inmates, making sure that there is more room adequate space for programming i think that is incredibly important and i think that is what this renovation in particular would be able to do. and so, i think that that actually addresses many of the goals that many of us collectively share.
7:17 pm
so i think yes, i agree with the sheriff and we can always do better, on diverting more people from jail in general, but i think that it is important that we provide the service to the people who are currently housed there and i mean if you just even walk through it or look through the pictures, i moo enwe just visit it and the people have to live there every day and it is not something that i would feel good that continue to live in those conditions. >> thank you supervisor yee. there were public comments about the original intent of jail number two, in regards to the furlough, and i remember that we had a discussion and nyes. >> could you shed some light to you know, why it didn't happen? >> well, we had, we had a huge amount of jail overcrowding at that time. that was in the early 90s and the late 80s and the people may remember that we had a consent
7:18 pm
decree for is 14 years and we are required to move people to alamena county which i don't like to do, but we had over, 400. and over time, it became clear that people for most misdemeanors now are not coming to jail and so at the time that the jail was opened by the time that it opened we didn't have the people for work furlough any more. and mostly, those people were put on electronic monitoring which we also do. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, colleagues, how would you like to handle this matter now? i think that there is some amendments that were suggested. from the beginning. and also i believe td sheriff or
7:19 pm
the controller's office. >> i would like to make a motion to adopt these amendments. >> all right. thank you, would you mind reading the amendments? >> okay. the changes just in --. >> let's see here. >> so the folks that are here can hear it. >> on page 2, whereas if the county receives verses received in the past tense. and that was on-line 16. on page 2, line 21, basically just says that if the county received a conditional intent to award sb 844 finance and then the amendment and elects to perform the proposed renovation project and then the county staff will cause the issuance of not more than the 12 million. and so it is a lot of i think just wording changes here. and nothing >> yes. >> all right. >> and then that in addition to here, such commercial paper to
7:20 pm
be refunded with cash or the issuance of the county's long term bonds. on page 3, it just references on lines, 13, 14, public resource code sections 21000. and talks about if there is an issue ans of an exemption and on-line 17 it references that the board a2k079s such determination as its own. also on page 3, it talks about the board of supervisors accept and appropriate ating sb, 844 financing. >> okay, page 4. talks about on-line eleven through 12, the counties commercial paper to fund on an interim basis and the cost for the proposed renovation pro-y ekt and security documents that will be submitted to the board
7:21 pm
of surp supervisors and so those are the major changes. >> thank you very much. and thank you for reading those into the record. supervisor tang. i believe that you were going to make the motion. >> yes, so i made a motion to adopt the amendments. and as i mentioned earlier, i do think that it is really important that we account for the people who are currently in our inmate population and so i will be supporting this grant application and want to also send it forward to the board as amended with the positive recommendation. >> i too am supportive and take that without objection. >> the amendments that you are talking about also includes the la amendments? >> yes. >> would you like to send it to the full board. >> yes, i would like to send it out to the positive recommendation.
7:22 pm
>> and i will amend as a committee report. >> thank you. >> without objection, thank you. >> could you please call item six? >>hearing to consider the annual review and adoption of the proposed draft budget for fys 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 for the board of supervisors/office of the clerk of the board; and requesting the office of the clerk of the board to report. >> thank you. and welcome miss angelo it is good to see you, and she will be making a presentation on this item, the floor is yours. >> members of the xh itty chair cohen clerk of the board. i am also joined by department budget manager miss juga, and i came before the committee in december with the plan changes. to seek your guidance on how to craft the department's fiscal year 2017, through 18, and fiscal year, 18 through 19 budgets. as you know, the department crafts its budgets internally from november to december, and then with the board, from
7:23 pm
december until june. in december this committee discussed in more detail the plan changes and directed the inclusion of all the changes to be included into the proposed budget. and for us to return today for a final review of this phase of the budget today. and of course i will be back in june to talk about the budget in depth. today i will provide the reviewing of those changes made in december and one additional change for your consideration and direction to submit the proposed budget to the mayor and the controller. >> thank you. >> slide two summarizes those proposed changes in the expenditures prenlted in this budget. here is a quick overview. in review of the department's generic fte and human resources capacity, i am proposing to change the existing project manager one to a manager two. this position will perform a broader dreadth and a scope of
7:24 pm
duties including operational oversight and support for me. and this change will add approximately, 6,000 dollars to the department's budget in salary and benefits, the next two position changes are initiated by dhr reclassification efforts and will add, 22,000 to the department's budget. >> both for salary and benefits. there are other initiatives included in this proposed budget. the budget and leg legislative analyst has formally requested 2.25 percent and this will add, approximately, $4 # 9,000 to the contract for fiscal year, 2017, 18, with this, the new contract amount for the fiscal year, 2017 through 18, will be 2.23 million. on to the lafco included in the draft budget is 144,000, for fiscal year, 2017 to 18 only.
7:25 pm
and lafco director jason freed should be in the audience if you have any questions about that budget. the last item is annual tered proposal from the december presentation. at that time, i had 20,000 dollars placed in this proposed budget for safe and healthy workplace initiatives specifically to fund the demand for eurgonomic furniture requests and i am modifying and in sfed i am interesting an increase to the legislative account, which will add, 33,000 to the board's budget. the department after hearing from more than a majority of the board is increasing this, and each account by 3,000. and expanding our current policy to include new uses such as urgonomic furniture, and travel and training, parking, and membership dues. and if this budget is submitted
7:26 pm
to the mayor and the controller, for the budget year, i will implement those changes specifically to the board's legislative account immediately. on slide three, for the proposed changes in revenue. specifically of note, the assessment appeals board is continuing a downward trend, as a result of sustained real property values in san francisco, and generating less fees from assessment appeals. and the aab is projecting a decrease of about 68,000, and 51,000 in fiscal years, 2017 through 18. and 2018, through 19, respectively, as you can see the slide depicts the other two resources of revenue are remaining the same. and on the slide four, the summary table of proposed budget adjustments, this summarizes allpro posed budget adjustments together from the previous slides. if the committee submits the proposed budget as is, the
7:27 pm
adjustments would add, 254,000, and 111,000 to the department's expenditure budget for fiscal years, 17, 18, and 18, 19, respectfully, and combined, with the reduction in revenue, they would increase the department's general fund support request by 322,000 and 162,000 in fiscal years, 2017, 18, and fiscal years, 18 to 19, respectively, slide five, reviews the summary of changes by category, and another way to look at what we just reviewed. and these are the proposed changes by category as compared to the fiscal year, 2016, 17, and all of the aforementioned items are approved, and the department's fiscal year budget will increase by a total of 792,000 or 5.4 percent from the current year budget. of 538,000 of which is mostly
7:28 pm
due to the natural base wage increases in salary and benefits. and on the final slide, looking ahead, the legislative management system project, with he have submitted a funding request of 390,000 for the management system project this past january, in june when i return i will up date the committee, and on the rfp negotiations at that point, thank you for your consideration of this request, to submit to the player and the controller and i will be back in june to discuss more detail and any changes that occur between today and june, that concludes my presentation, and i am available for your questions. >> thank you very much for your presentation, we have one short question for you. >> one smoert? >> a couple of quick. >> but. >> okay. >> so, just since we just ended on the leg layive management and could you for the public purpose let us know what is going into
7:29 pm
this project. >> yes, thank you for the question. our current system is not stable. i will be honest with you. we do spend a lot of time touching a file multiple times to make sure that all of the details that the board approved have not changed since the board approval. so we work really hard with the current system. the new system will allow not just my clerk's office to enter the value into the system, but it will allow every single of 56 departments to enter their own legislation into the legislative management system, and it will also allow us to when creating the elbility for these individual items allow them, and the individual offices when they are putting that information in to let them know in advance, what is necessary and in order to meet that elbility. and that also creates a lot of delay, and not only for our clerks and having to do a huge amount of work in a mat irof 24
7:30 pm
hours, but also will minimize the rejection of sicertain item that have entered into the legislative process. we will also have better searching capabilities and we have heard that many departments from many outside members of the public who utilize our system to search for a certain subject matter. and they can't save searchs and so we will have a better search function and so this will also allow us to connect both the legislative drafting tool with the legislative management system and our digitization from the last 100 years, which is currently stored in warehouses off site. we will also in several forward phases be able to connect, mobile technologies and be able to have certain public records requests, and our appointments system to be built in to the system as many appointments actually come through the legislative process and are maintained in our current system. >> and right now, those systems
7:31 pm
are a part and not enter connected. >> and their legacy systems which are not reliable except without a lot of attention from my staff. >> thank you for that overview. i really do look forward to those improvements. second question, has to do with slide two on the position changes. i know that you know, i had a briefing where i saw the numbers mind equilibrium behind the position and what is going on here. and one of the thoughts that i had actually was just how it is that we can create more of a kind of gradual increase in steps or positions so that there is not a huge jump between you know, positions and a salary, to whatever the next available opportunity is for a person. and so i am just wondering if there could be any more thoughts around belt better structuring the position types. >> i very much appreciate that kwi, because i have been the clerk for ten years.
7:32 pm
and every year i have brought to this committee something that i am cleaning up that is exactly what you are talking about, in our department we have many classes, that there are no stepping stones up to leadership and management positions and so over the years i have worked really hard with this body and to be able to once that person leaves to have someone who has been in training to accept into that role. and i have, i have that has been the purpose of any position changes that i have made and asked from this committee. so for example, for this particular request, i don't want to point any one out, but just, when i was looking at the 1454, executive secretary going to the
7:33 pm
1823, senior analyst it is a large jump in terms of salary, not saying that person may not deserve it, i am just saying that it is a large jump and so even in this approval, i just feel like there might need to be a way before the budget is submitted to think about how there might be an intermediatary somewhere. >> if i am not mistaken, i mreefsh that when we worked with the department of resources we worked on them on an appropriate step to train someone to get into the o92, 3, position and looked at that as an appropriate class. i know that it just so happens that i will review this with you, afterwards.
7:34 pm
okay. >> great, thank you. >> and then the last question, the lafco general fund appropriation, we have $144,000 for fiscal year, 17, 18, and i know that mr. freed is here as well. in terms of the work product i will leave that to mr. freed to answer, i do know that this board approved one member of the board to sit on lafco and i heard last night that there was one other member who was interested in sitting on lafco which will create a quorum, and i will also add that in speaking with the general council of lafco, and the city and council of san francisco can't shutter lafco but if the funding is not there to fupd lafco, the item is essentially moth balled and the members can still be appointed to lafco and can meet if
7:35 pm
necessary, but the reason why we would moth ball it rather than shut tering it, is because the municipal, a municipal utility application and a joint powers application, has to be filed with an lafco, and at the board of supervisors could appoint me as the executive director when those applications are filed we could receive them and provide them to the board of supervisor and if the board wanted to meet with their lafco they could do it that way, as an option. and but, to answer your question, that is how the structure of lafco can continue to exist without shut tering it or if there is not a quorum. >> if you wanted to hear from jason freed? >> sure that will be great just to kind of know what is up on deck. >> jason, freed, executive
7:36 pm
officer, of lafco we have been working and the thing that it has been launched but not fully launched yet and ber continuing to work with them to make sure that we get the city wide launch and when it was first thought about and to work on cc, and asked to by the board of supervisors, and it was in the vision of the city wide launch and so we have not quite completed the full launch of clean power sf yet, sf puc is working toward the original plans that they have put out in december of 2015, this three or four more years of it and you know, working with them and their own, you know, learning it from the launch of the program now. and they are revitalizing that and trying to go to a launch next year or if not all by next year, by 2019 rngs so we are continuing to work with them on that. and on those activities, and then there are, you know, occasional side activity and right now we are kind of in this weird position as to how all of the commissioners were termed out with the board of supervisors la of the year, we lost a bunch of our commissioner and so now i am waiting for the
7:37 pm
new speaker: commissioners to get appointed as she just mentioned we had one appointed earlier this weekend and another one that is interested and so that we can get back to doing the work as a functioning body with a quorum. >> so, i mean, i understand you are saying that clean power sf is not fully launched i guess what i am wondering about is whoo aspects does it need a handle verses a puc staff. >> we are helping them with the various activity and for example, last year, at the end of last year, we helped to put together, after it had launched to a portion of the city, we had helped them do a jobs analysis and you might remember that we did the extra report a while back and so one of the things that we did was kelley asked me to help do an extension of that jobs analysis, and based on what had actually occurred and the new information, and so instead of going to outside vendors to do it, i learned enough to be able to do that report in house and so that is what i worked and one example of something that i worked ho, and just this week, there was referred to a curing
7:38 pm
at the cpuc and i attended that hearing and i was able to give the comments from an outside perspective and outside of the cca and so i continued to work with the sfpuc on, and the proceedings and there is a lot of various, and nuts and bolts that go into the process and help to assist them, and while they are now getting more fully staffed, they still need that outside person or an extra body to help them with the activity and continue to assist them as-needed on those areas as well. >> okay, thank you, and i think that supervisor yee has questions. >> yes, supervisor yee, please? >> so, you talked about coyt system, and i think that one of the things that is missing for my office is related and some what related in the sense that we want to be a little more efficient and track our things.
7:39 pm
and one of the difficulties that we have in the office is that we have a lot of con stit you ent issues on the constant basis, on a daily basis, you know, and some of them are very easy to take care of, and this is done, and others is like my pg& e, and puc, and everybody else is work together to get this project done, and after three years, we all know what happened. and we have a lot of those types of projects so we lose track as really it is easy to us to lose track and no matter and we have tried to develop our own system, but there is nothing that we can develop that can beat an outside vendor to actually figure this out. and i don't know about the other supervisors and maybe they don't have as many con stit you ents and demands, that demands, that.
7:40 pm
and we have asked your office, whether that we can have more of an un-i formed system for system for all of us to use so that we don't all waste a lot of energy trying figure this out. >> through the chair, supervisor yee. 20 year ago, i will give you my personal experience when i was an aid for supervisor. the clerk's office and the board of supervisors did purchase a system they spent a lot of money on that system and, it was implemented with every office and within three months, no one was using that system. it was too unweildy, that was 20 years ago and i am more than happy to work with all offices if this is a service that they are interested in and would like us to utilize or capacity and work on, happy to do so. and i imagine with all of the new technology today, that these past problems will not still
7:41 pm
hasn't that service area. so more than happy to continue to work with you on that and your staff. and all offices. >> i would really appreciate that. we will look into it and a little more depth. yeah, 20 years ago. i mean the computers everything was different. and many of the current technology, was not in anybody's vision at the time. so hopefully you know, whatever we could come up with, would not be a system that is so unweildy that nobody will use. >> thank you, i don't have any questions supervisor tang? asked them. as related to lafco. we don't have a budget legislative analyst report. so let's take public comment on this item. >> any public member of the public please come up. >> seeing no public comment,
7:42 pm
public comment is closed. colleagues is there a motion for this item. >> so a question, do you want to continue this hearing or do we just call a new hearing. >> we will be calling a new hearing for the june budget, but today you would take an action to submit to the mayor and the controller. >> so we would not hear it in file you want us to submit to the mayor? >> you would submit this item to the mayor's office and then afterwards, linda would just close the file. and then in june, we will open up a new hearing file on that phase of the budget. >> all right thank you. >> through the cherry guess if we still had kind of issues or questions through the proposals we would just take that up during the regular budget process. >> happy to work with you on that. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang? >> so i will make a motion to file the hearing then. >> thank you. >> can we take that without objection? >> i think that we had to forward this to -- >> taking action to forward to the mayor and the controller for
7:43 pm
their review. >> okay. >> no problem. >> supervisor tang is going to restate the motion. >> okay. sorry. i will make a motion to file the hearing and submit the proposal to the mayor's budget office and the controller's office. >> all right, without objection, that motion passes. >> thank you, madam clerk, is there any other business before this body. >> no madam chair. >> thank you, this meeting is adjourned. >> thank you. one of the major
7:44 pm
7:45 pm
7:46 pm
7:47 pm
7:48 pm
7:49 pm
7:50 pm
7:51 pm
7:52 pm
7:53 pm
7:54 pm
was asked to do is water system improvement program and one thing i looked at is about the 4.8 billion dollars wurthd of work and a lot of the work was regional. we looked at how can we make sure that we provide opportunities for san
7:55 pm
franciscan's and people in the region and so we looked at ways we can expand our local san francisco lb program. so, we thought about it and worked with general manager at the time to form an advizry committee to talk about how to include local businesses in the region. >> i was on the first committee back about 10 years ago and the job changed over time. in the beginning, we just wanted people to know about it. we wanted to attract contractors to come into the system which is a bidding system and bid on some of these projects. our second job was to help the sfpuc to try to make themselves more user frndly. >> i like that they go out of their way, have contractors trying to teach and outreach to
7:56 pm
small businesses and lots of creative ways. help the community as well. there is so much infrastructure going on and repair, new construction that i think is helping to get construction back on its feet. >> my faiv rlt part of the committee has been that we have played a opportunity for many small businesses. [inaudible] women owned business to come in and [inaudible] sfpuc. it is a great opportunity because some are so small they have been able to grow their companies and move up and bid other projects with the sfpuc. >> everyone i was talking about with any contractor [inaudible]
7:57 pm
and super markets and things like that and i realize the transition was on the sfpuc. he got that first job and knows about the paperwork qu schedule and still works on this type of job, but he works with general contractors that also did other things. pretty soon it is like he did that one and that one. it completely changed his business. >> my name is nancy [inaudible] the office manager and bid coordinator for [inaudible] construction. worked on 10 plus puc, lbe contracts. today we are doing site maintenance on the [inaudible] chr site and currently the gentlemen behind me are working on every moving and basic specs of plants. in
7:58 pm
order to be success you need to work hard, bid low and keep a look at the sfpuc website for future bidding opportunity. >> this is a successful program because it provides opportunities to regional communities that might not have opportunities to work for large scale projects. the sfpuc is a fortunate agency we have a lot of capital program that span over 7 counties who also to see how some businesses like [inaudible] and bio mass started as small micro businesses grow and expand and stay in the program and work on several projects before they graduate from the program. that is what warms my heart. >> my name is college willkerson, the principle for
7:59 pm
bio mass. bio mass has been in business since 2006. 3 partners. small businesses fill a niche but apply and being a part of the program helped us be more visible and show the city and county of san francisco we can also perform services. >> this program had tremendous impact to the region. in fact, the time we rolled the program out was during the recession. this has h a major positive impact and certified over 150 firms in the rejen and collectively awarded $50 million in contracts, and because of the lbe certification it open many opportunities to work with sfpuc. and, i significantly helped the business. it is one of the major contributors to
8:00 pm
our success. the san francisco commission and health commission joint hearing for thursday, february 9th, 2017. i like to remind the public that the commission doesn't tolerate out burst of any kind. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and before speaking, do state your name for the record. i like to take roll for the planning commission. commissioner hillis >> here. >> commission vice richards >> here. >> commission he will koppel. >> here. >> melgar >> we expect johnson and moore and we do expect commissioner fong to be absent. >> commissioner chow for haemth commission. health commission. >> here >> loyce >> here. >> we have an announcement about the director of health. >> good morning, i'm colien, i'm the depu


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on