Skip to main content

tv   BOS Budget and Finance Committee  SFGTV  May 13, 2022 5:00am-7:31am PDT

5:00 am
order. this is the may 11 -- the meeting will come to order. this is the may 11, 2022 budget and finance committee meeting. i'm supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee joined by member mar and will soon be joined by member safai. i would like to thank kaleena
5:01 am
mendoza. for those in attendance to silence all cell phones and refrain from flash photography. the board of supervisors and its committees are hybrid meetings while providing remote access via telephone. the board recognizes that the public access is essential and will be taking public comment as follows. those attending in person will be allowed to speak first and then we'll take those waiting on the telephone line. those watching channel 26, 78, 99, and www.sfgovtv.org, the call in number is streaming across the screen. that number is 1-415-655-0001. again, that's 1-415-655-0001. then enter the meeting i.d. of 2497 841 9535 # #.
5:02 am
when connected you'll hear the meeting discussion. you'll be mews muted. when your item of interest comes up, those in person should line up to speak. those on the telephone should be dial 3. we will take public comment from those attending in person first and then go to public telephone line. you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. e-mail them to myself brent jalipa, the budget and finance committee clerk. if you submit public comment via e-mail, will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file. you may also send your written comments by u.s. postal service to our office and city hall, 1
5:03 am
dr. carlton b. goodlett place, room 244, san francisco, california, and finally, madame chair, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda on may 17th unless otherwise stated. item 1 is ordinance amending the police code to prohibit the city from united states >>ing gas-powered landscaping equipment. the unavailability of needed technology to replace such equipment prohibit the city from contracting for the use of gas-powered landscaping equipment starting january 1, 2024 with waivers for city departments that document to the satisfaction of the purchaser
5:04 am
such waiver. starting january 1, 2026, except such equipment for which the department determines replacement technology is unavailable and penalize property owners and business owners and managers. establish a buy-back and or incentive program to assist owners of such equipment in transitioning away from its use. require that the department conduct a public education campaign and the buy-back program. establish a fund to receive penalties collected for the violation of the ban and other monies to use for purchase of equipment for city departments to replace gas-powered equipment for the buy-back program for safe disposal of the equipment or to fund the department public education campaign and require the departments to report to the board of supervisors by march 31 of each year on progress over the prior calendar year in enforcing the restrictions,
5:05 am
conducting the public education campaign, administering the buy-back program and using the monies in the fund. members of the public wishing to comment on this ordinance, please call, 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2497 841 9535 # #. once connected, press star 3 to enter the system line. when the system indicates you've been unmuted, that is your cue to begin your comments. >> chair ronen: supervisor melgar is continuing to work on amendments and has asked we continue this item to the call of the chair, which i'm happy to do. i will make a motion to continue this motion to the call of the chair after public comment. please open public comment. >> members of the public who wish to comment on this item, please call 1-415-655-0001, the meeting i.d. is 2497 841 9535 #
5:06 am
#. once connected press star 3 to enter the speaker line. for those already in the queue, wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and also inviting in-person attendees if you wish to comment. seeing no persons in the chamber who wish to speak, mr. ikens, do we have any callers in the queue? >> jeff jensen. in opposition to the ban on gas-powered landscaping equipment. we share the city and county of san francisco ultimate goal reduce of emissions, but it needs to mitigate financial product availability and safety concerns. much of the zero emission equipment does not fit the large landscapes, including parks, cemeteries and sports field.
5:07 am
charging issues, durability concerns, safety issues due to the weight of the batteries and the lack of maintenance are just a few of the issues. additionally, due to the current manufacturing supply and delivery issues many pieces of equipment are not available for delivery. due to those concerns and others cited in our comment submitted to the supervisors on may 2nd, we respectfully request that the city and county of san francisco follow the rule making process to ban the manufacturing and sale of off road engines by january 21, 2024, but continues to allow these products to be sold before that day while conducting analysis and establishing a more realistic time frame for following this ordinance. integrating the equipment into the operations and it becomes
5:08 am
more technological feasible and available. we thank you for your time and consideration. thank you so much. >> thank you, jeff jensen for your comments. do we have another caller? >> good morning, david pilpel. i refer to my previous comments on this item. i look forward to the next set of amendments that support supervisor melgar's work on tweaking this proposed ordinance and support the continuance to the call of the chair. thanks for listening. >> thank you, david pilpel. do we have any callers in the queue? >> mr. clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> thank you much. >> chair ronen: public comment is closed. can you take a roll call vote on my motion? >> clerk: thank you, madame chair. on that motion, that this ordinance be continued to the call of the chair, vice chair
5:09 am
safai? >> member safai: aye. >> member mar: aye. >> chair ronen: aye. >> we have three ayes. >> can you call items 2 through 4 together. yes, resolutions acting by and through the department of children, youth and families, item number 2 is to contract for the young community developers black to the future program between the young community developers retroactive approving amendment number 1 to increase the grant amount for $9.3 million, and extending the term agreement to june 30, 2023. to increase the grant agreement amount by 3.1 million for a total not to exceed of $14.6 million and extending the term agreement to june 30, 2024 for a total term of july 31, 2019 through june 30, 2024.
5:10 am
item 3 approving the first amendment to the japanese community youth council, with the japanese community youth council, extending the term by one year for a total term of july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2024 and increasing the grant amount by approximately $3.5 million for an amount not to exceed $8.4 million. item 4 is approving the third agreement to a contract with the japanese youth council for all intermediate program to increase the grant agreements amount by 2.2 million, for a total not to exceed of $10.3 million with no change to the length of term from july 1, 2019 through june 30, 2024. members of the public who are joining us remotely, please call 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2497 841 9535 # #.
5:11 am
once connected to the meeting, you will need to press star 3 then. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand and when the system indicates you've been unmuted, that is your cue to begin your comments. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. i understand we have director sue and dorsey here to present. >> good morning. hopefully, you have received our slide deck? >> chair ronen: not sure if we have. >> we have not. >> oh, no, well, i'm able to -- if i'm able to share. i'm so sorry.
5:12 am
one second. >> chair ronen: mr. clerk, are we able to help ms. dorsey share her screen? >> can you see it? >> yes, we see it. >> perfect, thank you. so, yes, good morning, we're here to present on the three grants today for young community developers, black to the future, japanese community youth councils. so historically, agreements have not exceeded the $10 million amount, however, due to the covid-19 emergency we had to extend our current five-year grant cycle by one year making it six years. and in addition the base funding was added to these contracts. black the future, young community developers retroactive approval for the second amendment extending to term of june 2024 and increasing not to
5:13 am
exceed amount. the black to the future provides employment-based training for residents, serving approximately 165 children and young adults each year. black to the future partners with several african-american-led agencies and other agencies are serving the majority of african-american children, youth and t.a.y. japanese community council s.f.u. works, this is the second amendment to the grant agreement. it increases not to exceed amount. it's a year-round program that places 11th and 12th grade students in city departments. and the program serves approximately 400 student interns per year. for japanese community council o.s.a., this is a third amendment to the grant agreement which extends the term to june 2024 and increases the not to
5:14 am
exceed amount. opportunities for all connects young people in san francisco to paid employment mentorship and job-training services. for community engagement process, j.c.y.c. was identified as the main contractor. the ability to leverage existing programs and funding, such as youth clerk project poll and others, the ability to on board and enroll hundreds of youth. and cover insurance and work with employers. they have a longstanding relationship with youth, community-based organizations and stakeholders. we made privities over the last few years to expand and support partners from diverse communities to work with several of these cbos. that pretty much just gave the list of the purpose of the grants.
5:15 am
and why we are seeking extension and approval. >> chair ronen: thank you. thank you for the quick presentation. we appreciate it. we're trying to move along a little quicker. >> that's fine, that's fine. >> chair ronen: before we have questions, i wanted to ask the b.l.a. to present on these three items? >> thank you, chair ronen. nick menard from the budget & legislative analyst office: item 2, file 22059 is a resolution approving amendment to a grant agreement with between dcyf and young community developers for the black to the future program. it is retroactive which we identified the need from prior reporting. since that time, they have changed their policy to catch contracts that require board approval and reduce the amount
5:16 am
of retroactive approval going forward. we showed the budget for this grant on page 12 of our report. the -- we are recommending a reduction in the not to exceed amount from $14.6 million to $12.5 million. and that is really based on historical under-spending on the grant and will not impact services going forward. and it does provide them a contingency as well to fund future costs. and then we recommend approval of the resolution as amended. item 3, 22060, is a resolution approving an amendment to agreement with japanese youth council for the youth works program. this amendment like all the others extends the existing agreement by one year, through june 2024. we show the budget for the grant on page 18 of our report. and similarly, we recommend a reduction in the not to exceed
5:17 am
amount of 12.9 to $12 million based on historical under-spending. and then finally, item 4, 220061, is a resolution approving amendment to existing agreement between dcyf and the japanese youth council for the opportunities for all program. we show the budget for this grant on page 22 of our report. and i do want to point out a couple of policy considerations on this particular grant. one is that, you know, the original agreement was made in 2019. this was before the board changed the administrative code to require grant agreements go through a competitive process, however, it does stand apart from other dcyf grants that go through a five year planning cycle process. it was sole sourced at the direction of the mayor's office
5:18 am
and during the reporting process we weren't provided any analysis or explanation as to why the grantee was selected. typically, when there is a sole source award there is demonstrated success, so we didn't get that in this case. though i do note that from prior reporting we know this grantee does administer other youth programs in san francisco. the other is that this year's grant budget is $4.5 million and includes $2.5 million of work orders from the office of economic and workforce development. and $850,000 work order are from the department of public health. now, none of this money has been programmed and none of it has been spent, so i do think that's -- it's a wasteful use of money and we don't really have an explanation as to why it hasn't been spent, so i would recommend
5:19 am
that, you know, the committee follow up on that, but -- for those reasons we consider approval of this resolution to be a policy matter for the board. >> chair ronen: thank you. supervisor safai? >> member safai: thank you, chair ronen, thank you b.l.a. i want to say first i've had personal interactions with the black to the future program, my children's elementary school, a very positive program engaging families and having them be more integrated into the overall life of the existing school, having the support that they need and understanding in a culture in a competent way how to understand those families. youth work is a phenomenal program for the city. see a lot of the kids and young people benefit from the opportunity to work in local government, so i understand that. definitely agree with the
5:20 am
b.l.a.'s recommendations to reduce the amount by not to exceed. the one i have questions about is the opportunities for all. i have heard nothing but wonderful things about that program. as stated by the b.l.a., the sole source was done prior to administrative code chapter 21.g that we implemented in 2021, so the sole source could be defended in that way. the thing i would like to ask director sue, we still have not been provided documentation to justify the sole source and why? -- the capacity and the achievement of the contract in similar programs? i think we have one existing that we're approving today, youth works, japanese youth council does that work and that would be one justification, but i'd like to hear from her. i'm not so concerned about the capacity. the thing that i am concerned
5:21 am
about ultimately is money that interdepartmental work orders to the office of economic workforce and development. there is a lot of money sent over to that department from many departments. oftentimes i have questions on why that money is sent there, how that money is accounted for, doesn't seem as though at least from the b.l.a. what the accounting was and what the necessity and request was for that money and the department of public health. so i would like to hear from director sue what the additional 2.5 and $850,000 is for and maybe you can talk about the capacity and then, you know, what you told me earlier about the commitment to put the information out to r.f.p. through the chair. >> through the chair, this is maria sue. thank you so much, supervisor safai, for the question. so first and foremost all three
5:22 am
of these contracts are grants. we are currently providing services to our children, youth and families right now. and i will mention that all three of these grants -- more with the japanese council, j.p.y.c. grant, they're all workforce grants. so the bulk of our workforce programs happen during the summertime, because, of course, young people are in school. so that's why you're seeing there is still a large amount that is still remaining in the grants right now. however, i will tell you that by the end of june all of those funds are depleted primarily because these non-profit agencies are so effective at, number one, recruiting young people into these job opportunities, as well as they have the infrastructure to pay these young people on time and support these young people in
5:23 am
their development of their work experience. so that's why you're seeing such a large amount that's still remaining in these grants. now in terms of performance measures, we have performance measures for all three grants. in particular, your question regarding the opportunities for all grant, actually we -- and when i say we, we the city, but the human rights commission release an annual report every year about the performance of all the young people in this particular -- i apologize, i'm in a public situation right now. >> we can't hear anything but you. >> good. they release an annual report on the young people that said the grantee, as well as other
5:24 am
relevant information to help us -- to help us continually improve on the grants as well as ensure that the grants and the services are directed to the intended young people that we want to serve. i will be more than happy to share with you, the committee, the report, and frankly, we have reports for every single year that o.s.i. has been in existence and i can share with you all of those reports. >> member safai: great -- can you tell -- yeah, the work order. that's the thing that leaves me the most pause. >> the work order. well, so -- >> member safai: without a detailed programming, i mean, from what we've gotten from the b.l.a. is it's $2.5 million from oewd, $850,000 from the department of public health without any programming or design on what that money is used for. do you have that information?
5:25 am
>> work orders from our department into other city departments? or work orders coming into this grant? i'm sorry. >> member safai: maybe -- i think it's work orders coming into this grant from those departments, that's correct. is that correct? yeah. >> right. so in order for us to really fund a robust program, particularly a workforce program that subsidizes all young people's salaries, we do need to ensure there are sufficient funds. funding that comes from those other departments are dedicated to either support building the infrastructure for the workforce experience that these young people will have, or just put into a pool that we can then use to ensure that all the young people get paid. i know for sure that monies from the department of public health is used to really support
5:26 am
workforce experience for young people in the health sector which we know young people particularly are marginalized in our black and brown young people do not have access to. so we wanted to build a direct partnership with the department of public health to ensure that those opportunities are there for those young people. and then, of course, the office of economic and workforce development, their name indicates they do workforce and they are adding their funds into this -- into this grant because they also want to enhance their workforce experience for young people in general in san francisco. and so that's why we are receiving those dollars into this grant. >> member safai: i understand
5:27 am
kind of the general concept, director su, but from our objective, there is no detail what the money is being used for. there is a spike. this money is coming in and there is no detail -- i hear your explanation. you want to have opportunities for people within the health industry and then there's this additional money coming in from workforce development. it might be helpful to have some explanation of what that money might be used for in a more detailed manner. >> chair ronen: is it just extra spots for more kids or is it categorically different work? >> no, it's -- through the chair, it's expansion of slots. we know historically there have been many, many more that want a job opportunity. so through this partnership, we are able to expand those spots. >> member safai: right.
5:28 am
that's fine. i think it would be helpful when we have these reports come, when working with the b.l.a. that information could be provided so we have that information in advance. that makes sense, but to see -- especially when we're kind of zeroing in on this specific, you know, extension without the process, it's helpful to have more information than now there is more money coming in, we'll let you know how it goes. i'm not saying you're saying that, but we can only go with the information we're provided in advance. >> chair ronen: it would be helpful to know, you know, with the $2.5 million extra money from oewd we're able to increase the number of spots by "x" number of young people and it went into "x" jobs over the summer. i mean that kind of -- that would clarify it immediately. i don't know if it's possible to
5:29 am
get that information quickly, but i would agree it would be helpful. >> member safai: i would say, i'm fine with supporting this today, but it would be really helpful to have that information transmitted to the board prior to the vote next week. i think that gives you guys a little more time. sounds like you have the information. you could give us more detailed information on how the additional almost 3.-- $3.2 million will be spent for those additional slots. thank you, madame chair. >> chair ronen: sounds great. supervisor mar? >> member mar: thank you. and actually i wanted to really start by thanking director su and deputy director dorsey smith for all of your work on those programs and so many other innovative and incredibly important programs at dcyf, particularly item 3 and 4, the
5:30 am
youth works and opportunities for all. i think these are incredibly important in supporting our high school-aged youth in career readiness and college readiness as well. i've been working closely with you on similar programs, particularly the early college program. i just had a question about how these different youth workforce programs are coordinated and to the extent that they're sort of a common framework, do they share similar goals? youth works, opportunities or all? there is a longstanding program and we've been working together on early college. there is -- there seems to be a lot of overlap in these programs, but they're all kind of unique and different, too. and so, yeah, i just had a question, is there a common framework for these youth job
5:31 am
and career readiness programs? and are they coordinated? >> thank you the chair, thank you so much for the question. in my very complicated brain, i think about youth workforce and i think supervisor safai has heard this before, i think about -- well, i think about supports for young people as this master super highway. and for me, i know that young people, you know, they're traveling on this highway and sometimes they have to come off the off-ramp and take their exit. you can think of workforce as having multiple on ramps and off-ramps for people. some provide that respite for young people. if you're not ready and you need a little extra time, then you take this particular exit. and we provide a different type of service, but it's still under
5:32 am
the guise of workforce. so, for example, we actually have a career exposure program for our middle schoolers and that's a very light-touch experience for young people. just to kind of get their feet wet into the world of work. and then they can continue down the highway and then they can take the my assessment and what does it feel to work like in non-profit agencies? once they feel successful in that, they can move on to the next opportunity which is youth works which is a more structured opportunity for juniors and seniors where they are working in government offices. so, for example, dcyf has a
5:33 am
couple of youth force students that we integrate into our department and really ask them to function as an additional staff person in our department. so in our minds that's -- in my mind, that's how workforce -- the connection of workforce is. in terms of o.s.a., the opportunities for all initiative, that has a very specific target population focus. it's really focused on supporting our african-americans, pacific islanders and latino population to really have that leg up and experience a workforce. so, director davis at the human rights commission has done an amazing job in also layering those opportunities for young people. she's integrated seminars and work shops.
5:34 am
one week career exposures in private settings. and then also actual job placement in other settings. so it's really targeted for high-need marginalized young people. now when you talk about the coordination of the system, i think, supervisors, you're -- you're asking that very difficult and, you know, $100 million question, which is we need to create a better coordinated system. and i fully agree. and i think that is -- that was the work that dcyf was trying to get to and, of course, the pandemic hit. but now that we're getting out of the pandemic, we're picking up that mantle again to bring our partners together, including office of economic and workforce development, human rights commission, public health, to really sit down and think about how do we ensure that this highway we're building is moving
5:35 am
towards a real outcome like post-secondary opportunities, or permanent and sustained work -- work opportunities for young people. and i would love to continue to work with you and all supervisors on this work. >> member mar: thank you, director su, for that explanation. and yeah, that is helpful in just understanding the logic and sort of the differences between these programs and who their target -- young people that they're trying to reach out to serve. because even as a parent of a teenager myself, you know, it's -- in supporting my daughter to explore these opportunities, it's a little challenge -- it's been challenging, i think for parents and the youth themselves, to get information about the program and figure out which one is the most appropriate. so they end up just applying for everything and whatever they can
5:36 am
get into in the summer, it becomes -- so it sounds like these -- for all three of these items, they're one-year contract extensions and then that alliance with dcyf's plan to issue the next five-year r.f.p. in the coming year. >> that's correct. >> member mar: great. i'm supportive of these. and thanks again for all of your work on it. >> chair ronen: thank you for those great questions, supervisor mar, and for the great explanation, director su. i am ready to support these as well. so i think we should open this item up for public comment. >> thank you, madame chair. members of the public who wish to speak on this item and are joining us in person should line up along the curtains. for those listening remotely, please call 1-415-655-0001 with the meeting i.d. of 2497 841
5:37 am
9535 # #. once connected, press star 3 to enter the speak are line. if you're already in the queue, please continue to wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. we have no in-person speakers here in the chamber. how about the telephone? >> supervisors, i have only one question. during the last two years during the pandemic, i would like the department of youth, dcyf to provide a needs assessment on how they have created innovative models so that our students are
5:38 am
on par with what they had to learn. the investigation i did with our youth in the elementary, middle and high school, very little education during the last two years. that's the city and county of san francisco and the taxpayers who are involved with these grants, can we get a report on the controller office, ben rosenfield, as to why only a few non-profits are getting such huge amounts of money. i've been doing this for 40 years. and i know exactly what's happening. but i said, i have only one question.
5:39 am
what is being done to mitigate for the last two years during the pandemic the learning from our children, elementary and middle school? we have to learn to get to the bottom of this. >> speaker's time is up. apologies for cutting you off. do we have any more speakers on the line? >> mr. clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> chair ronen: public comment is closed. and then i forgot to ask director su if you can accept the b.l.a.'s recommendations for item 2 to reduce the not to
5:40 am
exceed amount? >> we accept that. >> chair ronen: great. item 3, to reduce the not to exceed amount? >> we also agree with that. >> chair ronen: wonderful. thank you so much. and just reminding you all to send the board members the information about additional youth because of the additional $2.5 million for oewd and $800,000 from d.p.h. before the vote at the full board. thank you. >> thank you. >> chair ronen: so, mr. clerk, i would like to make a motion to amend item 2 to reduce the not to exceed from $14.6 million to $12.5 million, can we have a roll call vote?
5:41 am
>> on that motion to reduce the not to exceed amount from 14.6 million to $12.5 million on the resolution, as item number 2, vice chair safai? >> member safai: aye. >> member mar: aye. >> chair ronen: aye. >> we have three ayes. >> can you send that amended item to the full board with positive recommendation. >> on that motion to forward item number 2 to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. >> member safai: aye. >> member mar: aye. >> chair ronen: aye. >> we have three ayes. >> chair ronen: thank you. for item 3 i'd like to make a motion to amend the proposed resolution to dereduce the -- reduce the not to exceed amount. >> on that motion to amend item -- the resolution as item number 3, to reduce the not to exceed amount from $12.9 million to $12
5:42 am
million, vice chair safai? >> member safai: aye. >> member mar: aye. >> member ronen: aye. >> we have three ayes. >> and can i make a motion to send the amended item to full committee with positive recommendations? >> on that motion to forward item number 3 to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended, vice chair safai? >> member safai: aye. >> member mar: aye. >> member ronen: aye. >> we have three ayes. >> chair ronen: and last but not least, item 4, can i make a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendations. >> on that item number 4, to the full board with positive recommendations. >> member safai: aye. >> member mar: aye. >> chair ronen: aye. >> we have three ayes. >> chair ronen: thank you so much, director su and deputy director dorsey. mr. clerk, can you read item 5. >> item 5 is a resolution
5:43 am
retroactive authorizing the department of children, youth and their families to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $286,000 from the united states department of justice, bureau of justice assistance and administered by the california board of state and community corrections for the coronavirus emergency supplemental funding program to support the adult probation department, juvenile probation department, public defenders off thes, police department, district attorneys office and sheriff's office, for the project period of march 31, 2021 through january 31, 2023. members of the public who wish to comment on this item, please call 1-415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 2497 841 9535 # #. once connected, press star 3 to enter the speaker line. the system prompt will indicate
5:44 am
you have raised your hand and when the system indicates you've been unmuted that is your cue to begin your comments. >> chair ronen: i understand jasmine dawson is here to answer questions, but doesn't have a presentation. and ms. dawson, i was wondering if you could explain why this is a retroactive grant -- or acceptance? >> so, thank you, everyone. and i'm here to answer any questions. i don't have a presentation prepared, but i'm here to answer any questions that may come up regarding the grant. >> chair ronen: thank you. ms. dawson, can you just explain why this accept and expend is retroactive? >> it's retroactive, i believe we started off because it was a -- a award that was given us in 2021. it's retroactive because we had to apply first before we could receive it. so we had to go through that process.
5:45 am
which is required by the board of corrections. >> chair ronen: same issue we're always facing. >> member safai: just to clarify, ms. dawson, so you all applied for the grant and then this is from the california board of state and community corrections, they -- are they the ones that choose the start date of the grant? >> yes, they are. >> member safai: so they're the ones that say, even though you're receiving it now, it has to begin from march 31, 2021? >> yes. that's correct. >> member safai: when did you receive the grant? when did you get notice you were awarded the grant? >> we were awarded, i believe it was april, april -- about a month. >> member safai: wait. you were awarded a year ago? >> yes. and it's taken a while when we actually received the -- it's taken a while because there was
5:46 am
a technical corrections that needed to be happening on the board and community corrections side and then we had to go through the process of a resolution. this was an anomaly grant in that they required us to do a resolution process so it took a while. on top of that, the board and state of community corrections also extended all of the grants for another year, so we requested to do a -- we got that. >> member safai: satisfy and the resolution was at the state level? where was the resolution? >> here at the local level. it was a condition of the grant. >> member safai: and is this -- this is the resolution? so the technical adjustments that needed to be made back and forth, it took time to clarify up until now, it took about a year to get this together? >> exactly. >> okay, because we get asked a lot of questions when ge to the full -- go to the full board and
5:47 am
there is one that asks the same question all the time and wants the detail, so we just want to have all the information so we can say on the record, we understand the start date, we understand the technical negotiations, we understand extensions are given. can you just tell us what this grant is for? >> it's for -- it's meant to be a response to coronavirus and supports that were needed at the local level. so there was additional funds from the state. and in many cases, the partners are using it to make purchases for items that are meant to help address coronavirus. so whether that was technical assistance to support folks as they were working remotely, whether this was time that was needed for supports that all of those items were, i think, listed in the actual proposal. and so, it's really meant to be a one-time grant that the state
5:48 am
offered to respond to coronavirus however cities and jurisdictions chose. so we use our justice partners to negotiate what items were needed and what supports were needed to be able to use it and respond quickly. >> member safai: did you all already spend the money and you're reimburing yourself? >> it hasn't come to me yet, but i definitely want to hear from fiscal folks, heidi or lindsay, offer that response. maybe -- but, yeah, know we haven't spent it yet, because we actually have to go through the whole process of getting the resolution passed before we're able to do the spenddown of the grants. >> member safai: thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. can we now open this up for public comment. >> yes, members of the public who wish to speak on the item
5:49 am
who are joining us in person, line up to speak now. for those watching are remotely, call 1-415-655-0001. enter the 2497 841 9535 # #. wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. we have no in-person speakers in the chamber. do we have any on the line? >> mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you much. >> chair ronen: there is no one on the line? okay. public comment is closed. vice chair safai? >> member safai: yes, i make a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendations. >> on that motion offered by vice chair safai to forward this resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation, vice chair safai?
5:50 am
>> member safai: aye. >> member mar: aye. >> chair ronen: aye. we have three ayes. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. thank you, ms. dawson. >> thank you. mr. clerk, can you read item number 6? >> echo. yes, item 6, ordinance retroactively authorizing the office of the district attorney to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $1.35 million from the state of california board of state and community corrections to fund the county resentencing pilot program and amending ordinance number 109-21, the annual salary ordinance for fiscal years 2021-202 and 2022 to 2023. to provide for the addition of one grant funded position. and one grant funded position in class 8173 legal assistant in the office of data for the period of september 1, 2021 through september 1, 2024.
5:51 am
members of the public who are joining us remotely and wish to comment on the item, please call 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2497 841 9535 # #. once in the meeting, press star 3 to enter the speaker line. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. when the system indicates you've been unmuted, that is your cue to begin your comments. >> chair ronen: thank you. good morning, district attorney. thanks for being here. >> good morning. >> chair ronen: do you have a presentation or explanation of the grant? >> yes, very brief one. my colleague sheila is also present from our office. i just wanted to acknowledge her as well. the county resentencing pilot program was made possible through the 2021-2022 california state budget process. last year's budget appropriated $18 million in general funds to nine california counties,
5:52 am
including san francisco, to engage in prosecutor initiated resentencing. the funds are to be used exclusively for the three-year pilot program. the s. fda has not gone to use the funds yet, but has begun to participate with the other eight counties. >> 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.
5:53 am
>> 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
5:54 am
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 # #.
5:55 am
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.
5:56 am
>> 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
5:57 am
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
5:58 am
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
5:59 am
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]
6:00 am
>> sf live campaign has closed. we will work within the industry
6:01 am
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
6:02 am
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
6:03 am
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
6:04 am
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.
6:05 am
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
6:06 am
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.
6:07 am
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.
6:08 am
>> 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
6:09 am
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
6:10 am
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
6:11 am
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.
6:12 am
>> 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
6:13 am
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.
6:14 am
>> 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
6:15 am
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.
6:16 am
>> 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
6:17 am
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
6:18 am
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.
6:19 am
>> 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
6:20 am
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
6:21 am
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.
6:22 am
[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.
6:23 am
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
6:24 am
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
6:25 am
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.
6:26 am
>> 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.
6:27 am
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
6:28 am
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.
6:29 am
>> 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.
6:30 am
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.
6:31 am
>> 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.
6:32 am
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
6:33 am
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
6:34 am
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.
6:35 am
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.
6:36 am
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.
6:37 am
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
6:38 am
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.
6:39 am
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
6:40 am
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
6:41 am
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
6:42 am
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
6:43 am
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
6:44 am
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
6:45 am
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.
6:46 am
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
6:47 am
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
6:48 am
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.
6:49 am
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
6:50 am
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
6:51 am
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
6:52 am
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.
6:53 am
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
6:54 am
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
6:55 am
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
6:56 am
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.
6:57 am
>> 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
6:58 am
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?
6:59 am
maybe you can help her out. maybe call in on her phone. that would be helpful. there is a phone not on mute.
7:00 am
[indiscernable] >> let's take >> 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
7:01 am
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
7:02 am
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
7:03 am
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
7:04 am
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?
7:05 am
>> 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
7:06 am
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.
7:07 am
>> 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
7:08 am
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.
7:09 am
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.
7:10 am
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.
7:11 am
>> 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?
7:12 am
>> 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.
7:13 am
>> 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
7:14 am
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.
7:15 am
>> 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.
7:16 am
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
7:17 am
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,
7:18 am
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
7:19 am
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.
7:20 am
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
7:21 am
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
7:22 am
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
7:23 am
$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
7:24 am
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 for her efforts and i think our controller for
7:25 am
the work putting this together. looking forward to getting the funds out assisting the people who need help without further delay. thank you very much. >> chair ronen: any questions? public comment. >> members of the public who wish to speak line up now. listening remotely call 415-655-0001. meeting id 24978419535. pound twice. once connected press star 3 for the speaker line. if you are in the queue indicate until you are unmuted. that is your key to begin your comments. there are no in-person speakers. unmute the first caller. >> supervisor from district 5.
7:26 am
caring for his constituents. at one time we had supervisors who got presented the entire city before this district supervisors appointed. we are wasting time not representing constituent see. controller, you know. we had a city attorney. now he is the fox guarding the chicken coupe at sfuc. >> no account ability. you should be ashamed of yourselves. people are suffering. they are being evicted.
7:27 am
children are suffering. they have no food. single mothers are traumatized. you are like wind sickles. [indiscernable] shame on you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> members of the finance committee i urge you to please approve supervisor peskin's request for funds for the drop in center. we recognize we are a decade.
7:28 am
spread out our resource centers throughout the city. do not continue to make the same mistake we made in previous years. rather than just $90,000 which is what supervisor peskin asked for, i would encourage you to approve more than $90,000 for this important project. thank you so much. >> thank you for your comments. is that our last caller? >> there are no further callers in the queue. >> chair ronen: public comment is closed. i will make a motion to send this item to full board with positive recommendation and thanks for joining us, supervisor peskin and your advocacy for your district.
7:29 am
>> motion to forward vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair ronen. >> aye. >> we have three ayes. >> thank you. >> are there any other item on the agenda today? >> that concludes the business for the budget and finance committee. >> chair ronen: we are going to start the budget and appropriations meeting at 145 and that we plan to continue item two because the department couldn't be here today. warnings in case anyone is waiting for those items. see you at 1:45 p.m. this meeting is adjourned.
7:30 am
>> thank you all for joining us here i'm thrilled you are all here. for those of you that minot know i'm jose cisneros the treasurer of the city and county of san francisco. >> it is great to see all of you. we had a wonderful event where the governor of the state of california the state treasurer and mayor joined us together it have