Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  November 6, 2019 10:00am-11:01am PST

10:00 am
10:01 am
10:02 am
10:03 am
10:04 am
10:05 am
10:06 am
>> chair fewer: good morning, everyone. accept my apologies for being late. this is the wednesday, november 6, 2019 budget and finance committee meeting. i am chair of the budget and finance committee. i am chairman sandra lee fewer.
10:07 am
i am joined by supervisor raphael mandelman and catherine stefani. madam clerk, do we have any announcements today? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number one. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair fewer. we considered this item last week. if you'll recall, i offered amendments which needed to sit for a week, so i would ask today that we forward this to
10:08 am
the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair fewer: thank you, supervisor. there is no b.l.a. report on this, and so let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public want to comment on item one? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: i'd like to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. i can do that without objection. thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, please call item number two. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. and i believe today, we have michelle geddes project manager in the san francisco department of emergency management. >> thank you.
10:09 am
you did my introduction. good morning, supervisors. michelle geddes for this big city project. i'm here to request an amendment to the 2016 purchase agreement with motorola solutions. this project is a collaboration between the department of emergency management and the department of technology and the 26 city departments and outside agencies that currently use the emergency radio system for day-to-day operations as well as emergency response. so the implementation of the project began in october 2016 when the board first approved this -- this agreement to replace the current radio system, the infrastructure, as well as all the radios that operate on the system, and the project has made significant progress, and we're in the last stages of the progress, planning for testing and cutover of almost 10,000 radios that operate on the system. and in addition to this contract, the board also approved a long-term maintenance agreement with
10:10 am
motorola solutions to keep the radio infrastructure maintained until 2035, so we will have a 15-year useful life on the radio system. so d.l.m. is requesting an extension of the contract, and so we are requesting an extension to 2029 and allow for an extension of $3 million. and this will allow for the purchase of portable equipment. this is for the portable radios used by fire and police daily as well as other public agencies throughout the city. so the amendment will replace 7800 portable radios which is about $19 million worth of radios and accessories, and it spreads the payments out equally over nine years so we
10:11 am
don't have to do one big replacement in seven to ten years from now, which is the estimated useful life of a portable radio. most of the public safety departments received their radios in 2017, and so by 2025, we're going to need to start replacing those. so this amendment will allow for that to happen. i'm open to answer any other questions that you may have on the project and the amendment. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. could we hear from the b.l.a., please. >> good morning, chair fewer and the committee. severin campbell from the b.l.a. office. the $33 million increase, it's sort of summaryized in our
10:12 am
table. it exceeds the spending plan by about $28.4 million which is summarized on page four of our report. it's our understanding the reason why the department is asking for it is to be allowed to access the special prizing under the contract. because the amount of the increase actually exceeds the spending plan, other than that, we do recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on item 2? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel].
10:13 am
>> chair fewer: colleagues, any comments or questions? i do have a question. this contract is going to be extended into 2019, so these radios are somewhat heavy. i know -- my husband was a police officer, so i've seen these radios, and we have heard complaints from officers that t the gun belt that they're wearing that sometimes has a radio attached to it. i would imagine by 2029 that there would be some modernization of that equipment. does this plan include for modernization of these radios? >> absolutely. so this contract allows for the purchase of the existing radios that we're getting -- that the officers have today as well as any additional -- or any new radio that is released by motorola that operates on the system, and we built in a formula to get that same type
10:14 am
of discount on that next generation radio. >> chair fewer: okay. that's great. so are there plans to modernize the radio? >> there are some new versions of radios that are introduced by the vendor. i would say that we would want to wait until those are in the industry a little bit more before we go full bore and take a look at those radios, but the ability to purchase them is in this contract, so would this help if we were to purchase more modern radios, or is that included in the contract? >> we may have to. we don't necessarily have the cost of those radios. actually, the cost may go down from the vendor, but we -- right now, we've negotiated a
10:15 am
63% discount and with a next -- any apx series of radios, we would get that discount, and then, on the next generation radios, we already have a skound formula in the contract baked in. like, for example, right now planning with the police department, we're planning to replace 2,000 portable raid yees. that's not the entire fleet of portable radios that they have. so we may need to work in additional spending capacity, but we will bring it to the board to evaluate. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much. so i'd like to request to approve the amendment to allow this. if i can take that without objection? enthu thank you very much,
10:16 am
colleagues. go [gavel]. >> chair fewer: and i'd like to take that without objection. without objection. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, could you please call item number three. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: and so is this fanny lappitan, a program analyst from the human services agency. >> yes. my name is fanny lapitan, a program analyst from the human services agency. we are requesting a provision for the community living plan program to include a pilot for the administration of the public housing -- i'm sorry, public guardian housing fund. just a little bit of background about c.l.f.
10:17 am
in 2006, the san francisco administrative code created the community living fund or c.l.f. to support ageing in place and community placement alternatives for individuals that may otherwise require care within an institution. c.l.f. aims to avoid unnecessary institutionalization and allow adults to live in the community for as long as possible. c.l.f. provides services by providing a two-pronged approach of coordinated case management and goods and services. currently, the department of ageing governs the c.l.f. program. the c.l.f. serves san francisco residents 18 years and older with incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty level. participants referred to c.l.f.
10:18 am
are those that were currently placed in institutional care who are willing and able to be discharged in the community living as well as those already in the community but are at risk of being institutionalized. the amendment we are requesting is specifically for the provision of housing subsidies and move related costs. under the department of ageing and adult services, the public guardian or p.g. serves as the guardian for wards of the state. some of these individuals are marginally housed for prolonged periods of time while waiting for an appropriate housing option. p.g.s have been affected by the housing crisis, and it's evident by the availability and cost of housing.
10:19 am
the p.g. housing fund will be used to place the conserv the p.g. team will prioritize access to the fund based on the client's needs and appropriateness, and the subsidy amount will be set on a case-by-case basis, depending on the client's financial and functional need. we agree with the b.l.a. report that was prepared, and i'm happy to answer any question that you may have. joining me today are some key staff from human services
10:20 am
agency contracts team. we also have miss carrie wong, and we have mr. matthew mollay from the institute on ageing. >> chair fewer: thank you. any comments, questions from my colleagues? supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair fewer. so this is a pilot. it's only ten people, but can you talk a little bit about the need. like, where are these people now and what does this $2500 a month subsidy let you do with them? >> yes, thank you. that's a very good question, supervisor mandelman. so at this time, the people that we have identified are currently either in their own homes or in an s.r.o. some are already placed in
10:21 am
approximate -- in a home, and if they don't use it, we are in danger of losing it. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. so i guess i'm actually still a little bit unclear, then, on what this lets you do that you're not currently doing. >> yeah. so let me just explain a little bit. the pilot will help prevent institutionalization and possibly homelessness as it identifies the conserveatees that they would need for their case. the city would be increasing the access to assisted living
10:22 am
beds by help them afford the increasing costs. >> supervisor mandelman: i guess that. i'm just wondering, like, there are people who are in crappy s.r.o. situations, and because of this, they'll be able to move into a better housing situation? >> yes. they just need that additional subsidy to be able to afford to get into the a.l.s.? >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. and how are you going to monitor the pilot? you've got ten people that are not in ideal situations? >> so the p.g. office will continue to assess and look at their current caseload to see who is in need of this resource on a continuing basis. because again, this is a pilot that we currently don't have, i guess a solid figures to determine how much this resource will be needed, but we
10:23 am
have identified those ten conserveatees who need this. >> supervisor mandelman: we're having a hearing on this tomorrow or the day afternoon, but one of the things that we know is that conservetorships and the total number of them in the city have gone down, and we think that's because we don't have an adequate number of placements, and i'm thinking if you might be able to increase that. >> we know that the p.g., public guardian conserveatees, they will be assisted in affording the current available beds out there. >> supervisor mandelman: these are not public appointees? >> no, they're public guardians. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. >> chair fewer: thank you. could we hear from the b.l.a., please. >> the proposed resolution
10:24 am
increases the existing grant agreement with the institute on ageing by $770,000 over two years to provide subsidies for this part of the pilot program for ten individuals. and we subsidize the budget on pages 9 and 11 of our report. we recommend approval of the report. >> chair fewer: thank you. anyone wish to make public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: can i take this without objection? thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item number four. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very
10:25 am
much, and i believe we have matt hansen. >> we do. >> chair fewer: director of risk management, city administrator office. >> thank you. we bring before you a request to increase an existing approved contract -- board approved contract with alliance insurance services that provides brokerage for procurement of property insurance for city agencies. and this request is to bring us through the next three fiscal years of procurement for the properties that do purchase coverage. >> chair fewer: any comments or questions from my colleagues? could we hear from the b.l.a., please. >> the proposed resolution increases the existing agreement that risk management has with aliant insurance brokerage services for a total
10:26 am
agreement of $74 million. my understanding is there is an amended resolution that's submitted by the board with a revised date, is that correct? >> we did not submit an actual resolution for that revised end date because in the previous resolution, we were authorized to have three two-year extensions. >> so any way, what the legislation says before you is the end date, it will be 2022 for the extension of the agreement. we summarize the increase amount on page 13 of our report. this provides funding for insurance services through fiscal year 2022-2023, and we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item number four? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: any comments or questions, colleagues? i just want one clarification.
10:27 am
and so this is so cover all public structures in san francisco? >> it is not. it is to cover specific public structures that are covered because they are income such as our enterprise facilities or those that are required under covenants of financing. >> chair fewer: and so there is a separate contract to cover insurance on all the rest of our public properties, is that correct? >> majority of properties that are not covered under this carr are under the city self-assurance program. >> chair fewer: okay. no comments or questions? let's make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation, and thank you, mr. hansen, for your presentation today.
10:28 am
[gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you call item number five. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. and this is daniel sanchez? >> yes. we're here before you to ask you for your approval to increase the not-to-exceed amount for our m.o.u. for refuse collection services that you collect for all city departments. really quickly, i just want to talk about the background of this contract, talk about the proposed increase and why we need it, and finally talk about the next steps. so some background. this contract or this relationship with recology
10:29 am
contractual relationship dates back to 2007, when the board of supervisors first approved the first of these m.o.u.s with recology for the same service. this includes the collection and sorting of all refuse on a regular basis collected from all institutions, office facilities, and parks. recology is the only entity with the required city permits and licenses, the infrastructure, the equipment, and the expertise to collect and process refuse in the city, so therefore, this contract and the two before it have all been sole source contract, and that dates back to a 1932 ordinance that gave the license to the contractor. this current contract that we're asking you to allow us to recommend started on december
10:30 am
4, 2014, and it had a not-to-exceed value of $40 million. we're not asking that we increase that not-to-exceed amount by $8 million, so we're asking from $40 million to $48 million, and this is necessary so we can make this last us until the end of the year, to january 1, 2020. we are replacing this contract with a new one and we expect the new contract to come into effect the beginning of the new fiscal year july 1, 2020. so we expect this to get us through until the new contract goes live. this amount that we came up with, it's based on the new average expenses of all city departments since the new rates went into effect on july 1,
10:31 am
2013. we used the monthly average since that increase to come up with our estimate for how much we'll need going forward, so we multiply that times nine, so we came with a 7.9 amount, so we're asking for the $8 million. so the proposed increase, the $40 million did not account for the rate increase in the agreement. so the contract calls out the rate adjustments that will be in the contract, and the table you see here describes that.
10:32 am
[inaudible] >> there's also a cost of living adjustment that is also applied to the contract, and so those are the amounts that you see there. so the reason that we are asking for this $8 million now even though the increases were laid out in the contract is the amounts we estimated back in 2014 did not sufficiently account for these adjustments, and so we're actually -- the -- the -- the -- the expenses that we're seeing under the contract are much more than what the -- the -- the 2014 estimate was and should have been. and so we're -- we're -- really, we're spending what was estimated in the contract but not what was accounted for in our contract estimate, the $40 million. another reason for why we're asking for additional funding is that under this contract,
10:33 am
departments have overencumbered purchase orders, so they've got p.o.s for a large amount, and they fail to return the remaining amount in those p.o.s back to the contract. under the existing system that we have, when a purchase order is completed and there's remaining amounts in there and it's not closed out and zeroed out, that amount is no longer available for anyone to use, so that amount totalled $1.2 million, so we have that $1.2 million that we're not able to touch anymore because the amount not being returned back to the contract. other reasons for the additional funding needs is that there have been additional services that have been added to the contract since the contract began. a total of 65 new service locations have been added to this contract, and although we do have a service fee cap that i just talked about, which is meant to cap our -- our -- the
10:34 am
increases that we see every year, that cap does not apply to the new services or the increased service frequencies that we see in the contract. so we see new services, things like the department of technologies, building at 200 paul avenue, and the new public safety building. so there have been new locations added to this contract. also, as part of the rates that we have seen that we see in the contract, we have seen -- there are allowable rate adjustments that are applied. so the base of our contract rates are the city's commercial rates that the city reaches with recology as part of the rate-setting process. but on top of that, we see several different adjustments. we see distance charges. so if a bin is located more than 100 feet from the curb, there's an additional charge. if there's access -- there's things called access charges.
10:35 am
so if a bin requires key access in order to retrieve it, there's an additional charge. elevation charges. if a bin is 4 feet above or below the ground level, there's additional charges. but there's recycling incentives that departments get discounts if they're able to divert their waste to either compost or recycling. so there are several additional rates that -- adjustments that each department sees on a per-bin basis that just weren't accounted for. so if you guys grant us this -- this -- this amendment, we would like to increase the current contract by $8 million to ensure that there's sufficient coverage for city departments to continue using this contract for their refuse collection needs up until the new fiscal year. in the meantime, we have began working on a new contract which we hope will kick in at the start of the new fiscal year, at which point, we will come back to you guys for approval
10:36 am
of the brand-new contract. and with that, i will take any questio questions that you may have. >> chair fewer: so i don't think we have a powerpoint that -- a copy of the power that the showed. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> chair fewer: okay. so then i just am a little confused about the $1.2 million. could you explain that to me just again? >> yes. so this is a citywide contract available to all departments, so we have a contract, and departments, whenever they want to use this contract, they issue a purchase contract. they are the ones that dictate what amount the p.o. is for. departments will usually issue an order for the entire fiscal year to ensure they have enough coverage for the year. oftentimes, they have encumbered more than what they needed, so at the end when that
10:37 am
fiscal year is over, they find they have money on their purchase order because it's not needed. so they close out that purchase order. in the system, if the department does not go in and create a change order to reduce the amount down to zero, that amount in that p.o., it's tied up in that p.o., and that p.o. is closed out, and we can no longer go in there and make that money go back. >> chair fewer: so what happens to the $1.2 million. >> it's as if it is used. >> chair fewer: so what happened to the money? >> so the department, it does go back to the departments, but in people soft -- >> chair fewer: so it goes back into the department's budget. >> yes. >> chair fewer: you're kidding
10:38 am
me. so i am completely a layperson on this, but you -- supervisors, are you understanding this at all? so let me just -- layperson, okay? so they do this purchase order for the year of how many service they think they might need. >> supervisor mandelman: correct. >> chair fewer: if it comes in that there's leftover money in the purchase order, and if they don't close that out to zero, that money that they originally encumbered stays in their budget? really? >> so for example, at the beginning of the year, department thinks i'm going to need $500,000 in trash collection. department sets it up. throughout the year, they drawdown from that, and the moneys that are leftover, under
10:39 am
the old system that we had as a city, it would return those moneys both back into the budget and then also for us, for o.c.a., it would return back into the contract value. now, the moneys do go back into the budget, but unless the department makes an affirmative action to do a change order down, those moneys do not return back into the contract, so it's kind of -- >> chair fewer: those moneys stay in the department's budget? >> yes, and the moneys go back into the budgets, and the contract is not paid any more than, it's just that we as a city don't have the contracting capacity, but we don't get the -- the contract capacity back. over the last few years, o.c.a. has been working with the contractor's office to inform everybody of this, and we're
10:40 am
starting to change it, so departments are not encumbering for the full year, or they're encumbering for smaller amounts, and they are making those adjustments, but this is a problem that we just discovered last year as we went to this new system. >> chair fewer: okay -- oh, yes. risa, did you -- >> risa sandler for the controller's office. i can add a little bit more to this. i think the conversation is about two different things here. there's the technical aspect of what happens when you have contract authority to spent $100 on something, and you encumber that, which you have to do, so you have enough money to pay the supplier. and then what happens if you don't need to spend all of that. so this is an administrative accounting system function, by i believe folks here are
10:41 am
talking about. my -- my budget in the department never changed because of that, and i would like to free that up so i can spend it on other eligible, already approved items in that category. so i think the two items are getting commingled here, if i'm hearing right. so i'm not sure if the question was giving additional money to the department. that's not the case. it's just reclaiming what's theirs, what's already been approved because they didn't need it for that one thing if that was the question. >> chair fewer: and then, risa, tell me where that money would go. if it doesn't go back to the department, it goes back to --
10:42 am
>> so there's two -- yes. sorry to interrupt you. >> chair fewer: yes. no, it would seem that we would have this amount of money, then, that was encumbered originally but now is freed up. so where is it? >> it's always in the department's budget. it hasn't changed. they're only spending what they need under the contract. if that 100 is claimed by the department and it's not closed out, then, that authority issic issic -- is taken away, meaning, the overall contract is then tied up. >> chair fewer: but when we are requesting $8 million, i think, more, in the contract -- yeah, not to exceed $48 million. >> correct. >> chair fewer: so we're asking for $8 million more. >> right. >> chair fewer: then it seems as though the accounting of it -- i mean, are we -- we're
10:43 am
depending on this sort of -- and i just want a full transparency that i don't know anything about this . it just seems that we are asking for this money to cover it, but in actuality, we do have money that is encumbered but not spent. so is this amount correct, the amount of service that we will need if we are not actually spending the amount that we are -- that departments are encumbering? >> so i can't speak to what's actually been encumbered versus what will be liquidated and available. that i can't speak to. so i'm not sure if i can answer. >> supervisor mandelman: the $48 million is spending authority. it's actual money out the door. >> and the $48 million is spending authority, but it's only going to result possible in $47 million -- possibly in
10:44 am
$47 million going out the door. that $1.2 million is not available. that's not going out the door, that's just money in the contracting authority that the city does not have anymore. >> supervisor mandelman: because of our accounting practices in this particular year. >> chair fewer: but we're fixing our practices. >> and that's been widely discussed with the o.c.a. and the various departments, so we think we have this solved. >> chair fewer: you think you have it solved? >> well, it's a people-based problem, so if departments keep doing it, then, it's going to keep happening, but this is something that o.c.a. does now, trying to monitor our contracts every quarter, and if we see that departments are apparently making encumbrances for the full year, we do contact them to make sure that the money that they are encumbering are
10:45 am
current needs and then as we get close to the fiscal year ends, we also work with the departments to make sure that they are making the change orders down to these so there's not going to be a loss of the $1.2 million. it's going to be a much smaller amount, if there's a loss at all. >> chair fewer: okay. i think today what i'm not hearing is sort of a definite reassurance that this is actually being fixed. what you say to me is so we're in hthe process, we're trying o fix this. i would think there wouldn't be a ton of departments to do this.
10:46 am
i -- are you saying that we're trying to get to every department? it just seems as this is a little -- a glitch here that, as you said, can be remedied if we remind them and require them, i guess that's the word i'm looking for -- requiring them to get back to zero. does that make sense or if it's not feasible, tell me. >> no, it makes sense. i'm just not trying to overstep what i can do but yes, we're actively trying to work with all the departments. we think we have this problem solved. this was something that happened prior to the previous year, so i can't go back and get this funds back for that happened fiscal two years ago in the system. going forward, the problem is solved, though. >> chair fewer: yes.
10:47 am
supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: yes. so there is a new m.o.u. coming next year? >> yes. >> supervisor mandelman: what do you think you'll be bringing that to us? >> we anticipate bringing that to you in the spring. >> supervisor mandelman: i will want to retrospectively understand what the amount is year over year. i don't have a problem with this, but i think as we look forward to next year's m.o.u. when that comes to us, i will want a fuller explanation of what's been going on over these last five years and whether we think it'll continue over the next several years or whether it's going to stablize. thank you. >> chair fewer: so is there a time constraint on this contract on this item? >> there is -- as a time
10:48 am
constraint in the event that if we don't amend the contract, we're not going to have moneys in the next month or two to continue to pay the bills as associated with -- as refuse. there is not a time constraint as duration of the contract, but there is a time constraint on the -- that we do need the amendment. >> chair fewer: all right. so if we continue this item for a week to get deeper information and further information, would you be amenable to that, and mr. sanchez? >> yes. >> chair fewer: okay. let's do that because i think that there's some questions here with this committee. we're not saying that this isn't something we should be funding. i think we're just saying we need deeper clarification as this is $8 million that we are talking about. so i'd like to make a motion to continue this item until the next meeting. >> clerk: excuse me, madam
10:49 am
chair, would you like to have public comment on this item? >> chair fewer: oh, yes. is there any member of the public that would like to comment on item five? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, i would like to continue this until the next meeting of the budget and finance committee, and if we can take that without objection, thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: and mr. sanchez, we will connect to get further clarification. thank you. madam clerk, would you please call item six. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: welcome. >> supervisor fewer, members of
10:50 am
the committee. [inaudible] >> -- on the island pending redevelopment. subsequently, the navy and tida entered into a number of the master leases allowing tida to sublet various properties on the islands, providing the funds were used to fund redevelopment efforts. the navy's closure procedures limit these interim leases to a maximum term of 12 months. the proposed extension would authorize tida to extend the master lease for facilities and structures through november 2020. the other terms and conditions of the lease are unchanged, but i welcome any questions you may have. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, mr. beck. colleagues, any comments or
10:51 am
questions on this item? there is no b.l.a. report on this, and mr. beck, i do have a question for you. >> sure. >> chair fewer: so the land that we are leasing, and i guess that we are leasing this for free, is that correct? >> yes. >> chair fewer: is this land clean or is it part of the super fund site or if we tested for that? what is the outcome of those tests? >> so treasure island is not a super fund site. the navy is doing environmental rein cleanup on the island. the navy has done cleanup on about two thirds of the island and transferred those leases to the city. the other areas under this master lease, they have not completed. >> chair fewer: excuse me, mr. beck. sorry to interrupt you. so we are going into this lease
10:52 am
with property that hasn't been cleaned up, is that what you're telling me? >> the reports under this lease, there's no -- the properties under this lease, there's no remediation on this site. they go through the process and ultimately they publish a document called suitablity to transfer which is then filed with the state. so there is no cleanup with the state but they have not filed the cleanup and transfer process. >> chair fewer: so it sounds like this is part of the one-third that they have not signed off on. >> correct. >> chair fewer: and that there is no other cleanup that's going to be done on the one-third, is that correct? >> there is -- there is work that is ongoing on that one-third -- >> chair fewer: but that includes the property that we
10:53 am
are leasing, is that correct? >> there's a second master lease that's not before us today where there is active remediation work ongoing, but under the properties that are covered under this lease, there's not currently any active cleanup. >> chair fewer: okay. i haven't called for public comment today, so let's call -- oh, i'm sorry. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i -- this always -- treasure island stuff always kind of makes me cross eyed. if you could just do even like a little staff report that would have sort of like kind of where this has been, sort of a
10:54 am
little map of the island, and i think because it is -- the whole island was subject to the master lease, right? sk >> we originally had multiple master leases. >> supervisor mandelman: multiple master leases, so it's -- there's a third of the island that's under this? >> yes. >> supervisor mandelman: and we think the entire island has been cleaned up? >> there'll be active cleanup probably continuing for another four years? >> supervisor mandelman: okay. but that is not part of this lease. not part of the lease today. >> supervisor mandelman: but part of it somewhere. >> yeah. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. i just think it would be useful to us, to ask us to approve the authority on this, but just to
10:55 am
have a little overview on this. i don't have a problem with doing this now. >> absolutely, we could provide a memo and a graphic -- >> supervisor mandelman: just a brief little where we are, what we're talking about. >> chair fewer: mr. beck, is there a time constraint on this contract? >> our current master lease runs out at the end of this month, so we were trying to extend it for the next 12-month period. >> chair fewer: okay. so mr. beck, could we request that you would provide for us the -- the map and the information that i think supervisor mandelman would like for these committee members of the i think there is a willingness to pass this out of committee today, but i think it requires a commitment to provide us with these requested items. mr. beck, are you willing to do that? >> yeah.
10:56 am
we can provide that to you this week. no problem. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: just a page or two cliff notes version of what's going on on treasure island? >> absolutely. >> chair fewer: that would be great. let's open this up for public comment. any member of the public wish to comment on item six? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: supervisor stefani, any comment or questions? okay. let's move this out of committee with a positive recommendation. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, please call items seven and eight together. [agenda item read] [agenda item read].
10:57 am
>> chair fewer: thank you, and we have kelley kirkpatrick from the mayor's office. >> thank you, supervisors. we are proposing and requesting to amend the supplemental appropriation, item number
10:58 am
seven. the new supplemental request is for $2.9 million, down from the $3.4 million. i've distributed red line copies that reflect that revision downward. you will also note that there are some clerical technical edits, such things as italicizing. as for the presentation this morning, i will walk you through a very high level summary of the process and timelines and the accompany departmentation appropriation requests. i also have deputy city forn jon givner who will speak about the process and how we arrived here. and then i have representatives of four city agencies that are all involved in this.
10:59 am
so requewith that, i will kick off to deputy city attorney jon givner. >> chair fewer: i have a question. you said you were able to reduce the amount because you came up with an amount you could cut out of the budget? >> originally, the department
11:00 am
had proposed using a software they called labor fiche to transmit records to the district attorney's office. we recognize instead of expanding the use of that software, we were actually able to utilize an existing technology that we have and only need about $2,000 to add narrative to the incident reports that's already in the existing system called level two. all it's to say, we convened all the partners and said are there any more efficient ways to get the reports transmitted on the timelines, and we collaborated with all the partners for at least the upcoming fiscal year that we can utilize level two but