tv BOS Land Use Committee 21317 SFGTV February 17, 2017 2:00pm-4:01pm PST
in >> i could just say that we don't have that information. as to how many people are detained, this proposal is pro-he vied representation for everyone. who is being detained. >> sure. >> that is the point. if if you going to give it to only the san francisco residents, we will not want be part of that. >> just for the collarfy of information, no the to say that i only support you representing san francisco or not, i am trying to get accurate facts here, that is all. >> and so i would just say that you know, it looks like we need to some some more follow um conversations on this particular item. and you know, i was listening to the public commender say that really the san francisco it is the time for us to step up and that they are tired of us being so conservative with our budget. and i just want to remind everyone that if you look at the analysis that was done by the budget analyst report and all of the counties, and how many
people are in their immigration courts and how much their funding whether it is legal defense or education out reach, that san francisco absolutely leads in that. san francisco will be spending 6.8 million dollars to help to provide money for the non-profit organization to provide whether it is legal defense or education or out reach to our immigrant communities and so i just want to put that for the record that we are spending $6.8 on an ongoing basis and, so criticize us for being conservative with the budget and unfair. and i wanted to vote down time and time again, and but i have
supported each one of these, for the immigrant complunts and i want to make that very clear, when you look at boston, la, new york san jose, santa clara washington, d.c., again, all of them are spending not only a combination of their spending mostly a combination of city as well as private dollars, we are spending 6.8 of our city's dollars. not even including any of the philintropic money coming through. and so we are a leader and we are standing up for what we believe in, it does not mean that we can't still scrutinize, proposals that come before us. and so thank you, public defender but i wanted to make that very clear. >> thank you. supervisor yee. >> i just want to also, declare about the 1500 that are detained. and they are detained right? >> yes. >> they are in one of the four holding facilities.
>> yeah. and of the 1 # 00 that are detained, what percentage of them have privately, legal representation? >> 33 percent have representation 67 percent do not. >> so, that leaves about 1,000? >> 1005. yeah. >> so i guess the question becomes actually talking about what is current and what is existing, and you mentioned earlier that the only person that you currently have in your office, then, and with these cases, was able to work on about 18 or something like that? >> last year? >> he has got about 18 to 20 cases. but he also has a responsibility of devising our staff on immigration consequences. >> and all of the cases. >> so what happens to the other
980 cases? >> that is where i -- i don't --. >> currently we do not provide representation to the detained individuals, we only provide limited representation to the former clients who are in immigration court. >> i see. >> what this will do is expand the representation to all people who are being detained in immigration court. and we would staff each of the core r court rooms with an attorney for that purpose. and i mean, you know, you could feel that as a board is enough is enough, and you don't want to provide any more support for the people who are detained in custody, and that is your per rogty. >> that is not my question. >> that is what i heard earlier. >> i was just commenting on that. >> i am asking you questions. >> that is fine. >> the 900 or so, try to go
through without any legal representation. >> they have no lawyers, they have no access to a lawyer. they have you know, no ability to communicate with a lawyer what they have a question. and so what will be different is that we will be staffing those court rooms and they will be aible to have an assigned attorney who would meet with them, who would answer their questions, who is an expert in immigration law. >> and can help expedite their case and make motion to have them released on bond. the study that was done by the organization that i mentioned earlier is a collaboration of the california organizations that do immigration work, found
that a person represented by an attorney is five times as likely able to stay. because they understand the rights and they have access to the information. and that is all that we are asking you to do is to be able to be that conduit and provide that representation that the people don't currently have. >> it seems like much of the discussion came about with the threat of our current administration doing certain things that would make it worse for our undocumented residents. and it is almost feels like regardless of what he does, with the administration does that there is a need right now that we need to address. >> yeah, because we have been working on this for a year before the election was decided. this is a problem or a crisis that has existed for a while. and we are trying to address it. before it gets worse.
we know that it is going to get worse given the executive order. but at least this will allow us to provide people with basic information about their cases. and you know, it will go a long way in terms of establishing san francisco you know, as a model for how immigrants should be treated. >> okay. >> that is all the questions that i have. >> thank you. >> thank you, no other questions i think, we have already heard from the public. and after hearing from the departments, and the community today, i think that we need to i would like to have a conversation about increasing the number of positions in the public defenders office, however i don't really know what that number is, and i don't think that we have the exact the magic number just yet. so what i would like to do is entertain a motion to continue this item for two weeks so that we can continue working on this
item. so i would like like to ask for a continuance for items four and five, >> second or so moved. >> all right, thank you. >> without objection. >> i am sorry, supervisor? >> yes. >> please. >> as for the previous items there is an urgency to pass this to the bore as quickly as possible. so i am wondering if this could be continued for one week instead of two weeks? >> this is what i want to do. i am going to continue the item for two weeks, but we do need to make a motion to amend and to accept the amendments for the bla so that the legislation that we are dealing with is in the current form. so before i gaffele down on the motion to continue, i would like to have a motion to accept the recommendations that supervisor fewer read into the record as well as the bla read into the record. >> so moved. >> chair? >> just a minute.
>> i would like to add to the amendment. which is to reduce it further. >> yes. >> by the 2008. the savings. >> and so whatever that amount is. which is 200,000. >> it is the 200,000. >> so maybe we need to restate what we have here. >> so, the amendment that you are trying to address, the third one, 418,105 in the fiscal year 20, 16, 17, be reduced to 286,000. ; is that correct? ? >> 218,000. >> 218,000. >> for fiscal years 16, 17. >> yes. >> i just want to make sure that the clerk understands the amendments.
>> yes. >> do you have them? >> yes. >> thank you. >> so can we take that amendments without objection? >> supervisor? >> yes? >> may i. >> yes. >> yes, could we item then be agenda as a potential committee report? >> no. >> so we are going to take these amendments with that objection. >> so the motion is amended. juflt a second. >> is there a discrepancy deputy city attorney? >> supervisor tang. >> just to reiterate what the chair stated earlier i would like to make a motion to continue for two weeks as amended. >> yes. >> thank you. >> without objection that motion passes. >> yes? >> deputy city attorney, so none of us over here know exactly where the amendment that supervisor yee is proposing >> sure. >> goes so we just going to have to prepared the ordinance after
this committee meeting. i don't know whether that is something that we can work out now or leave as a place holder to add an additional amendment next week. if you are reduce the amount next week, >> what is the confusion? >> supervisor yee? >> where >> supervisor yee, the amendment that you want to change the amount. >> i guess that i don'tnd, is there a confusion? because all the bla report or the recommendations are what it is and we all i said was that rather than accepting the 418, 105,000, for the year 2016, 17, all that i am saying is rather than have, is that number not right? >> i think that came from the
report. ? esupervisor yee, if ind through the chair, if i understand correctly, the ordinance as amended just before you now, would still has infiscal year, 16, 17, an appropriation of 418,105 based on our recommendation, what is discussed how is there is 200,000 in the salary safe gdz in the budget for the current year, 16, 17, you want to use that to reduce that amount. >> right. ? eto 218,000. >> right. >> and is 05. >> which will fund the same number of fte but would mean that they can use the existing resources within their budget. >> correct. >> okay. >> does that make sense? >> so i just modify your recommendations. thank you for the clarification.
madam clerk? >> so we have already voted on the amendment. we clarify it after the vote. so the vote still stands. >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> now the next motion that we are entertaining >> it to continue the two items for two weeks' amend million dollars. >> supervisor tang made that motion. >> we that perfect. >> yes. >> could we take that without objection? >> all right, without objection. as amended. thank you. >> the motion passes. it will be continued for two weeks. >> yes. >> madam, could you call item six? >> item number six,ordinance de-appropriating $38,057,546 of salary and benefit expenditures in adult probation, the asian art museum, the assessor/recorder, the city attorney, the office of economic and workforce development, the city administrator, the department of public works, the department of technology, the health service system, the human rights commission, the human services agency, the juvenile probation department, the law library, the department of
public health, the commission on the status of women, and the treasurer/tax collector, and $1,698,298 of overtime in the police department in fy2016-2017 to fund services at the department of homelessness and supportive housing and general city responsibilities in fys 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. >> all right, thank you. again, this item before us, and it stands today, it is a little out dated i think that supervisor fewer has a few remarks on it. >> item six was originally introduced by supervisor avalos, in december of 2016. and with deappropriate ate the salary savings and reappropriate them to the particular issues. we have heard from the controller regarding this report and there was significant salary savings in several departments for the first half of the physical year. i have brought proposed amendments that i asked ben the city controller to make and i will ask him to walk us through those amendments for the benefit of the budget and finance committee. before he does so, i wanted to share my intention regarding this ordinance, in june of 2016, the board of supervisors included in the budget an expansion of rental subsidies for homeless families, seniors and people with disabilities. but when the proposed sales tax did not pass this november, the mayor's office withheld, spending for these subsidies.
this is decision has kept the 1.5 million for 125 senior and disability housing subsidy and $1 million in subdidies for children, from providing shelter for the children most vulnerable residents, boelth of these types are need based and are used to secure the private housing or below market rate units and this legislation will take salary savings from unfilled positions providing a source of funds for 15 months, of rental subsidies for homeless and marginaled housed. and fully fund it at 2.5 million for the next fiscal year, with that i would like to ask mr. rosen field to walk us through the amendments please? >> we have a representative from the controller's office? >> thank you. >> i'm michelle, ben is not able to be here right now. but to your point, the scope of the appropriatization and reappropriation has changed as
the supervisor mentioned in the current form and it will deappropriate savings in current year aid expenses, at the department or the human services agency of 3.125 million. and reappropriate them for housing subdies. so the for these populations that are named in the amendment. so i think that it is largely just that the scope and the scale of the deappropriation has been narrowed a bit. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> yes. >> we have got a budget legislative analyst report. >> madam chair and members of the committee, supervisor fewer, based on this revised legislation, we withdraw our recommendations on page 23, and we concur and recommend approval of the legislation that is just explained to you. >> thank you very much. for that. >> supervisor fewer, do you have anyone else to speak on this
item. >> no. >> colleagues, any discussion on this item? >> all right. let's go ahead and open to public comment. >> i have got a couple of cards here rngs i am, i am not sure, there was confusion as to how the people filled out their speaker cards, i have brian, kim, steve, jennifer, anet hasan, bill hers shchlt, charles minster. take it away. brian. >> thank you for coming out swinging for all of us. i wanted to provide a little bit
of information about who the subsidies are currently receiving, who it is currently receiving the subdies and some of the impacts about it. and i am in numbers person, and i, you know, i lived on 938 dollars a month for a long time. i started the qfoundation with $100 out of my disability check. so i squeeze every nickel and i am very very focused on having real impacts. i also did not get paid for years and, so, my entire motivation with coming to work every single day.
thank you for taking the time to better understand and support the efforts being made to end the family homelessness in san francisco, my name is malia and i am the deputy director at homeless pre-natal program and i am a native san franciscan and in cohen's district. we operate the readiness efforts program better known as share. this is better organized to work with family whose need to stay in san francisco, reasons including medical care and the immigration status and the city, status and several of our participants have children that are disabled. >> and this program is based on a three year. and to create, and set goals, to increase their income through training, and workforce development, training and schooling, and access to language, classes.
currentry, the shares and the participants and 15 percent of them are african america and 86 percent are latino and 32 percent of them are were supervisor yee's district, and the other 33 are from cohen's district and thank you for your time. >> excuse me. >> yes. >> the number of families placed in the program, it is probably more demanding than slots. >> correct. >> i am just curious, how do you settlement the families? >> i am sorry? >> we have the effort for the
city that manages over the over all priority wait list and so we worked with compass as well as in internally, to identify the families that were ideal for this program. and we created an initial wait list, which were the first 20 participants which we have been working with over the last nine months, about and we actually have a number of other participants, that definitely would qualify but we don't have enough subdies to go around, and so yes, to speak to your point, i just didn't want to go over time. >> okay. thank you very much. >> and i am happy to provide any additional break downs about the dem graphics if you would like. >> thank you. >> >> and if you, and the families and that are the beneficial, and
today we're in the sunset, where we'll join supervisor tang for the inspiration of this show, where we explore san francisco, one neighborhood at a time. hi i'm katy tang the district 4 supervisor in san francisco, which is comprise of sunset and parkside neighborhoods. i think what makes district 4 unique is that we have so many different cultures here. we have so many different generations of people. different experiences and that makes it a vibrant neighborhood. for example, which you go down urban street you can do to a japanese restaurant, chinese restaurant, american restaurant, and the cultural diversity is just what makes it so amazing my name is ching le, and i'm the owner of the kingdom of bounty.
17th san francisco, 94116. we make the most authentic and different kinds of dumplings and dim sum. recently more and more popular because they are vegetables and meats that we use fresh vegetables and meats in the business. it's really inspired to start discover your district series, because i wanted to find a way for neighbors to come and get to know our small businesses and our neighborhoods. get to know each other, get know our office, and do so in a setting that was unintimidating and fun. so i launched this idea call the "discover your district," where we go every month to one or two small businesss in district 4 and we have done things such as learning how to make dumplings that we're learning today and there are so many different activities that we have exposed our residents to.
>> today is the very special day, because the city of san francisco hosting this for san francisco city. learning how to make dumplings and knowledge of dumplings. they love to do it and all enjoy it. >> this is definitely not my first time making it, so i have definitely improved a lot. the first couple of time s i tried to make dumplelings they looks inedible. they have definitely improved. there is a special dumpling eating contest, which is amazing. everyone those eat the dumplings that they made and see how many they can do. i'm curious as to how many they going to be able to down today? >> don't forget to write down what you are eating today. >> we make all different kinds of
london breed and i want to thank our committee - i would like to thank our committee's clerk, erica major and also recognize the staff of sfgovtv, charles kremenak who make our meetings available online, as well as transcript. madam clerk, any announcements. >> please silence all cell phones. >> thank you, madam clerk and can you please call the first item. >> item no. 1 is ordinance amending the environment code to adjust the incentive in the solar energy incentive program. >> the author of this item is president london breed, if you would like to make opening comments. >> yes, thank you i know we have laurie mitchell here who will be making a presentation shortly, but i just wanted to make a few
comments about your go solar program in the city. we're making a few technical amendments to this program today. despite the fact that other utilities around the state are ramping down their incentive like the city of palo alto and silicon valley, for example, i'm happy to see the go solar program in the city is still going strong and that we as a city are continuing to invest in incentives like this particular program. we must continue to support renewable energy and energy-efficient programs so it's accessible to everyone. since the program started in 2007, go solar has helped low-income residents, nonprofit organizations and businesses install thousands of kilowatts of solar energy units on their rooftops across san francisco. this has helped not only reduce participants' electricity bills, but our carbon footprint in the city. there will be a few
amendments to this today, and i know that ms. mitchell will talk about that in her presentation, and with that i'm happy to turn it over to ms. mitchell to discuss the program, the changes, and the proposed amendments. thank you. >> thank you very much, supervisor breed. my name is laurie mitchell and i manage the renewable energy group at sfpuc and we have slidess on the ordinance here. i'm not sure if you can see it. there is something -- there we go. really what we're trying to do with this ordinance is to look forward and to expand on the success of the gosolarsf program to include additional programs such as rebates for electric vehicle infrastructure, energy storage and to expand upon our energy-efficiency programs. so the new programs, as well as the
current gosolarsf program is funded by the cleanpowersf and hetch hetchy power rate-payers. the agenda of what we'll cover today. one of the many things does is to integrate the program with the go solar sf program and it's important to know that they have both common policy goals. both programs seek continue vest in local programs and projects such as energy-efficiency, storage, ev charging and affordable, cleaner, climate-responsibility electricity and to invest in local jobs [sph-fplt/] background on the go solar sf program was established in 2007. and it designates the puc as the program administrator. it states the objective eh providing an appropriation of $2-5 million annually over the ten years, which can commence in 2008. it also directs the puc to
review solar and to adjust incentives and coordinate administration of the program with the implementation and administer of the cleanpowersf program. so here is the summary of what we have paid out over the years since 2008, when the program started. so you can see in total we paid just over $24 million. the majority of that has gone to residential installations with a large portion of that going to low-income residential. >> i'm sorry before you move on, could you explain what you mean by low-income residential? >> we have several categories of incentives that people can apply for. they can apply for residential, so they don't need to make any type of income requirements for that incentive, but for the low-income incentive they get an additional incentive-level if they qualify to be low income. >> no, i understand that you provide additional incentives, but what qualifies? >> so we work with the mayor's office of economic
development, and we use the hud guidelines in san francisco. so for a family of one, it's about $60,000 a year, and for four, i think it's about $80,000. >> you use the hud ami definition? >> yes for san francisco. >> and what ami-level and below did you select? >> so we get guidelines from the mayor's office of economic and workforce development. so the numbers that we're using today for household of one is $68,000. for a household of four, it's $98,000 >> so roughly like 90% of area median income and below, is that the threshold maximum income? >> i can double-check and we can can get an answer. >> i know it's ami, but what ami, 90%? 60% of ami and below? >> i'm not sure. it's median. i can get you that answer and can definitely come back to you
on that. >> okay. so we're talking about middle-income households. >> right. >> okay. >> so what is residential low-income? is the red stuff -- what is the difference between the dark blue stuff and the red stuff? >> the red is just a normal residential incentive and the dark-blue is residential low-income and those are applicants that quail hollowed qualified for the additional incentives. >> i'm curious of the range of household incomes that apply to what you consider "low residential income." it still seems with the installation cost going down and incentives it's still really expensive for actual low-income household to actually put on a solar panel. do you have a range of households that have applied over the last couple of years. >> you mean the range of incomes for the holidays? households.
>> we don't have that today, but we can get back to you. >> sure. >> i'm sorry did you have any additional questions? >> no. >> this goes to your question on what the cost of solar is. so this table shows you first column is installed cost of solar. you can see in 2008 a 2.5 kilowatt project is typical in san francisco for residential project costs about $25,000. at that time, we offered an additional -- i'm sorry, at that time the regular go solar incentive was $3,000 and they would are have qualified for the california solar incentive, about $3400 and the net cost of solar would be $17,000. you can say today the solar cost have dropped pretty dramatically and that same system today costs $14,000 and qualified for $17,000 from the go solar sf program that make
their net cost over $12,000. today we have some of the lowest net costs in the program's history. and this is just a review of some of the changes in the market and what other california utilities are doing with their solar incentive programs. so most programs have ramped down their incentives and many are fully subscribed. so the california solar initiative was fully reserved in 2014, although low-income program does continue. the city of palo alto is fully reserved. alameda is reserved. silicon valley and smud is fully reserved in 2016. so we knew we wanted to look forward with the go solar sf program and engage stakeholder as round make the good solar more efficient and work better and also to get
feedback on new programs that they would like to see us develop. so we met in april of last year and gathered fee bac and came back in june with recommended changes that you will see today and we continue to follow-up with them and brought the changes to the commission in oct. . one is to require go solar sf recipients to be a customer. so they would either need to be a hetch hetchy customer or sign up as cleanpowersf customer available to all residents and businesss in the city now. we are also recommending that we market and outreach the programs together. so providing assistance and outreach to demonstrate the benefits of installing on the rooftop and becoming a super green sf customer
and attractive net metering. another one of the changes that this ordinance will do will allow us to simplify the go solar sf incentives to dollars per kilowatt, which is how most solar incentive programs are run. currently we have a pretty complex table and that will make the program more efficient. we're also proposing to step-down all incentives to reflect the lower cost of solar and stretch the program budget. the last time we adjusted incentive was in 2013. and we are proposing to step down incentives to make sure we grow here in san francisco. another of the proposed changes is that we -- i believe it's really important to continue to support nonprofits and low-income residents and we're recommending to continue to offer higher incentives for low-income and nonprofit customers. and we're also recommending that we develop an invertore
replacement incentive for previous low-income and nonprofit customers. so the inverter allows it to connect to the grid and many of those components will be at the end of their useful life. this is when the new incentives will look like. you can see residential customer gets about $500 a kilowatt today. if this ordinance isa approved, in april, reduced to $400 and still would qualify for the additional low-income incentives of $2,000 and the environmental justice inverter in staller is applicable. and then the last thing this ordinance would do would allow us to develop complimentary distributive energy programs. so we know it's important to not only install solar, but to be complimentary programs like electric vehicle infrastructure and energy storage. so there is a couple of
clean-up items in the ordinance i wanted to mention. no. 1 we wanted to clarify that we want to continue our support for go solar sf and our commitment to develop these new programs. then we just needed to fix some typos and no. 3 is inserting the correct fund balance of the program. so should read $7.275 million instead of $11 million. that is the end of my program. >> i had a couple of follow-up questions on the low-income and nonprofit programs. do you require them to be a cleanpowersf or puc customer? >> today? today we do not. this ordinance going forward they would be required to sign ups a cleanpowersf customer, but today they are not required. >> i just remember -- by the way, i'm a big supporter of cleanpowersf, but i remember one of concerns about the program was because there were -- it's a slightly more expensive program. that we had concerns about
low-income residents, you know being a part of the program. for budgetary reasons. so it seems to me counterintuitive to require low-income residents to be a cleanpowersf customer when it's a more expensive power in order to qualify for stay deeper subsidy for a solar panel. shouldn't we provide an exception for low-income? >> that is a good comment and we can definitely consider that. we have made a commitment to not enroll customers if the clean foyer sf program is more expensive. what they would otherwise pay pg&e. so the requirement is that had he sign up for a cleanpowersf customer, but they would not be automatically enrolled unless the rates are at or below parge. >> i don't think i really understood that. >> sure. >> if i qualified to your low-income program, and i did not want
to opt-in into the cleanpowersf program, would i qualify for the deeper subsidy? >> not under the new ordinance, if this ordinance goes forward. you wouldn't qualify. >> i just feel like how are you going to get low-income customers if they are not willing to pay more on a monthly basis? it just -- >> it's a good point. so right now about we want -- we had a commitment to clean power affordability and our rates where below pg&e. today due to some of the pcia changes, our costs are slightingly higher. but it's very slight. and we're currently researching whether we need to do a rate adjustment to catch up with that? but we had made the commitment to our commission not to pre-enroll
additional customers until at or below the pg&e rates. >> i appreciate your work to protect our customers and i want as many of our residents to sign up as possible. i'm just worried about requiring low-income residents to be a cleanpowersf customer in order to qualify for the deeper subsidy for go solar sf. but to move on to my second question and maybe i can understand that in the course before this comes to the full board. so i'm looking at the cost today, and it's amazing how much it's gone down. over such a short period of time, but even with the subsidy it takes you down to about $10,000 or -- well, the incentive, i'm curious how low-income residents can consider that and i don't consider myself
low-income and don't qualify under the ami that it seems that you work with. but i don't feel like i could afford $12,000 for solar panel. >> it's a great comment. just a couple of things to clarify: that $12,000 does not take into account the additional $2,000 a low-income customer would get. >> you said it's $14,000 today. so i did take the $2000 into account. $14 minus 2 is $12,000. >> they qualify for the $1700 on top of that. >> i thought it was $400 plus an additional $2,000. >> so it's $500 kilowatt. >> oh, i see. by kilowatt. >> 2.5 kilowatt system and would qualify for the basic incentive, which would give them about $1200 on top of that they would get the additional $2,000 for being low-income applicant and on top of that, if they lived in an
environmental justice district, and use a city installer, getting additional incentives. >> that takes them down to roughly $10,000 -- how do low-income residents afford? >> it's a great point and one nice thing about the solar market right now there are financing options available. so there are many companies now that will allow them to enter into a power purchase agreement or a lease. so they can spread that cost over the life of the system and they can still reduce their bill from what their paying on their pg&e rates. so there is a lot of additional options that are available to people that are considering solar in general right now, which is nice. but yeah, we understand the other important point is the california solar initiative still runss a program called sash and they provide additional incentives to low-income applicants that they could also qualify for if they are in
the right locations for that. so we are really trying to incentivize low-income residents to be able to afford solar, as much as we can. >> i would love between now and the full board meet ig would love to understand how that actually works for a real person? >> sure. we can get you some specificks. >> and also the area median income-levels that are eligible for the low-income program. >> sure. >> thank you your work and i appreciate supervisor breed's leadership on it to incentivize our residents to go solar. >> thank you very much. >> any other questions or comments from committee members? >> i would like to move the amendments. i think you received a copy of the amendments sfpuc language clarification. fixing the typo, and changing the amount which were explained by ms. mitchell. so i would make a
motion to move those amendments. >> subject to public comment, i'm happy to vote in favor of them. >> so we have a motion and we can move those amendments without opposition [ gavel ] so if there are no further comments from committee members? we'll now move into public comment on this item. >> hi jason fried executive director of lafcko and wanted to speak to some of the items supervisor kim you brought up about the low-income and a couple of things to keep in mine on the rate structure, the sfpuc set up a once a rate structure rather than changing the rates quarterly as pg&e does. so right now while the rate is slightly different, you will see in the summertime, hopefully, if everything is worked out correctly, you'll actually see cleanpowersf customers paying less than what pg&e pays. over the course of the year, you need to average it out over the course of year and while i get your
comments about low-income not being able to pay more and being profocus of tective of that, which is extremely important, in theory, it should be the same -- they should be paying the same. you might pay more in one month, but less in another month. to keep in mind a lot of other ent or incentives and programs, doing low-income installation. taking gosolarsf funds and money from other organizations and groups and are able to put it -- able to be much more cost effective for low-income customers. the final thing i would put in on the low-income side, we're lowering their bills. so while even if there is a is a slight price differential, their overall bill will go down. we're not just talking about generation, but transmission, distribution and the other line items. so they are able to save a lot of money in the program. i appreciate supervisor
breed's legislation and would encourage to you move it forward to the full board. thank you. >> thank you. >> if there is no further public comment on this item, public comment is now closed on item no. 1 [ gavel ] can we take a motion to rescind on the amendments and take it again after public comment? we have a motion to rescind and do that without opposition. [ gavel ] , we'll take a motion to move the amendments as proffered by president breed and que do that without opposition. [ gavel ] is there a motion on item no. 1? >> i just want to say thank you to mr. fry for pointing out specifically the balance of what we are trying to accomplish with our clean power program, which i believe is definitely a better program than what pg&e has to offer and i would encourage everyone who is interested in signing up for clean power, go to cleanpowersf.org.
thank you, with that i would like to move this item as amended to the full board with positive recommendation. >> thank you, president breed and we do have a motion to move this forward with positive recommendation and i see a second and we can do that again without opposition. [ gavel ] >> thank you. madam clerk, please call item no. 2. >> yes, item no. 2 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the sheriff's department to contract with global tel*link to provide inmate telephone services which will [phao-eurpl/]ize inmate phone call rates that reduce the cost of the average local call by 34%. >> thank you, madam clerk. we're joined today by the office of the sheriff. and today by crispin hollins, thank you so much for being here. >> thank you very much and good morning supervisors, crispin hollins the cfo from the sheriff's department and happy sf clean power
customer and i'm here before you today to request approval with a new contract with global tel*link to provide inmate telephone services. global tel*link has provided services for san francisco since 2010. oover the years the department has made progress in reducing call rates and most recently recussing the cost from $2.35 to $1.54 in june of last year and the contract before you today memorializes the june 2016 rates and 3-year contract with two one-year options to extend. as i think you know the proposed rate caps and while these rate caps have been challenged and not yet implemented the rates in the contract before you today are lower than the fcc proposed rates. the main point of had this slide is to show progress to lower
the cost of an average call and finally this last slide shows the benefits of lower calling costs inasmuch as it results in greater call volume and greater call duration. when the rates were just last june volumes and duration increased roughly 20-30%. >> great. thank you so much for the presentation are or are there any questions from committee [stph-ebz/] supervisor peskin? >> thank you, madam chair. a appreciate the fact that the reduction is in the amount of 34% and i had one house cleaning question, why the retroactive nature of the resolution? and after the fact contract signing on december 1st of last year? >> we were anxious to move forward
with this contract, and we wanted to make sure these were memorialized, but we had it signed with the understanding that the contract would not be formally approved by the city until it was approved by the board of supervisors >> so somewhere in this 24-page contract is some clause to that effect, counselor, mr. givner. >> not looking at the contract in front of me so i'm not sure, but all of our contracts become effective only if the board approves the contract, if it's subject to 9.118. so occasionally departments will enter into agreements, but those agreements are not binding on the city unless the board approves. i don't know whether that is
memorialized in the contract itself -- i believe we have some boilerplate in our contract to that effect. i can double-check as i see you are right now. >> it's okay just as long as you don't make a habit of it. >> understood. >> all right. any other comments or questions? president breed? >> thank you. so when i first became a member of the board, i made it my mission to address these particular issues, specifically with the contracts as it relates to phone calls for inmates and also the commentary, which i know former sheriff ross mirkarimi worked with the team at the sheriff's department to come up with what i believe was a fair change, a
significant change and drop in rates. and the drop in costs overall for inmates, who rely on these services, and who i believe sadly we're being taken advantage of. so in this particular case, with the phone calls, i do appreciate the significant increase and the continuous decline, especially in light of the fact that calling locally is traditionally free, and i know that there are some other layers that go with setting up the appropriate phone systems in our jail system. i realize there are costs associated with that. but the one thing that i'm continuously concerned about, and wanted to know if you could address that with some more specifics: the money that is collected, and used specifically for programming for inmates, and we have had this
conversation in the past, and expressed the desire to see an alternative, and not to develop these programs on the backs of the families of these individuals. and so just wanted to know what the breakdown is for the anticipated revenues annually for this particular program? and what is anticipated to go specifically where? because it's not necessarily spelled out in that way in the contract. >> we estimate roughly that this contract would bring in about $500,000 to the inmate welfare fund and then the inmate welfare fund provides services -- it's required to be spent only on services for inmates. it funds salaries for prison legal services and other jail program staff. the other big expense that
it funds is for community-based organizations, primarily community works, which provides our one-family program and our "stop the violence program." >> have we done any work -- because i know that again, when this contract was up before, i had expressed a desire to look at alternatives in an effort to reduce the costs associated with this particular program. so have we explored alternatives? is this the only money for this particular program? are there other means to support this program? >> well, so we have reduced our reliance on inmate welfare fund by reducing the costs here, but there is still half a million dollar amount that comes to the department to help provide these programs. if we were to go
significantly lower than this, we would need to come to the general fund to ask for it to make up for that difference. >> so do you know what the amount is from the contract for the commentary? that goes into this particular fund? >> i know that in -- for last fiscal year from 2015-2016 that amount was about $600,000. >> so the total is a little bit over a million dollars for this program. do you know what the cost is to have this program in general? separately from -- we're talking about $1.1 million and the total cost to operate the program? >> total expenditures in 2015-16 were $1.2 million. >> and it all comes from basically -- the inmates themselves? >> yes; we had a beginning fund balance -- july 1, 2015,
fund balance of $2 million. there was an addition to commissions and phone calls there was commission from some of the signage in the jails. it brought in total of $1.3 million and we expended $1.2 million and ended the year with fund balance of $2.1 and this year, the expenditures will be roughly maybe $1.5 million. >> and then where does the additional .4 -- i mean, because this contract along with the commissary generates $1.1 and there is still an outstanding need and where does that money come from? >> from the general fund. i mean, these -- the programs that it funds are larger programs. we do quite a lot of work with community-based organizations, and our prisoner legal services
program is much larger than what is funded by just this program. so those funds primarily come from the general fund. >> and for the inmates that are in 50 bryant, the biggest feedback that i get is there is no location for services and so how is that particular population getting served? even though they are clearly paying into a fund that is supposed to be used to serve them? >> 850 brian -- there are challenges that go with 850 bryant. but we do have programming at 850 bryant, particularly with regard to this program. we have the one family program operates there. and recently we have augments that program, if you will, by inmates who participate in that program. we have been giving them
phone cards $20 phone cards. so that once they -- after having contact with their families, with their children, through the one-family program, they can then make free phone calls to their loved ones after the program is done for the day. >> thank you. again, i appreciate the continual efforts of the sheriff's department to try and make sure that these programs are cost-effective for the inmates. because ultimately, as you know, the families are the ones who have to deal with the bills associated with the phone calls, the commissary and all of the different layers that exist. because clearly, as these inmates are in custody, they have no means to generate any revenue and this money comes from a lot of these families, who unfortunately, tend to be low-income families. so i appreciate the work
done by the department to continue to decrease these expenses, as much as possible. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, president breed. i appreciate you bringing up all of the comments and concerns that you raised. when this contract came to us before slough then sheriff ross mirkarimi, i expressed a number of concerns about the high cost of staying connected with your family and friends, which evidence clearly shows supports rehabilitation when the inmate returns into the community. so charging them a lot of money to do something that we know will help our community later on, seems counterintuitive, but also to use the program to charging the families in order to provide additional services to the inmate also felt somewhat wrong. so i do appreciate the work to reduce the costs.
allowing inmates to stay in better contact with family and friends. thank you for your work. >> thank you, seeing no further questions or comments from the committee. at this timely open up for public comment on item no. 2. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on the item? seeing no comments public comment is now closed. mr. hollins thanks for presenting to the gaoc committee. do we have a motion on the item? >> so moved with recommendation. >> supervisor peskin moving forward with recommendation and without opposition. [ gavel ] . >> thank you, madam clerk, please call item no. 3. >> would you like me to call all of them? >> yes, please call all the remaining items on the agenda. >> except for-- >> item nos. 3-27 are various collective bargaining agreements between the city and county of san francisco. >> thank you, madam clerk.
nicki callahan, director of human resources for city and county of san francisco and thank you for presenting on the mous before the gaoc committee. >> this is a fairly simple thank you for calling all of the items together. we were successful in reaching tentative agreements with every -- regarding every expiring contract for the spring of 2017. and as i sat here i just learned that seiu ratified by 94% margin. so at this point all of the unions with the exception -- the second page is sightly out of date now. the largest remaining union to ratify is local 21 and they'll ratify in the first week of march. a couple of smaller groups, three smaller groups we expect to hear from the attorneys next week.
but ratification margins, low est we heard is 59%, but some have been unanimous and been in the 90s. so i think our labor partners agreed with us it was a good plan of action, given the uncertainties we're facing as a city. i'm happy to address any questions. i'm sure you have seen the terms. it's 3%, each of two years. which what i will call a little safety net in the second year, if we should have major drop in revenue, or recession, we'll be able to save some money by delaying the increase by six months. although we wouldn't have to go back into bargaining, which is good for he everyone. we'll know the outcome. and i'll be happy to take questions. >> madam chair, i just want to note for the record we have been briefed about this as an entire board in closed session, as the negotiations were ongoing. and i have a question, which is should we -- do you want
us to remove the ones where the tas have not been approved, item 10 for muncial attorney as the association and twu items and continue those? or do you want us to move those ordinances while they are still voting? >> we would request that you move them all forward in unt unlikely event that someone fails to ratify, we would request it to be pulled off the board's agenda. >> thank you, mr. callahan. see nothing questions or comments, we'll open up for public comment on these items. so any -- >> thank you. >> good work. >> thank you. >> any members of the public that would like to speak on these items? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ] ms. callahan, thank you so much for all of your work. we appreciate on behalf the board. so committee can we take a motion on this item? >> i would move items 3-27
to the full board with recommendations. >> we have a motion to move items 3 through 27 to the full board with positive recommendation. we have a second only that. and we can do that without opposition. [ gavel ] >> thank you. ma'am clerk, do we need to take the motion to convene into closed session? can we make the motion to convene into closed session? >> public comment? >> before we do that, can we take public comment on these items? >> 28 and 29. >> seeing no public comment on items 28 and 29, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ] >> may we take a motion to convene into closed session for items 27 and 28? >> would you like me to call the items? >> excuse me. >> would you like me to call the items? >> that is what i asked. >> item 28 is ordinance authorizing the lawsuit file by yu ern phan and gai thi fan nguyen again the
city and county of san francisco and item 29 authorizing settlement of lawsuit filed by willie crawford filed against the city and count of san francisco. can we make a motion to convene into closed session? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and do that without opposition. [ gavel ] . we just ask members of the public >> all right. we're now back in open session. >> our city attorney jon givner. >> during the closed session, the committee voted unanimously to forward items 28 and 29 to the full board with positive recommendation. >> thank you, mr. givner. can we take a motion to not disclose items from closed session? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and we can do that again without opposition. [ gavel ] >> madam clerk, any other items? >> there is no further business. >> thank you. meeting is adjourned [ gavel ]
>> neighborhoods in san francisco are as diverse and fascinating as the people who inhabit them and today we're in the western addition in district 5, where we'll hang with supervisor london breed and experience firsthand the renaissance underway at the buchanan mall. buchanan mall was connecting city blocks from grove to turk street and once besieged by violence,
today it's revitaling community spirit with an urban garden. this is where anyone who grew up in the neighborhood and spend out any time outside we spent time at buchanan mall and we hang with one another and made it work. we had fun together. the good news is that it seems like the activation is bringing the community back to the area. this garden, i think, can do a lot for bringing the community together. my hope is that with these cooking demos, that will bring folks out and they will start talking to one another when they probably normally wouldn't do that. crystal jem started cook as soon as she could start and the coordinator for community grows an organization that teaches cooking and nutrition, sanctifying growing spaces and
nourishing communities. >> it was to have a sea of calm for pause and congregating. i see more people out. if they are out here playing, it's still safer. it's a beautiful spaces and people are less inclined to mess them up. it allows them to want to instill some sort of ownership over this good thing. before we did this buchanan mall project i had walked through here -- hadn't walked through in ten years because of the dynamics of the neighborhood. >> for residents who kov founded green street a local business that offers re-cycling for the properties, activation took opportunity for the environment and community at-large. >> it's the but thy of the whole mission north and from the prison yards together and now we
stand here today pushing good energy for those people around us. i learn businesses through this and now i can share business with my community. the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by tonight's by our vice chair commissioner vice president fung and commissioner lazarus and commissioner bobby wilson and commissioner rick swig to my left is brad the deputy city attorney and provide the board with legal advice at the controls isry