>> chair ronen: any questions, colleagues? go ahead. >> are the dates dictated by the -- the grant dates dictated by the state. >> yes, they are. yes. >> member safai: and when was the grant awarded? >> i believe we received the check in november of 2021. >> member safai: and so what is taking the time to get to now? so we can approve this. >> i could respond to that, supervisors. we needed to create a grant ordinance because we're adding positions to the annual salary ordinance. so when we received the award letter in november, then we worked with the department of

human resources to calculate the exact number of fte that we would be adding to the annual salary ordinance. and so, of course, the city attorney review, et cetera, so we submitted to the ordinance to the board, i believe, in january and -- for initial review and then there were some amendments, so -- and then, of course, getting on the calendar for your review took some time and it's a very full calendar that you have. so that -- that is the reason also. i would say the retroactivity is mainly because we didn't receive the grant notice until november, but their start date that they determined was december 1st. >> member safai: that's normal. we have that all the time with the dates are dictated by the state.

it's good for us to know the timeline, when you submitted the ordinance. it sounds like you submitted it to the board in january and you've just waited some time to get in the queue. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. looks like there are no further questions. can we open the item up for public comment? >> yes, members of the public who wish to speak on the item should line up to speak now. those listening remotely, call 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2497 841 9535 # #. press star 3 to enter the speaker line and those already in the queue, continue to wait until the system has been unmuted. we have no in-person speakers here in the chamber. can you confirm there are no speakers? >> mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you much. >> chair ronen: thank you.

public comment is closed. we're just wondering if there was just a little earthquake. did you feel that? >> i did. >> i hope everyone is okay. >> i thought it was a truck. >> chair ronen: okay. we'll figure that out in a second. in the meantime, i'd like to make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> member safai: aye. >> member mar: aye. >> chair ronen: aye. >> we have three ayes. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. have a great day. >> you, too, bye-bye. >> can you read item 7, >> item 7 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the office of economic and workforce development to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $3.5 million from the california governors's office of business and economic development for the

s.f. live music and entertainment sector campaign and the asian and pacific islander neighborhood commercial sector recovery strategy. members of the public joining us remotely and wish to comment on the item, please call 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2497 841 9535 # #. press star 3 to enter the speaker line and when the prompt indicates you've raised your hand and also indicates you've been unmuted, that will be your cue to begin your comments. madame chair. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. we have business development here. thanks so much for coming in earn. -- person.

>> wonderful. thank you, chair ronen. members of the committee. office of economic and workforce development with a short presentation. we are seeking approval for accept and expend resolution authorizing the state grant $3.5 million allocated in the state's fiscal year 21-22 budget. due to the timing of the budget allocation and award notice to our office, we must retroactively include this grant in our current budget year to enter into contracts and be ready to launch these programs this july. these are two distinct programs part of one resolution being considered together. these initiatives were approved as part of a single allocation and are part of a single grant agreement with the governor's office.

this campaign, the first we'll talk about the s.f. live and then the a.p.i. neighborhood business recovery campaign. s.f. live will advance economic recovery by promoting the live music and entertainment sector and encouraging neighbors to attend local entertainment events. they were among the first businesses to the close and the last to reopen. it's really exciting that venues are now open and it's great to see audiences return. at the same time, venues in the industry have continued to face challenges in the process and we know this will be key to the economic recovery, so this will drive awareness and build audiences while providing good-paying gigs. to that end, we'll have a series of live performances in parks and plazas that will be curated by san francisco entertainment.

additionally, s.f. live will fund the development of a san francisco music brand, a new development of a music week. these are longstanding pre-pandemic concerns that the local music industry has had. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> sf live campaign has closed. we will work within the industry to begin july of 2022. we have not spent the money. we are looking forward to launching both initiatives as soon as possible. with that i am available for questions. >> chair ronen: any questions? can we open up for public comment. >> members of the public should line up now.

remotely call 415-655-0001 meeting id 24978419535. press pound twice. there are no speakers in the chambers or telephone. >> chair ronen: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: this is helpful and important forgetting activity and helping with our economic revitalization. i see where you potentially have programmed some of the money. i have some specific questions about the coordination. first, have you all chosen a contractor or somebody to oversee the production of this

work or are you planning to just grant it out in small chungs to the specific areas you listed on the campaign budgets? if you are doing live music opportunities in all of these different locations, who is overseeing that? how is that going to be coordinated? >> that is a great question. we issued are r.f.p. earlier this year. the intention is to award three different non-profit partners to administer the concert series so the high level buckets concert series at golden gate and union square and multiple public spaces we are looking for and request proposals and have received a number from non-profit to oversee administration of the series to coordinate with music venues and the associations to do the

programming of specific events as part of the series. >> supervisor safai: we have funded a couple events. one is noise pop events at jerry garcia amphitheater. i don't know who does the converts in union square. i know there is another planet that does live music in golden gate park. any thought to working with existing partners doing work in the community already? >> i know there are a number of different organizations doing existing work. we wanted additional independent r.f.p. for that work because the other components of the program around marketing and brand development. >> supervisor safai: i understand that. we have a three-piece concert series in the jerry garcia amphitheater over seen by noise

pop. they do branding anchored nation. we are pushing them the coordinate with the surrounding small businesses in neighborhoods. that is the thinking i am asking you about. i would think with the small grant it wouldn't make sense to recreate a program when you have existing programs. not to say give directly to them. you have existing infrastructure. you could build that into the r.f.p. to say whoever is chosen could work with existing? >> yes, the ability to demonstrate past work producing events in san francisco parks was one of the minimum or preferred qualifications of the r.f.p. >> supervisor safai: was there something in requirement for the contract or r.f.p. that doesed

for prioritizing with vendors and small businesses from nearby neighborhoods. >> there was not. as part of program design as we move forward that concept and i believe that is feedback we received elsewhere. we don't want events without integration in the community. that is great as we move forward. >> supervisor safai: they pick one vendor you have along time relationship with. they might come in with food trucks, food services and beverage. it says api neighborhood commercial recovery strategy. you would think that would be an integrated piece of this r.f.p. you are trying to specifically revitalize neighborhood commercial recovery strategy api. >> i may have misspoke ken. there were two different

r.f.p.s. >> supervisor safai: one for neighborhood revitalization. then the music venue concert series. union scare i would imagine they would use existing union square businesses. $900,000 bucket because my office in particular put a lot of work. we have the jerry day. annual event coming up. calling for multiple years. noise pop will be the second series of events. a lot of surrounding small businesses. i hope you put that level of detail into it. if you don't ask have been tors and vendors from the community are left out. then they see the concerts coming to their neighborhood and vendors from outside.

they are not able to, particularly given the economic recovery required right now for a lot of these businesses. the branding. i am imagining you will pick how many people? you are picking one for golden gate. one for union square and one for the multiple locations three or there could be one person? >> there could be one but up to three. >> i want to specifically ask you to prioritize working with small businesses from the immediate neighborhoods. >> chair ronen: supervisor mar. >> supervsor mar: thank you.

thank you for all your work. i understand the sf live campaign is a new initiative that builds os existing work that has been happening in the city for live music in the neighborhoods. the api recovery strategy. is that a new initiative by oewd or a million dollars of new funding without an initiative? the other question i have is api neighborhood recovery strategy oewd are they seeking additional funding and resources to support it? $1 million is great. it is very much aligning with the work in district four for

community planning process in revitalizing the commercial corridors. >> they are working to strengthen the business models and looking for community partners. the hope is to build on existing efforts. in terms of is there additional money sought? i can't speak to that. i would be happy to circle back with you on that. >> i am trying to understand how

oewd goes about coming up with proposals for funding like the state grant. except for the api recovery strategy, this is something that my question is did you engage with api community stakeholders or small business stakeholders in developing this concept to a proposal for the state funding? >> thank you, supervisor. my colleague who leads our neighborhood initiative and could not be here today. she and other colleagues were doing outreach to ensure the buckets considered within the $1 million reflected and met community needs. that is something we can continue to work with

stakeholders to ensure once applicants are selected awarded the work is reflective of their needs and concerns moving forward. >> this proposal for these priorities for the funding drew from oewd investing in neighborhoods ongoing engagement work. >> absolutely, supervisor, yes. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. thank you for your work on this. mr. cook, please open to public comment. >> we already took public comment. >> chair ronen: i would like to make a motion to send to the full board with positive recommendation. >> to forward with positive

recommendation. vice chair safai. member mar. >> aye and add as cosponsor. >> chair ronen. >> aye. >> we have three ayes. >> thank you. this item passes. mr. clerk, please read item 8. resolution approving the exercise of the first of two one year extension options under a lease between michael c mitchell and the city and county by and through the airport commission to extend the lease for one year for a period may 1, 2023 through april 30, 2024 for a total term april 21, 2009 through april 30, 2024. increasing the rent to $146,000 for office and industrial space occupied by the san francisco

international graphics department. members of the public to comment on these items or this item call the public comment number at 415-655-0001. id24978419535. pound twice. when connected press star 3. when the system indicated you are unmuted begin your comments. madam chair. >> chair ronen: we have deana here to present. >> thank you, supervisors. the airport is seeking approval to exercise the first of two one year extension options of existing list for the repro graphics in burlingame california from may 1, 2023 to april 30, 2024. it is $146,069.

they provide full-service design, layout and art and production for airport marketing materials, architectural prints and directories and maps. service for other departments such as board of supervisors and the courts. they have 6,000 square feet of office space and 10,500 square feet of land since 2009. the extension terms were negotiated by the real estate division and determined to be fair market rent based on analysis of similar properties. the amount of rent below the threshold and i am happy to answer any questions along with my colleague steve lush. >> any questions? open up for public comment. >> members of the public shrine

up to speak. remotely call 415-655-0001 id2497341595. press pound twice. continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted to begin your comments. we have no in-person speakers in the chamber and there are no speakers on the telephone line. >> chair ronen: public comment closed. motion to send to full bolder with positive recommendation. >> on that motion vice chair safai. >> aye. >> reason nan aye. >> we have three ayes. >> passes unanimously. mr. clerk please read item 9. ordinance retroactive authorizing the department of emergency manatement as fiscal

agent for the bay area initiative to accept and expend increase in 2021 target the violence and terrorism prevention in the amount of $61,000 for a total amount of approximately $1 million from the united states department of homeland security for october 1, 2021 through september 30, 2023 and amending the ordinance number 96-21. annual salary for fiscal years 21-22 and 22-23 to provide addition of one grant funded position in class 0932 manager 4. members who wish to comment call 415-655-0001. meeting id24978419535. pound twice. when connected press star 3 to answer the speaker line.

the prompt will indicate you are unmuted. >> i understand jody is here from dm. >> good morning. thank you. i am with the bay area security initiative. we request approval of budget item before you. retroactively authorizing the department of emergency management as fiscal agent to accept, expend increase in fiscal year 21 targeted violence and terrorism prevention grant funds. these are to be im mendmented by september 2023 to include mental health film project, immediate e-learning, threat and vulnerability assessment

training and guidebook for schools. i would be happy to answer any questions you have. >> this is retroactive because the department of homeland security issued is award after the grant period started, is that correct? >> yes. >> have you expended any of this money yet? >> we have not. >> you received the grant award when? >> the notification of the grant award in october of 2021. >> can you explain why it has taken so long to get to us here at budget committee? >> absolutely. once we received the award we went out for we have a larger r.f.q. to invite all possible

entities to be part of the pool for this. that took two months. then institutional review board to ensure on you projects meet privacy and protection rules, federal government. now we are in position to implement this. >> thank you. that makes sense. questions? thank you. please open up for public comment. >> members of the public who wish to speak should line up now. if you are listening remotely call 415-655-0001. 24979535 press pound twice. press star 3 to answer the speaker line. if you are in the queue continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted that is your queue to comment. we have no in-person speakers and we have no speakers on the

telephone line. >> chair ronen: public comment is closed. motion to send to full board with positive recommend. >> on that motion to the full board with positive recommend. (roll call). >> we have three ayes. >> unanimously. please read item 10. resolution authorizing designated city and county officials to execute and file on behalf of the city and county any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining state and federal financial assistance provided by the united states department of homeland security and sub granted through california state office of emergency services under the grant program for fiscal year 2021 emergency management performance grant american rescue plan act for approximate amount of $66,000.

if you want to comment call 415-655-0001. 24978419535. pound twice. once connected press star be to answer the speaker line. when the system indicates you are unmuted begin your comments. madam chair. >> before we get started on the presentation, i understand that this is. [indiscernable] o land is in this class which is the clerk. where is owen. welcome to our board chamber. we are excited to see you. owen, we appreciate the work your mom does in the chamber. she is a wonderful clerk. we are excited you are visiting us today. thank you. good to see you all.

thank you. now we have a presentation from adrian from the department of emergency management. >> good morning. thank you so much for having me here and for the great audience. i went to cecilia. >> deputy director department of emergency management. i am presenting on item 10. this funding is through the california office of emergency services. it is through the empg grant. emergency management performance grant. that provides agencies with ability to build and sustain core capabilities across everything that emergency managers are requested to do. this is $66,000 that demapplyed for for a pilot program to develop a coordinated strategy

for evacuated people with mobility challenges in multi story buildings. it wrote include a lot of coordination between dm, san francisco fire department, department of disabilities aging and the mayor's office on disability. we are looking forward to doing that coordination across the departments. we will start with exploratory analysis and build into a system of something where people can self-identify and locate themselves so we can coordinate with first responders so they know where people are if there is an emergency and they need assistance evacuating. the initiation of this pilot program ties in with the age and

disability friendly san francisco plan as well as city-wide hazard and climate resiliency plan. it is just the start of a promising initiative for the demthat they are proud to coordinate. we request the committee move to full board with positive recommendation. i am happy to answer any questions. >> chair ronen: thank. you please open for public comment be. >> if you wish to speak in person line up now. these listening call 415-655-0001. press star three for the speaker line. wait until the system indicates you are unmuted to begin your comments. we have no in-person speakers.

no speakers on the telephone line. >> public comment is closed. thanks for coming to visit us. have a good rest of your day. i wrote like to make a motion to refer to the full board with positive recommendations. (roll call) we have three ayes. >> pass pass unanimously. item 11. resolution authorizing designated city and county additionals to execute and file on behalf of the city and county any actions necessary for obtaining financial assistance provided by the california governor's office of emergency services under the grant program, high frequency communications equipment.

$60,000. members of the public who wish to comment on this item call (415)665-0001. when the system indicates you are unmuted begin your comments. >> chair ronen: thank you. i think you are up to present this item. >> good morning again. dem. this is through california office of emergency services program called shares. it is a program that expands communications beyond licensed officials to anyone the city designates. it allows more simnied equipment and minimal training and does

not require individual licensing which is great. the program seeks to enable direct secure communication throughout california and united states. the $60,000 applied for would be used for high frequency equipment and installation and training for auxiliary communication services which is a volunteer group of trained radio operators. it is a critical component of the emergency communications network and offers important redundancy in case any lines of communication go down after a major incident. that was not an earthquake earlier it must have been a truck. it is a great reminder that we need redundancy in our system.

this grant award would fund portable equipment and all of the installation and training required and only $60,000. demintends to complete this project in over a year. weep request this be moved with positive recommendation. >> i don't think we have questions. public comment. >> members of the publickic who wish to speak line up now. remotely call 415-655-0001. 24978419535. pound twice and star 3 to answer the speaker line. we have no in-person speakers in the chamber.

there are none on the telephone line. >> public comment is closed. motion to send to the full board with positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> caller: we have three ayes. pass pass unanimously. item 12. ordinance amending the administrative code to require the city to acquire at least 20 additional dwelling units for use as transitional housing for homeless transitional age youth's no later than march 31, 2023 and to require the department of homelessness

supportive housing to report to the board of supervisors on its progress such acquisition no later than 120 days after effective date of the ordinance affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. call 415-655-0001. >> chair ronen: after public comment i will make a motion to continue this item to the may 25 meeting. mr. clerk, please open public comment. members of the public to speak on the continuance of the item

in person line up now. listening remotely call 415-655-0001. 24978419535. pound twice. when connected star 3 to answer the speaker line. if you are in the queue wait until you are unmuted. that is your queue to comment. no in-person speakers in the chambers. no speaker on the telephone line. >> public comment closed. i will continue to the may 25th budget and finance motion. roll calling vote. >> may 25th meeting of budget and finance committee: safai. >> aye. >> mar. >> aye.

>> ronen. >> aye. >> passes unanimously. >> item 13 through 18 together. resolutions for changes in public health to authorize amendments or modifications of the contract prior to final execution by all parties to not materially increase liabilities of the city and are necessary for the purpose of these contracts. 13 is approving number two to the agreement with alternative family inc. for permanence and stability for children and youth in the foster care system not increase by $14.9 million. not to exceed $24.9 million. to extend five and one-half years for total agreement

july 1, 2018 through december 31, 2027. 24 is to project open hand for those with hiv/aids in san francisco. increase the agreement by approximately $9.4 million. not to exceed $18.8 million. to extend by four years abnine months from june 30, 2022. total term through march 31, 2027. 15. approving amendment 3 to the agreement between homeless children network and department the provide behavioral health service for black african-american individuals and children and families. increase $10.3 million. not to exceed $19.9 million to extend two years and nine months total term of january 1, 2019 through december 31, 2024.

16 is amountment number one to agreement between seneca family of agencies doing business as senca center to provide mental health out patient treatment services increase by $16.5 million. amount not to exceed $57.1 million. to extend by five.five years june 30 of 2022 through decembe. 17. approving agreement between community forward sf inc. for fiscal inter need de area support services for medical respite to increase by $17 million not to exceed $40.2 million to extend two years from june 20 for a total term july 1, 2017 through

june 30, 2024. item 18. resolution approving amendment two to the agreement between regents of university of california for behavioral health services for adults and older adults to increase the agreement by $63.7 million for an amount not to exceed $86.5 million to extend the term by five years from june 30, 2022 for a total agreement term july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2027. members who wish to comment on these items call 415-655-0001. id24978419535. press pound twice. when connected press star 3 to answer the speaker line. when the system indicates you are unmuted that is your queue to comment. madam chair. >> we have michelle from the

department of public health business office to present on all of these items. >> good afternoon. thank you. this is when i wish i could speak as quickly as linda wong. for the six items and i will first one alternative family services. we are requesting second amendment to the contract. non-profit organization to provide behavioral health outpatient services for children and youth in the foster care system and families. one of the services is continuing in this contract in the proposed contract addition they were selected and will continue services in a different contract. resulting from the new r.f.p.

second contract is project open hand. we are asking for approval of third amendment to this contract extend 4.75 years. a program long standing non-profit to support nutritional health with people with hiv/aids through meals and nutrition assessment and getting to zero is focused on eligible h.i.v. positive clients not currently served by project open hand and have them engage. homeless children's network to extend 2.5 years until december 31, 2024 through the term of the existing solicitation. this program provides trauma and behavioral health services to

homeless children and families with a focus on supporting black african-american communities. we were fortunate they agreed were able to expand existing services and enhance them through additional dream keeper initiative funding. you will see that in the contract. that was partially why this increased enough to bring it to the board of supervisors. senca family agencies center is a nonprofit. we are requesting the first amendment to extend by 5.5 years. similarly to add adult alternative family services we did solicitation to some of the services in the prior contract. continuing which is long-term

connection intensive therapeutic foster care and compass programming will continue under a new contract that is the result of solicitation we just completed. it is just continuing services. in fact all of the vendors are continuing the same services. next contract community forward. this community forward contract is pro for providing support services through a partnership for the medical respite and sobering center program also. we request in the second amendment to the increasing the -- extending the term and increase funding required. this vendor expanded during covid and we neglected to take the covid funding out from the out years of this contract so

the cla budget legislative analyst recommendation is to remove the funding corresponding to the funding added for covid. the department is in agreement with the recommendation. if we determine that we somehow need to tip it or find money to continue, we will come back. we are fine with that recommendation. last but not least is contract we have with uc for our city-wide case management program. we are requesting an amendment to extend term through june 30, 2027. which is the solicitation period that is authorized in the contract. amendment does include the programming that was put in place because of covid for the shelter-in-place program.

otherwise it is the same services. that is the new program that shows up in this contract. that is it. i have representatives for all of the contracts if you have any further questions. >> chair ronen: thank you for the extensive explanation. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i think these are all really important items. >> can i call the bla first? >> these are all the behavioral health contracts. i will go through them quickly and happy to answer more questions. item 13 is resolution approving

amendment to an existing agreement with alternative family services. it is in the budget of flu spending through december 20270 page 33 of our report. we reviewed the contract monitoring documents for all of the grant agreements. most resent version of the review from fiscal year 19-20. the department has not completed monitoring for the most recent fiscal year. our recommendations are based on that information which is a couple years old at this point. we do recommend approval of item 13. item 14 is the third amendment to the project open hand. we show budget on page 39 of the report. we recommend approval. item 15. resolution approving amendment

to homeless children's network. monitoring report for 19-20 did show performance issues. we were able to review quarterly report from 2021 for the dream keeper portion of the program did show improvement. we do recommend approval of this item. the item 16. resolution approving amendment to senca family agencies agreement. budget for the extended term on page 50 of the report. as noted, several of the services not funded through the remainder of the term because the authority will be provided under a new contract. item 17 a resolution approving amendment to the community

forward contract. on page 55 of the report. it details the basis for the recommendations reduction $1.4 million to delete funding in the second year of agreement. that is for the program ending in one year. finally, item 18 is a resolution approving amendment to agreement with ucff on page 60 of the report. i will note all reports detail the clients served with each of the grant agreements. we recommend approval of item 18. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai: this is probably one of the most important things we are dealing with. mental health is consistent. supervisor ronan put in a

tremendous amount of time dedicating the last two years of time in office for mental health. i feel like pausing on this is important. sorry for any in depth questions to slow things down. item number 14. alternative family services. i want to make sure i am reading this correctly. this is $14 million contract. for the year fy19-20. they served 92 clientses in total, is that right? >> yes, that would probably be correct. part of the reason is because the services they provide are intensive services.

the services are intensive. >> i want to make sure i am reading it correctly. this is a very large contract. you are dealing with mainly foster youth or children intensely involved foster care. >> yes. >> it sounds like the intensive nature of the money spent is trying to avoid additional costs and problems later on in these children's lives. >> a lot of the children are placed out of the county. it requires a lot of travel. >> this is michelle. $14 million is addition. the annual budget is around

$2.5 million each year. >> the size of the contract now is being increased to almost $25 million? is that right? >> that is correct. >> it seems like this contract is jumping significant amount. can you talk about that. it looks like the staffing 16 f.t.e., 10 mental health, outpatient services, five administrative staff. can you talk about that. it seems like a significant growth for this contract. i want to hear more about that. >> they expanded with both juvenile probation and child welfare trying to develop more foster family homes for that population. they wanted to be able for the

foster care which is foster parents would take more complicated kids. it was two expansion in the foster care program. >> some of the money go to paying the families for having children more in need? yes. >> it sounds like a wonderful program. almost 100% satisfaction from over 35% of the clients that responded to the survey. how long is afs worked with department of public health? >> i am old. i am going to say as long as i have been here which is a long time. i started in the 1980s.

they were around for that. i think they started in the late 1970s. >> the majority of work we do with them is specifically with children in foster care? >> foster care. >> thank you very much. i don't think i have questions on project open hand. i do have a question on item number 16. seneca center. who is the main person to talk about that? one of the things that jumped out at me that was a little bit concerning was the elimination of the in school public school district mental health services. i had personal interaction in my

children's school. it was a wonderful addition. i can tell you there was a dramatic change in when seneca was not on-campus and when they were on-campus. it was predominantly the families they target, that they work with. i see in the bla report it says the program was chosen not to be continued because they didn't think it was good fit to provide services from classroom it says. i imagine you mean in the school setting. these children in most instances and i am not a professional. this is the place they are spending more time in their lives than initial else and free from stressful environment. i can tell you dramatic when seneca was not on the school to

when they were. can you talk a bit about why this program is being eliminated? >> for some agencies. one is that seneca is still serving as a response team. they will have some presence in the schools especially in middle schools right now. they were able to obtain a four year grant for that program, mobile response program. the school district contributed funds. senca will have a presence in san francisco unified. the feedback is very much appreciated. i hope to take that back to them. this program is not for everybody. it is a hard program. you have to have staff that are willing to do it. you can make a combination between teacher and mental health professional.

that professional is in the classroom. for seneca they had a hard time staffing that. they were having a hard time getting people to stay in those positions. there was a lot of construction and improving. it is a hard program. it really does take a special clinician to do it. it was hard for seneca. this is transparent and honest. >> i see is school based services continuing. score might not be continuing in classroom. school-based services are going to continue? >> they have mobile response team at seneca now. the mobile response team is able to come respond in realtime to

the schools in san francisco so there is a fight or something or someone is expressing they want to harm themselves. they can call the seneca mobile response time. it is a 45 minute to an hour response time. they will meet the student and work with the student and family to connect with the appropriate services. >> out of this seneca program paired down there is no assigning a senca staff to a particular site on a long term basis? >> not right now. >> the only one you had was soar. i don't remember in our school, i don't remember the seneca person in class. if the child needed to be sent out of class they were dealing

with them out of class and helping to integrate back to the classroom. they were stable again. >> yes, it is all part of the program. >> i guess what i hear you saying is different from the bla report. it says not that you didn't get it right. not a criticism. you are saying it was hard for them to staff this. finding the right fit and right program versus that you didn't think it was an effective program? >> i think the programs are effective programs. for seneca it was a hard fit. they made a choice to put more energy in concentrating on other programs and also on the mobile

response. >> let me ask this bluntly. do we have any ability to negotiate the services they provide or is this something that is one way in the sense they can say we know longer want to provide this service. this is what we are willing to provide. do we have leverage to say these are the programs we want to continue. we need you to put effort into it. we are willing to continue to fund that. >> we found that to be a hard conversation, quite honestly. it has been hard for community-based organizations to hire and scene staff. we have to respect when they say it is too hard for us to do. we haven't been able to staff those classrooms.

not for lack of trying. we went two years where they said this is not working. we did have that two years back and forth. we had to let it go. >> are there other providers in your network you work with that provide similar services to seneca? >> there are different providers in the classrooms. right now the children's center does it and rams does it. >> in terms of this what is in front of us today you are asking for authorization to amend an existing contract? this is important for me. i am not prepared to support item 16 today. i would ask the chair to continue this item so we can

have further conversations with your department. >> chair ronen: i had similar questions to supervisor safai about the soar program. it feels like dph is taking away investment and resources from the classroom where they are desperately needed. before you answer that there is a beeping from your line that is very distracting. anyway you could address that? >> i don't know what it is. i have no idea what the beeps is. i don't hear it. >> we hear the beeping from your line. >> i don't know what it is.

let's just get through it. >> i have lost it. >> we can hear you perfectly. can you hear us? maybe you can help her out. maybe call in on her phone. that would be helpful.

there is a phone not on mute. [indiscernable] >> let's take a five minute break.

>> is allison able to come back and communicate with us. >> i am here.

>> chair ronen: i agree with supervisor safai. i don't understand how we are cutting an essential program for kids in great need that was classroom based and extremely successful and yet by the same amount of money to the center instead of looking for another provider that is able to provide those services. it is not the same to have a constant presence in the classroom or at the school with the student with very high needs than it is to have a team -- roving team that takes time to get to the school. >> there is a misunderstanding. it wasn't cut. seneca decided that it wasn't a

good fit for them. another agency is in there providing services. grahams or oaks children center. >> that program at any of the schools where it is currently operating is not stopping at all? no pause in the services. that was not clear in the legislative analyst report. was the -- is this contract amendment then the amount money going to seneca reduced according to them cutting this program? >> no, i believe it isn't. it is going to them to support crisis response team. >> is that program growing? >> yes. >> dph has enough money to grow the crisis response team at

seneca and fund a new program with either rams or oaks who is doing soar or were they doing soar additionally to seneca in advance of the change? are they expanding the programming to take over the school that seneca is no longer serving through the soar ma'am. >> yes, that program is not cut. it is intact. there is medi cal funding as well that program is not diminishing. we added crisis response team. we were able to grow that program because we have a grant from the state for four years. school district has the money and we are able to subsidize and

supplement for the mobile response team. >> how many schools have a soar team or program? >> i would have to get that information. i don't have it. it is every school that has a special education children students who are in classrooms for the whole day. [indiscernable] i will get you that information. >> madam chair i would make a suggestion. if we could continue this item specifically item 16. ask them to come back with more detailed information to give the bla more time to dig in. they were not provided that information and maybe as representative of the school district to come and talk between the partnership between

the dph and school district providing these services. >> chair ronen: that is fine with me. is that okay with you, allison? >> that is fine. we are happy to come back and present which classrooms are in which school and who is providing that service. >> chair ronen: could you touch base. we want to make sure this program is downsized in any way, shape or form. >> i am happy to do that. you had approved this contract originally. the comment that the soar program is gone because it is no longer in the amendment. it hasn't been funded since fiscal year 18-19. it is not stopping stopping in 21-22 or 22-23.

we can incorporate that into the follow-up. >> chair ronen: now, i am confused. the original contract had seneca on the soar program. now you are extending that contract. >> we are extending the contract and commenting what changed between when you originally approved this and then the proposed continuing services. there was a small amount of money for the soar programming. that ended in fiscal year 18-19. >> chair ronen: this is is the first time the board has seen the contract since seneca no longer participates in the soar program? >> correct.

>> chair ronen: we can bring it into the presentation. >> we will have a more extensive presentation on this item. >> i have questions on item 18. >> supervisor safai: come back to me. >> chair ronen: in item 18 in looking at the different programs that we fund, u.c.s.f. i am looking at the budget legislative analyst report on page 58. can you explain the short term intensive case management services are. if there is a need for intensive case manager, it is unclear why we would ever be short term. it seems like a contradiction.

intensive case management and building relationship with someone who requires intensive case management i would assume you would need a longer term relationship for it to be more successful. could you explain short term intensive case management. >> i am happy to jump in. i appreciate the question. this is looking at critical case management. the providers are going to the field to provide low sharon hold services building relationships with individuals not consenting to services initially. working with them to transition into our larger system of care. they have a very special expertise in providing low threshold services and working with mental illness and going into different environments, jails, emergency rooms,

hospitals and psychiatric emergency servicesits. >> chair ronen: city-wide is going to provide the services that are a new case management category in mental health sf. is that right? >> city-wide is providing these services for a number of years. in the mental health sf it is critical in there. they will continue to provide services. in some ways it is enhanced with more capacity. >> chair ronen: how many new case managers are going to be hired through this contract extension for this purpose? >> we could get back to you with more details. there are a number of different teams listed here to provide those services. i can speak to the dprt team.

this team in particular provides critical case management for psychiatric emergency services and individuals experiencing homelessness at shelters and short term hotels. i will get back to you what that is. >> chair ronen: there will be an f.t.e. expansion for critical case managers that are described on page 58 in the budget and legislative analyst report under number one as well as number three and number one and number three? >> i will pull up the report and say the services outlined for the community. city-wide community response team. that expansion happened during

covid under the emergency order. our intention is to be able to continue to have authority to continue those services. >> chair ronen: also number 6. the apartments. is that a different program? >> that is a different program. >> i would speak to that. that is focusing on supportive housing and providing services to clients that reside in those buildings. >> chair ronen: you will get back to us with the staffing addition what it is going to be for u.c.s.f. for these different program was the contract extension?

>> chair ronen: what is the wait time right now for an intensive case manager? >> right now it varies. that is what makes the team so important. they are able to have a safe holding environment. we have about 160 client on the wait list. >> what is the average amount of time those clients are on the wait list. >> right now four to six months. >> through increasing the contract by over $20 million is the idea we are going to hire additional case managers to eliminate that wait listing? >> to support that and to expand

the linkage team so we are able to be much more nibble and support those while waiting for service. being able to bridge the gap. >> it would be good to have more detailed information on how many case managers are there now. what will this contract extension increase allow into the future? you don't have those details today? >> no, i don't have those details today. >> supervisor ronen: if we continue this item as well to get a more detailed presentation would that cause any problems for the agency or for dph? >> as long as we can keep it to

the next meeting, it will be okay. we are trying to get everything done to process amendments for extensions to occur to be effective by july 1st. >> chair ronen: i think we are a little ambitious, i agree supervisor safai trying to get through these quickly. we have such an over packed calendar and we are trying to get ready for the budget process. i would say these two items 16 and 18 are too important. we need to understand them fully before we are able to proceed. i will open this item up for public comment. then i plan to make a motion to continue items 16 and 18. we don't be have -- when is the

next meeting? the 18th. we will continue to the 18th. please open for public comment. >> thank you, madam chair. members of public to speak and are joining in person line up now. remotely call 415-655-0001. id24978419535. pound twice. star 3 to enter the speaker line. if you are in the queue wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. that is your queue. no in-person speakers. please unmute our first caller. >> the controller's office i want you to pay attention. this is very, very important to the citizens of san francisco,

the taxpayers. i follow our city, our home, the oversight committee. as you know there are issues with that commission. as you have seen today this item lumping 16, 17, 18 together this nonsense should stop. it is important. we should take each item and give it public comment about 10 minutes. i am the only one now who sees the nonsense happening. we need to take this type of work very seriously.

during the pandemic. this has come again. everybody is traumatized and not getting any help. you are talking about millions of dollars. that is taxpayers money. we are not using it in the right manner. not using it in the right manner, not discussing it in the right manner. not doing needs assessment. what you are doing is word shipping. the chair is asking questions and messing up the entire situation. the next time hopefully i will be able to participate. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. de costa. mr. at kins any more speaker in

the queue? >> there are no further callers in the queue. >> chair ronen: public comment is closed. i would like to send items 13, 14, 15 to the full board with positive recommendation. roll call on that motion. >> on the motion to send items 13-15 to the full board with positive recommendation. vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair ronen. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> thank you. motion to send items 16 and 18 -- sorry continue 16 and 18 to the budget and finance meeting on may 18th. >> on that motion to continue 16 and 18 to the budget and finance committee meeting may 18th. vice chair safai.

>> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair ronen. >> aye. >> we have three ayes. >> for item 17 i would make a motion to amend to reduce is notes to exceed amount of contract by $1,418,177 for a total not to exceed 38,800,000. >> item 17 if amounts as stated. safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair ronen. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> then i would like to make a motion to send item 17 to the full board with recommendations as amended. >> that motion to forward item 17 to the full board with positive recommendation as amended. vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair ronen.

>> aye. >> we have three ayes. >> thank you so much. we look forward to seeing you again next week. please read item 19. ordinance de-appropriating $90,000 previously appropriated to the department of public health for a drop in center and re-appropriating for wellness checks, behavioral health outreach and case management services for people experiencing homelessness in district 5 in fiscal year 21-22. members to comment on this ordinance please call 415-655-0001. id24978419535 and press pound twice. when connected press star 3 to enter speaker line. property will indicate you have raised your hand. that will be your queue to

comment. madam chair. >> we are joined by supervisor preston. >> chair preston: good afternoon. thank you. thanks for having this on your busy agenda today. before you is an ordinance to reappropriate the $90,000 to the defendant of public health for behavioral health outreach for those experiencing homelessness in my district. these funds were previously appropriated for a drop in center at 730 stanyan street for people experiencing homelessness in haight-ashbury. our office secured $210,000 over two years. we had that for this drop in center. it is the former mcdonalds to be developed for affordable housing but currently is vacant. two weeks before the expected launch date the project was blocked by the mayor and

department of homelessness and supportive housing without warning. as a result the funding would revert back to the general fund and not be able to help this vulnerable population if we didn't redefine the terms of use. we were advised it would require this ordinance. i want to comment. it is unfortunate that i need to be here taking the committee's time on this today. this item and you know i listened to your presentations on the tens of millions of dollars at issue. this a $90,000 add back. i would guess the amount of time both in supervisor's time in the controller's office time in hsh time in facilitating community meetings in the many, many hours if we added up the value of all of that to try to secure a basic

drop in center for unhoused people in the haight far exceeds $90,000 here. i cannot begin to express the disappointment in the 11th hour decision to pull the plug to help unhoused people especially use in the haight-ashbury neighborhood to prevent them to contact with bathrooms and hand washing stations and showers and links to resources to help them exits homelessness. that decision was made after the r.f.p. went out. a provider was selected. two weeks before the center was to open in october. instead we have an empty lot in the haight-ashbury daily reminder to residents what

happened when petty politics took precedence over the needs of the community. disappointed. we are where we are. we spent months to get the administration to change the position on this. we held a hearing and made the ask repeatedly that did not lead to a change in decision. we want these funds to assist folks experiencing homelessness. the item re-appropriating the year one funds for this add back. still within the department of public health to provide wellness checks, behavioral health outreach and case management for those experiencing homelessness in district 5 rather than being limited to 730 stanon. this would comeliment existing trams and the homeless outreach time. we appreciate the partnership in

this effort. i will thank her