Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Replay Budget Finance Committee 12215 20151203

Some of the solutions in the option 3 we have sufficiently balanced the interests were not suggesting that officers should never be able to view the video and not suggesting we distrust them im mindful of some of the documents i did of these olden to me in one of the comments the officers made i troubled me i want to go back some of the reports do indicate drove are harm caused by distrust starting with the policy we distrust your Police Officers one of the pieces from the experts there is a detrimental that blocking the information bound to send offers a message of distrust i want to say tonight this decision around option 3 not to send a motioning message of distrust but identify this is an investigations investigations are fluid and need to have safeguards in place colleagues, any followup before i entertain a commission. Commissioner dejesus. The audit is a critical part in investigation 3 it is new and should have a timeframe for that audit 6 months or 8 months or a year a timeframe that is concrete and an audit done to see the indications or the policy in practice so leaving it fluid is disconcerting i dont know that is something that goes into the policy but an admissible policy 6 months from when it is finalized to bring that back to the commission to look i think well have to have the evaluation to look like whether an Academic Institution one thing i think weve observed there is 5 studies done outside the United States of Body Worn Cameras and the intentions i think there is an opportunity for this department to partner within Academic Institution and do some of the stooufd in San Francisco of the issues schedule that for a conversation but agree to bring that back after the policy is implemented after 6 months any other comments colleagues. So my i will cleaner a motion oh, commission wong. I want rely what commissioner president loftus said the comment of officer john evans made a strong statement in not a about a trust issue i think that at the end of the day this will strengthen the officers lead investigates and given the chief of police this discretion will allow for the discretion and for the publics trust, in fact, had a the officer did at that moment at that time those involved in ois investigations weve seen cases the officer says something that was his prospective and not what actually happens not because the officer is lying a got you or intentionally lying that prospective at that moments precisely because of the tunnel vision is the moment but the substantive belief we need to capture the officer was generously in fear of his or her life i believe that this is going to create a stronger investigation and increase the Public Confidence in our police force so i do want to say to all the officers that testified in no way on any issue here reflect any level of distrust of our police force and colleagues so the language i wanted to suggest i think weve talked about around f one would be to have it read for the above allowed circumstances the member shall not view the Body Worn Camera or reporting subject to the discretion of the chief of police or his or her diego scratching anti from airbnb or the lead criminal investigator on scene and pick up on the listed incidents neither reporting suspect but the chief of police or his or her diego instead of the lady investigator shall have the transparency and true findings to show you. The witnesses and or do i have a motion good evening chief welcome. Do i have a motion to approve option 3 with thoamendms commissioner turman. Thank you commissioner president loftus based on the investigations and restatements to version 3 and with the full analysis this is a measure we need to take in order to incur the public trust and the protection of officers and the public i move we adopt version 3 with the changes as so read by you moments ago. Dont i have a second and 4 seconds wow. Any discussions . Okay sergeant kill shaw please call roll do you need clarification. Im going to call for a second again do we have a second. Second. Thank you, commissioner. On the motion to do you want me to read the whole paragraph the motion that the paragraph reads for the above listed circumstances the members will not view the Body Worn Camera subject to the chief of police or his or her diego theyre at outset neither the reporting officers more the suspects or officers the chief of police or his or her designee should have the fairness the true finding to show all the parts or Body Worn Camera to the witnesses or part of the investigation commissioner president loftus how do you vote. Commissioner turman yes. Commissioner marshall i would say yes. Commissioner dejesus how do i vote on the motion. Pass. Commissioner mazzucco how she passed. Commissioner mazzucco how do you vote on the motion. Yes. And commission wong yes. And commissioner melara how do you vote well go, go back. No. The is have it. Okay may i have make a statement i really want to thank the commissioners will you hold up that binder for those first time i get people come in and say you guys dont say anything you guys all those things read so ive got to thank you it took a long time to get here we crafted a policy from scratch wonderful commission. Commissioner melara. Are were going to vote on this policy. Yeah. That was the language on the full policy do we need another vote or allinclusive. I thought youre motion probation officer vote on the changes. So one thing were thank god to just so everything is clear a pro is that will come back with the department of Human Resources i want to say that a lot of this process has been about not choosing sides that was one of the Police Officers said there is too Much Division lets move Forward Together im incredibly grateful if theres a part of policy you dont take youre ball and go home but i want to thank you for everything youve done. Sergeant, next item. Public comment on all matters pertain to closed session including the Public Comment to hold item 7 in closed session. So is there any Public Comment on all matters pertaining to item 7. Good evening. Thank you. Thats okay. I had a question if the cleaving will be going into the closed session with you. Not a q and a just yourself comments. Well, i mean where you choose do answer the question for the records im concerned this is regulatory when the agency being regulated is sitting and participating you know on the panel with the people that are supposed to be doing the regulation especially it is something the public is not able to witness what is twong it is important you mediated by yourselves and not the Police Meeting with you in closed session and after tonights meeting process that needs to be open to the public the public has a right to know what is being done with their tax dollars im disturbed this may be closed off to the public and ask for clarification on that and obviously again, if you choose to answer is up to you folks finally thank you to commissioner dejesus for her vote and tough being the loan voice of the demanding accountability but this is important i hope the rest of you will think about that he and youre conscious and communities and take a cue in doing stronger accountability. Thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment on this matter hearing none Public Comment is closed. Vote on whether to assert the Attorney Client with the San Francisco administrative code action. Do i have a motion so moved all in favor, say i. I. Opposed . That motion carries sergeant were in close were in closed commission were back under open session and back on the record you still we have quorum. Thank you please call the next item. Vote to disclose any or all items for the San Francisco administrative code action. Colleagues a motion not to that motion carries sergeant, next item. Item 9 adjournment action item. Do i have a motion. I move all in favor, say i. I. Opposed . Were adjourned id like to thank the staff the Police Commission our District Attorneys Office for all of everything i do everyday and other on these meeting for wednesday, december, 2, 2015, my mame is mark farrell and i will be chairing this committee and i amed joined by tang and supervisor eric mar, and i want to thank the members of sgtv, do we have any announcements silence all cell phones and Electronic Devices files should be submitted to the clerk, items acted upon tonight will be appear on the december, 8, 2015, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. All right. So, those members of the public that be here we have a relatively long agenda today. I will say up front that we are going to make sure that all of the jail item goes last today. So we make sure that we get everyone through so everyone is aware in terms of timing, mr. Clerk, could you call item one . Authorizing San Francisco department of health to accept the grant for 518 from Gilead Science incorporated. We have bph here to speak. Good morning, my name is kate cline and i am the director of hiv and immigrated services which is a program of the department of Public Health, jail House Services division. I am here to provide information and answer any questions that you might have, i also have with me, mel who is the medical dreker of jail House Services and andy, who runs the hep c clinic at ward 86. We have been awarded 517,000 by Gilead Sciences to treat prisoners in the San Francisco county jail for hepatitis c. The project which we are calling chip, curing hiv and incarcerated patients is a one year, pilot demonstration, project that will be conducted in two urban jails in the San Francisco county jail and in the santa clara. The Pilot Project will be funded by gilead investigator, sponsored research, you it, and it is intended to treat, 100 hep c, positive prisoners in the county jail. The purpose of this project is to assess the feasibility of initiating treatment with county jail prisoners while they are in custody and the jail setting. This is a group of people who are of high risk for hepatitis c and frequently have less access to this very costly treatment. This grant will allow us to start treatment, with hep c positive clients. And in San Francisco, the average length of stay is 24 days. This will allow us to start people and to test people to start them on the hep c and drug and, upon release, we are funded to offer service and we have two navigater whose will move people when they were released from custody to provide support so that people can complete the 8 to 12 week treatment, the drug we are using is havvoni and it is an fda approved drug and 98 percent effective in curing hepatitis c. It is a real life changer. Jail settings offer an opportunity to screen for hcv to initiate treatment, and to link patients to community, hcv treatment to complete the treatment. Should you have further questions, i would like to direct you to our medical representatives as well. Okay, thank you very much. I dont see any questions and thank you for your presentation, so far no budget analyst, moving on po Public Comment, seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you. I think this is a good service to provide, and so i would like to make a motion to send forward this resolution with a positive recommendation to the full board. Motioned by tang and he coulded by mar and take that without objection. Could you call item two. Resolution authorizing the Fire Department to accept and expend staffing for adequate, fire and Emergency Response grant in the am of 8 million from the federal Emergency Management agency to hire, 36 new firefighters. Thank you, welcome. Good morning. Joanne white, San Francisco Fire Department and we are here on the good bit of news today. We are respectfully requesting your approval for the item before you, which is an accept and expend of a fiscal year, 14 staffing for adequate fire and Emergency Response called the safer grant. Came from fema in the amount of 8 million, for the hiring of firefighters. We are actually pleased to bring this before you today. We had applied for this grant over the course of the last five years, we were persist ant in this case, it paid off. This grant will cover the salary and benefit cost of 36 new firefighters. That we will be hiring in january of 16, including the Academy Training cost. With this award, our department will be able to add an additional h2, Firefighter Academy to the current hiring plan, approved by the Mayors Office with the department, now schedule to conduct, five firefighter academies over the current fiscal years. This will result in the potential hiring of approximately 270 new members over that twoyear period. The grant will also increase the hiring plan to 7 academies over the next three years. And nine over the next five fiscal years. The new hires will assist the department in preparing for a large anticipated wave of retirements over the next three years and as well as reduce the department uses of over time to not be able to fund the academy during the economic down tourn, there is no matching requirement for this grant and the personnel cost for the 36 new employees will be 100 percent covered by the grant for the 2year, performance period, after which the department will absorb the 36 members into the operation and staffing. The academy for these safer funded new hires is anticipated to begin on january, 25, 2016. And happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you, chief. Any questions . Seeing none we will move on to Public Comment for item two. Does anybody wish to comment on this . Seeing none, closed. Could i have a motion to send to forward. Motioned by mar and seconded by tang and we can take that without objection. Could you call item three. Ordinance retroactively authorizing the office of economic and Workforce Development to accept and expend a grant in the amount of 1 million from the California Department of education through the city college of San Francisco for the California Career Pathways trust grant. Thank you. We have michael carr here to speak on this item. Good morning and thank you, farrell and mar and tang. This is a wonderful opportunity to present or to receive this grant. The goal of the ccpt grant which is the california, Career Pathways trust grant to build a robust, partnership between, employers and schools and Community Colleges to better prepare the students for the 20th century workplace and to improve the transition into the training employment. San francisco applied as a coalition, which required three partners, and of those three partners was city college of San Francisco, the San Francisco unified school district. And oewd. We received city college received a grant in the total amount of 6 million and is subcontracting to oewd to serve as the Business Partner and so the amount that we are receiving is 1 million. And 56,000 for the fiscal year of 1516 and year, 1617. This is a Great Partnership and i know that you have a long meeting today i will cut my presentation short and answer any questions if you have them at this time. Thank you, mr. Car. By the way i want to welcome you, this is the first time appearing as the new head of the Workforce Development in the city. Welcome. Thank you. Colleges questions . I just like to be added as a cosponsor next to tang for being the lead sponsor on this thank you so much. Thank you for your support sir. Thank you. With that we will move on to Public Comment, anybody wish to comment on item three . Okay, seeing none, closed. Colleagues could i have a motion to move this forward. So moved. We can take that without objection. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, could you call item, 4 through 20 together . 4, resolution, approving amendment number one to the department of Public Health contract for the services with alternative Family Services to extend the contract by two years. Five, resolution approving amendment number one to the department of Public Health to extend to two years, and amendment number one to the contract and services with central city, house to extend by two years. 7, approving amendment to the department of Public Health contract with Community Awareness and Treatment Services to exat the pointed the contract by two years, 8, resolution, to amend the number two, with the con ard house to extend by two years, 9, approving amendment two, for the Health Services with edge wood center for children and families. And extend by two years. Ten, resolution, approving amendment number one to the department of Public Health to extend by two years. Eleven, resolution approving amendment number two to extend the contract by two years. 12, resolution approving number one, to the department of Public Health contract with hyde Street Community street services, tend the contract by two years. 13, resolution, approving number two, with the familiar de laraza to extend two years, and 14, approve, with the Progress Foundation to extend the contract by two years. Amendment, to approving amendment three, for the reintelligents of university of california San Francisco to extend by two years. 16, resolution approving number two to the department of Public Health contract with behavior Health Services with the university of california San Francisco, to the single point Responsibility Program to extend the contract by two years. 17, number two, to the department of Public Health contract and with incorporated to extend by two years. 18, resolution to approve, with the richmond, services to extend by two years. 19, approving amendment number two, with seneca center, to extend by two years. 20, approval to extent by two years. Okay, thank you mr. Clerk, we have dphhere to speak thanks for coming. Thank you, supervisors. And it is michelle and i over see the Business Office which receives the contract processing and certification for the department of Public Health and so we are here today to request the extension of these contracts, to allow to us align our community, based services with the integrated Service Network which is called the San Francisco, Health Network and this is in response to the realignment of our services for at fordable care act and then more recently, in august of 2015, we have an approved demonstration, wave, which is going to impact and change and add new services in our substance abuse, delivery system. So and also, the twoyear, window will allow to us roll out multiple rpfs instead of doing one mega, which we tried once before to not repeat. So, that is why we are requesting the extension, these are all long Standing Health agencies that i am sure that you know and we have been here before with them. And they are on, listed on page, 4. And it is the full list. And mostly they are not, big changes. But i will go over the ones that are changing but i do need to note for the record, there is a footnote, indicating ta we are going to be can you be mitting, revised resolutions. And there are typos really, and some changes, all of the changes are reflected here so you are seeing, what is final. But the changes will be on to 7 of them. And central, City Hospitality house, conard house, health write, 360, Progress Foundation, the regents of the university of california at San Francisco, city wide. That is the first one and then, richmond, area, multiservices childrens and adults contract. So, on the next page, is a summary, mostly the contracts are not changing what the increases are doing is the cost of doing business, increases over time, but the ones that have the larger increases, alternative Family Services, that is placements for foster care, kids and group homes. And hsa does the referrals of the foster care youth and dph, provides the services and so the increase is to insure that we are able to provide all of the mental Health Services that are needed as well as there was a new state law, lawsuit, and it resulted in a requirement to do 100 percent accessments of all foster care, youth place sxment so previously we had done, around 40 percent and so that funding covers that increase. So for edge wood you can see the substantial increase in the state grnt that was funded by the services act funding for youth crisis, stabilization, and a mobile crisis team. The regents of california, the spr program, single point of Responsibility Program, we expanded it like we have with all of our intensive, Case Management programs and that was funded with mental Health Services and the funding as well as, medical. And then, the Childrens Program is implementation of the Wellness Center that spreads across the public, high school that is spending is increased to cover the services that rams provide. And then finally, the Adult Program received an increase for services that are related to the Health Services act that the rfp that those funding has rolled out. But that is the bulk of the changes. I know combined a lot of contracts and i am happy to answer any questions. There werent, we did a lot of prework to get the dollars to be in the right place before they got to the budget analyst. So they approved with no other changes beser besides the resolution changes we are making thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Colleagues any questions right now . Mr. Rose could besinger we go to your report, please . Yes, mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, on page 3 of our report, the total amount nottoexceed amount of the 17 contracts is 651 million. Dph is requesting a total increase to 22589, for a contract nottoexceed of 876 million. And that is shown in the table on page 4 of our report. We can recommend that you do approve this legislation. Thank you there rose. Colleagues any questions . Or for the department . Okay, we will move on to Public Comment. Anybody wish to comment on 4 through 20. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Could i have a motion to moss these forward. I believe that there is a request for an amendment to some of the items. If i could get a list of those. From dph, you want, sorry. There some amendments. Right. Do we have those in front of us. No. The amendments that we will bring them to you. Yeah. I believe that they are clerical in nature. But i want to be sure that before we vote we need to have them in front of us. Or you can read them into the record if they are minor. The numbers that are in the report reflect what is in the revised resolution, so this is the correct numbers. The have the hand penciled changes do you want me to read those . Sorry. I am going to turn to the City Attorney here. I want to make sure that we are not vote og blank amendments. Why dont you go to the next item and i will talk with dph and figure out how to do this. Okay. Sounds good. All right could you call 21. Item 21, resolution, retroactively approving lease with the United States government for office space to be occupied by the United States Drug Enforcement at terminal three, at the airport for five years, to commence, for a lease amount of 431,763. Okay. We have cathy here from the airport. Good morning. Cathy with the San Francisco international airport. And the airport is seeking your approval for a new lease with the United States of america, for space to be used by the Drug Enforcement agency. The please will take up 6,000 square feet in the terminal three it has a term of five years and annual rent of 404,000 as well as 27,000 in operating costs. The proposed lease is essentially the same terms as previously leases with the dea that are approved by the board of supervisors and the last one is a five year term in 2010, this new lease does have a slight increase in rent and going from the previous annual rent of 341,000 a year, to the current proposed 432,000. This lease was not awarded through a competitive bid process. As the dea is another Governmental Agency that is required to have a presence at the airport. It has been granted a full source waiver and recommend approval and i would be happy to answer questions. Thank you. Seeing no questions, we will move on to the budget Analyst Report. Could we do that mr. Rose . Yes, mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this resolution, as approved in the lease with the dea and on page 9 of our report we state that it is shown in table three, the total amount annual payment to be made by the dea to the airport is 431,757 and that consists of 404,442 for annual rent. 27,315 in operating cost and dea is to pay the airport, 2 million, 158, 785 in total rent and operating costs in the proposed new five year lease, we recommend that you approve this resolution. Thank you. Colleagues any questions . Seeing none we will move on to Public Comment, anybody wish to comment on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Could i have a motion to move this forward. So moved. We can take that without objection could you call item 22 . Item number 22, resolution approving the term of the 2011 lease and use agreement between capania panamena de aviacion with the city and county of San Francisco with the rent of 839,000 for the exclusive use space plus the use space to rent and the lease and terms and commence, following the board approval through june, 30. 2021. Item, 25, item 26, amendment number one of the terminal, two, coffe and bakery, item, 27, resolution to approve, the quick serve lease. Item 28 a proving number one of the terminal quick serve lease with andale management group. And item 29 to approve, number one with the bj annex and item, 30, with hbf, sotojv. Item, 31, Cocktail Lounge lease. 32 approving amendment number one, with the electronics and technology lease, with edge, 1. And item 33, resolution, approving amendment number one of the terminal two and three spa lease with xpresspa San Francisco international. Item 34, resolution approving amendment number one to the terminal two, news stand coffee and Specialty Stores lease with Host International incorporated. Okay, thank you very much, mr. Clerk, welcome back again. Can you, cathy with the San Francisco international airport. Thank you for calling all 12 items together as the amendment to each of the 12 lease iss essentially the same, exact thing, addressing an incorrect some incorrect language in the original lease term for all 12 of these leases in our terminal two. When the leases were written, it was set as 20 months making the proper application of the rent instruct you are of the mag verses the gross revenue, whichever is greater, extremely complicated. This year is one of many defined terms in the lease and the new definition was created for the terminal two, leases before you. For the calculation of the rent and as i mentioned all of them have a minimum annual guarantee, or the percentage of rent, whichever is greater and which is applied on a lease year basis, and so the rent structure, and the amendment that is before you, resets the rent, structure and starts a new, lease term, at the beginning of each, defined, lease year. Will be adjusted with the Consumer Index and with the new lease year. The new lease year definition was created to ease the efforts by having all mags adjust on january first, the new language, just alines all of the timing of the mag adjustments at the same period, and it is directed in nature and does not have a Financial Impact or the city or the airport and so there are no budget analyst amendments but i am happy to answer questions. Seeing none, we will move on to Public Comment. Anybody wish to comment on 23, 34 . Seeing none, comment public is closed. Motioned by tang and seconded by mar and we can take that without objection. Could you call item 35 . Resolution, approving the coordination, agreement, between the city of San Francisco, and the bay area, motive, and the other participating cities. The city of berkeley, emeriville and the city of oakland and the san jose, for the term of ten years. All right, thank you we have mta to speak on this. Good morning, and chair and members, my name is heath and i am the planner and the manager for the sfmta i will give the remarks and turn it over to emily, who is the manager, which will be the owner and operator of the system. The document that we are asking you to approve today, is called the coordination agreement, for the bay area, Bike Share Program. It is one of two agreements that are necessary for the exproposed expansion from the 700 bikes to 7,000, bikes and so a ten fold, expansion. And 4500 of those will be located in San Francisco. There is another agreement, which is necessary for the Bike Share Program expansion and it is called the program agreement. And the city of San Francisco is not a party to this agreement. And it is being, executed between, the metropolitan Transportation Commission but it is included as a an attachment. And the main contract. We have had a Pilot Program for twoplus, years and the model for expansion, and the Financial Model is going to be very different, the existing pilot, and the system is owned by the Public Sector and by the bay area, and Quality Management district, and they have contracted on the participating agencies to procure, deploy and operate the system on our behalf, but for the expansion the model is very different. Basically, we are permitting mad voit and they are funding it at their own expense and the expense of a sponsor, which they need to secure. Without the use of public funds and it is similar to the system that the city bike system in new york city. So in terms of timing, if the approvals are complete, this year, as we anticipate they will be, and the sponsor is found early next year, then, there should be expansion and the bikes are starting to hit the street within a year and so next fall and then the expansion, it is because of its size will take approximately, two years to roll out, in four or five phases. I will hand it over to emily and if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer. Thank you very much. Good morning, chair farrell and members of the committee. I am happy to walk through a few more details for the expanded bay area, Bike Share Program. As heath mentioned we will be expanding the system from the current, 700 bikes to 7,000 bikes. And after, the approval here in San Francisco, and the other city participating in the program, in san jose, and emery, and oakland, we will be prosiding this program, again, at no cost to the city with no public funding based on sponsor ship and operating increasing Public Health and the transit across the bay area. And our operation will also be bringing new jobs to the larger bay area, and including San Francisco, san jose and the east bay. Further bike share, reduces con geks and the impact on the environmental and Health Benefit and supports vision zero. We are working with the professional Engineering Firm to identify the locations that make sense for the bike share, in terms of the existing bicycle infrastructure and is also, the, residential and commercial, densities. We go through the public out reach to validate the firm in what will work best for the community in doing this we will be hosting multiple public out reach sessions so that the members of the public can review the plans and comment on the plans and influence the final decision about where the bike share is located. Members of the community can comment on the website. And looking on suggested stations and making their voice heard today by clicking on locations that they would like to see the bike share. With that, if there are any questions . From the committee, i am happy to answer and heath is available as well. Thanks. If there was a power point, meant to be disply, we did not display it on tv, we have copies, if you wish to view it. Supervisor mar . I want to thank stapleton for coming here to really develop our program, ten fold in San Francisco, and regionally, and i would want to thank, swartz as well and mr. Maddox and the mta and i did have a question about the 20 percent of the bike expansion, to local communities that are concerned in the low income and heavily polluted communities that have sometimes really more difficult access to transit. And connecting up to the Transit Systems but could you talk about that requirement in the expansion . Absolutely. 20 percent of the stations located here in San Francisco, will be located in communities that are concerned, and we will touch all 7 communities and we have a program for affordable of the program that offers a low cost, membership at a rate of 5 a month and 60 over the course of the year. That numbers are eligible for, if they are eligible for the life line program, through the utility and the muni care program and we think that it is really important to connect all corners of the city and make sure that it is for everyone and the low cost, membership will enhance the program and make it an asset to San Francisco. And i know that the corporate sponsors are the process now and i wanted to thank, supervisor campos and weiner for taking this on and caren from the air Quality Management district for the several years and i think that i was riding on the first day or the first week. Dy want to say that San Francisco is getting light ons share of this expansion, with 4172 more bikes and my hope is that there are strong engagement not with the website, but talking to the institutions like the university of San Francisco and others, that probably want to partner, as we look at communities of concern, like the inner richmond, which is one of them but most of them are on the east side. But i also wanted to say too, that the registration, and annual fee will go up but i am please that had there is consideration for subsidizing the lower, income, and others and so thank you for putting this together and i am supported and i want to be added as a cosponsor as well. Thank you. I want to make sure that the huds that are you going into these communities of concern are really as dust as possible that it is not just a couple of bikes and that is all that we are going to do and could you speak a little bit to that . And what you are thinking . Absolutely. As i mentioned one of the important things is the density of the network and we are aiming for a density of 18 stations per square mile and so as we expand into the new neighborhoods we want to make sure that the density is uniform. And so that the utility of the program is there so if you arrive, and the station is full there is an alternative that is a short ride and a short walk away. We fully understand, that this program is most useful, when the availability of bikes and docs are at a level where the people can rely on this service as the option and also. The density is important and just to reiterate to your point, we will be doing, not only a website but also, in person, meetings, and town halls in the communities so that we get the direct feedback about the most suitable locations through these residents. Thank you, one of the big concerns that i had was making sure that this was rolled out, and especially the expansion and these communities, of concern and any culturally competent way and so i am wondering if you can talk to that and speak to that. How is it that we are going to be reaching out to these communities and these communities of concern . You have a lot of mono speakers and how are we going to reach out to them . And also there may be folks, in fact some of the ones that you want to see them use aavailable themselves of the program that may not have a credit card. How can they access the bikes, or the program if they dont have that . Right. We will have the out reach for the print and the Public Meetings that we have and so we do expect to be able to reach as broad of a segment of the community as we can. Through those communication channels. And second, in terms of credit at this time, there is not a cash payment option. But it is something that we will continue to review, as we move bike share along. What is your time line in terms of reviewing this, because i think that is very important and i think that the people that you actually and, that could benefit the most from this program are the people that may mot have access to credit. And i think that addressing that issue is really, important. So, what is your time line . So the initial roll out time line for the program, as scoped, is within the first, 26 months after rolling out after finalizing the contract, and within that window it will be looking at what the alternatives would be for alternative payments. That is not to me, when i voted for this at the mtc, that was not something that i would have found acceptable, 26 months, to develop, a strategy for dealing with people, who have no credit cards. I dont, i dont think that is acceptable. So, is there a way that you can actually come back to us within a couple of months with a strategy. Because, i think that the idea that it would take us, more than 2 years to figure out, how we make this program accessible, to these folks, and i mean this does not make sense to me. Right to besinger clarify this is something that we are looking at today. And that we are working with partners in the community, and existing nonprofits, and Community Stake holders who have similar, programs and maybe an alternative industries. And so, the idea is not to wait for 26 months or to begin the conversations today and we can come back with some of our findings in the next couple of months. I appreciate that and i want to make sure that you come back in a specific period of time. I am wondering if you can come back to us in a couple of months to see where you are. Sure. Thank you. Okay, great. Colleagues any further questions or comments . All right. There is no budget Analyst Report for this, i just before we go to Public Comment. I just want to say thanks for being here and thanks to supervisor campos and everyone else who has worked on this and as i mentioned to you before, i cant wait to put more and more bikes in district two and i know that it is not planned for a while and anything that i can do to speed that along i am happy to do so. With that, we will open up to Public Comment on item 35, anybody wish to comment on this item . Hi,. A community organizers, at the San Francisco, Bicycle Coalition, the coalition is excited about the bay area, expansion, for years our vision has been to see the world class, bike share system in San Francisco, with 7,000 bikes, and 4500 of them in San Francisco, this will be exactly that. We consider the upgraded bike share system to be San Franciscos first new Transit System in generations and the best way to achieve, San Franciscos greenhouse grassy mission and most shared goals. And making bike share affordable and accessible, will provide the low income, communities a healthy transportation option and improve for the jobs and schools and opportunities, and the expansion will build the bicycle economy by creating new transportation and bike related jobs and we are proud to support and work hard to insure that the expansion, progresses on schedule. The San Francisco, Bicycle Coalition looks forward to engaging in organizing our members and other Community Stake holders over the coming months to make the bike systems the best possible. Thank you. Anybody else wish to comment on item 35 . Okay. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues could i have a motion to move this forward. So moved. Motioned by mar and seconded by tang and we can take it without objection. Okay, mr. Clerk, could you call item 36. Item 36, resolution, adopting a fix twoeed year budgetary cycle for multiple city departments. Academy of sciences adult probation, airport, arts commission, asian art museum, assess soar recorder, board of appeals, building inspection Child Support services and child submission and City Attorney, city planning civil service, controller county education, district attorney, economic and Workforce Development and environment, agent thicks and fine arts, and General Services, and General Services and information systems, Health Services system, Human Resources human rights, juvenile probation, law law braer, and mayor port, public library, and Public Utility Commission and status of women and treasurer, Tax Collector and trial courts and war memorial and defining terms and setting deadlines. Thank you. So colleagues, this item needs a you little bit more work before we have a thoughtful discussion on this. From my perspective. It is something that i agreed to cosponsor and i do believe that we should move forward as a board on this. And make sure that we retain all of the Budgetary Authority that we have as at board of supervisor and looking forward to creating more efficiency as much as possible during our budget process. So with that, being said we will open this up to Public Comment, but i will be entertaining a motion to continue to the call of the chair. Could i speak to this . Sure. Campos. Thank you, mr. Chair. I actually wanted to be here for this item. And i am glad to hear that it is going to be continued. I am all for efficiency. And how we do the budgeting. But to me, the proposal that is before us is a problematic proposal. And i think it really goes to the core of the authority and power of the board of supervisors as an institution and it is actually has not got a lot attention, but it is one of the important items that the board has considered in quite a long time. Because what it does, is that, it changes the way budgeting happens for dozens of the departments. And in doing so, it does so, by fundamentally, taking a lot of the authority that the board has to review those budgets on an annual basis. And that is a very, dangerous precedent. And one that i think that we should not take lightly. And so, i am still not sure why we are going down this path. The fact is that a rolling two, year process, allows us to benefit from the planning that comes when you think about a two year period of time, without the challenge of losing the authority of the board of supervisors. The other point that i would note and i think that the budget and legislative analyst, made this clear in their report. Is that there is, there are no criteria, that are being used by the mayor, in his staff, in deciding who gets to be a part of this two year fixed budget and who doesnt. I think that the public needs to know, that if this item goes forward, it fundamentally changes the power of the board of supervisors and the public in being able to review, and apply on how the budgets happens for dozens. Dozens of departments. I am grateful that we are going to slow it down and maybe, rethink it, but i am very worried about this, but i think that it is a very dangerous, precedent, thank you. I appreciate those comments, supervisor campos. And reportfully, i disagree with the premise that we are advocating authority, and i do not support that, and we can have that discussion, and i am not sure that anybody on the board would agree with, that being said for another day, but supervisor tang. I actually just wanted to echo what farrell was saying. I will save the bulk of this discussion for when this is in the budget committee. I wanted to respond to the comment that it is setting a dangerous precedent, it is not because we have certain departments that are on a fix twoeed year budget, and so we are actually trying to get the rest the remaining of the city departments on a two year budget. And as we all know that by the time the budget comes before the board of supervisors and we are taking formal action here, it is a minuscule part of the budget and the bulk of the budget that we do and need to do a better job of perhaps is working more during the process that the budget is being developed. I think that nothing will stop us from asking the questions in the middle of the two year budgeting process and asking our budget analyst to conduct analysis and even for us to make the changes, during the two year, time period. And so it in that case, i will keep it at that and have a further discussion later on. Thank you, supervisor tang, supervisor mar. I just wanted to thank supervisor farrell for giving more time and thanks the budget analyst for analysis and i do see that in on page, 18, and as mr. Rose, probably report on, that he does view this as in some ways of giving away of the Budgetary Authority of the board of supervisor and raises cautions about that. And also, other disadvantages he highlights, lacking specific, criteria for determining which city departments two year budgets will be fixed. So there is a number of questions that the budget analyst raises my hope is that over the next week period we can get answered. But thanks to farrell for continuing this item. Thank you, and this is something from my perspective that we should be agreeing on and having a consensus from the board of supervisors moving forward. Okay. That being said, we will entertain a motion to continue this item. So moved. We need to take the Public Comment. Anybody wish to comment on this item . Mr. Johnson . Thank you, supervisor, and Connor Johnson legislative to the board, london breed and she asked me to pop in and thank you for continuing this and she has concerns about it as well because it could be perceived as the board, ak fiesing its Budgetary Authority to the control and her the Mayors Office and she would be like to be involved in that conversation as well. Okay, mr. Johnson. Anybody else . Chan, and board president of safe house, San Francisco located in supervisor camposs district. Thank you for raising those concerns. We have just been notified that we are being cut by 70,000, our budget and it is unclear to us how we would participate in getting those changed. We provide, ten beds of transitional housing for homeless women. And kind of i was here for the next item, but, supervisor campos, thank you for making it so clear how this impacts us. Thank you, anybody else like to comment . Colleagues, could i have a motion to continue the item to the call of the share . So moved. Motion bid mar and seconded by tang and we can take that without objection. Mr. Clerk, if you would, could you call, 48 please . Ordinance amending the administrative code to the require inclusion of the prevailing wage, and for the development of housing and where the city is a landlord and to require, inclusion of prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, and authorizing the office of labor and standards and enforcement and office of economic, and Workforce Development. Thank you. Supervisor, cohen is here to speak on this item. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come here and talk about the item and i know that you have a busy agenda and so i wip hop right to it, this less lacing was a result of months of conversations. Particularly we engaged conversations with the office of labor standards and enforcement in the Mayors Office of housing. This will create a new prevailing wage and the local hire and the requirements for the sale and the lease of City Owned Properties for the purpose of developing mixed use Housing Project and so currently, as it stands, the city requires all contractors to perform, to pay, prevailing wage. And it also requires that they comply at the state program, and if the contract is over 600,000, they must comply with the local hire. My thought is lets eliminate the double standard and even out the Playing Field. And so earlier this year, this board, submitted a surplus, property measure reiterating our belief that the city surplus, properties should be used whenever possible to construct, Affordable Housing. So it is essential that we insure that these projek jects are with the same requirements that we have for our own public, and work contractors. And the few, people that i want to thank at this time, and the members of the council who work with my office on this issue, as well as donna from the office of labor standards and enforcement. And lee from the Mayors Office of housing provided helpful feedback on this policy and also i want to recognize, danny, campbell who was also instrumental in moving this forward. And i believe that ve have donna with us here. Is she here . Why dont you come on up. And offer, any Additional Support and, any of the colleagues have questions you will be able to answer them. I have donna if you have any questions, it is the right thing to do. Thank you. Supervisors, good morning. And i have reviewed the ordinance and it will treat the projects as if they were public works. I think that it is exciting legislation and it will insure, the fair labor standards and a level Playing Field for the contractors to bid, work, and that the city, can influence, and i think that using this citys ability to do that, is exciting. And it will improve, labor standards sxh and improve for thousands of people. On page, 48 of our report, we note that according to the real estate, division, the local hiring wage require. S will increase the cost of development and may decrease the value of the property sold for Housing Development is not known, how much the new requirements may reduce, sale prices for the city, owned property for Housing Development and on the bottom of page, 48, we note that the cost associated with the potential, additional se enforcement staff, may be offset for the additional penalty and, paid by the contractors for the city, however, since it is unknown, how many new complaints would fall under the jurisdiction and the potential increase in cost of revenue cans not be estimated at this time and so we consider this proposed ordinance to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors. Thank you. Mr. Rose. I have a couple. Okay. Supervisor, cohen . At the end of the day, colleagues, these projects are going to be built on cityowned and leased properties and we should be insuring that the construction of these include a prevailing wage and requirements that we all agree, is important, and it is important enough that we include it in the public works contract. And so colleagues, do i ask for your support today. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor, and with that being said, we will open this up to Public Comment, and anybody wish to comment on this item . I do have one speaker card for michael tario. I want to thank, cohen and for those who are working hard on it and as well as our attorney. And we think that this is an extension of the values to have the ability to influence s the work and the standards of work. And so that the workers are paid in a decent wage and the opportunities are provided. And the reasonable accommodation, and the reasonable involving accommodation that we reached on the local hire is extended to additional work. And with that, we ask for your support. Thank you and anybody else wish to comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. I do want to thank, supervisor cohen for bringing this forward and i would like to be a cosponsor. Could i have a motion to send this forward to the full board . With a positive recommendation. We can take that without objection. If you could move to 44, and the 37 is the jail items that we will hold. 44, ordinance aappropriate ating 4 million from the fiscal year, 1516, power enterprise, fund balance to provide working capitol for the Community Choice ago program. We have the puc to speak. Good morning, charles, pearl, deputy chief, financial officer, and this item before you today is related to our clean, power sf program that we are developing within our power and enterprise. And for those of you listening, the clean power sf program is that will allow them to choose a greener program, and launch it in 2016. And so before you today, specifically supervisor iss a interest for a supply mental appropriation for 4 million, and that is to be added to the four Million Dollars that you approved, back in july and so that will give us a total of 8 Million Dollars working capitol we are considering reserve, and policies etc. , and at a meeting next tuesday. And so, this 8 Million Dollars. And this that we are able to actually point to a pool of funds to be able to pay the bills. As you know, the Program Launches a schedule to be early in 2016, and but before we have the customer and revenue streams, it is sort of hard to give a sense that things are going to be able to have the what we are expecting. And and the reserve, and the controllers reserve and until the time that the funds are needed. And this will serve as a loan. That will allow the program to create a revenue stream for the repayment and i will be happy to take your questions. And seeing no comments or questions, we will move on to mr. Roses report. Please . On page, 46, the operating reserves will receive a total of 8 million in loans from the loan, and including the appropriation, and as well as the 4 million, the total of 8 million is necessary to meet the short term and working capitol needs of the clean power and San Francisco program and the initial start up period in the physical years of 15, 16 and we noted as shown in table one again on page, 36 of our report, the clean power, San Francisco, expects to receive, the subject 8 million in loans, from the hetch, enterprise in 2016 and a pay a total of 8 million, in principal and interest. To place the four million and to replace the funds on the control of reserve, until the date these funds are needed for the electricity procurement and we recommend that you approve this proposed ordinance as amended. Thank you, mr. Rose. Item, 44, anyone wish to comment . Closed and we have a recommendation from the budget analyst, could i have a motion to approve that. I move that we approve the ordinance, placed that 4 million, on controllers reserve until the date the funds are immediated for the procurement, and that we approved the proposed ordinance as amended. Thank you. A motion by supervisor mar and seconded by tang and we can take it without objection. Mr. Clerk, could you call item 45 . Before moving on i would like to request that the amend version of that legislation be provided to me by 9 00 a. M. Tomorrow morning. Resolution, ratifying the purse of the city of van ness for the sale of 80 Million Dollars. Thank you. I have a powerpoint, but in the interest of time, i will hit the highlights for you, of that powerpoint, to move this along, swiftly. So the background on this item before you today is regarding the sale of 30 van ness. And it is a property that the city has owned since, 2001. And about 150,000 square feet of city office uses, you can see the types of uses in the building there. And on the slide. And it is for the plan for it and we had an initial sense of likely the Capitol Investments should we retain, the asset and stay in the asset that has now been validated to two different design and we moved forward with a sales transaction before you today and so the reminder on the background. It was appraised for 43 million, back in 2012, that started the initial process, and then we moved forward with offering the property to the market place at tremendous, interest and brought them to the board and consideration of the finalists, and the terms of conditions. And so now we are before you today, and with that negotiated purchase, and Sale Agreement. And with the 30 van ess holdings and which is related to california being a Shell Corporation for simply the single purpose of acquiring this asset. And so now i would like to talk about the terms and conditions in the agreement before you. We have reversed that for the citys benefit and we have negotiated an additional level of affordable, to be provided by the developer. And that is valued at approximately, 8 Million Dollars. And i want to talk briefly then, about the details regarding affordability and we anticipate, as does the developer, that they will move forward with an 80 20 project that the project through the tax credits and on the financing brings, 20 percent, affordability at 50 percent of ami to the protect. And 80 percent market rate. That is an assumption that we have moved forward with, and something that we have built into the contract should that indeed tom ko pass. And the contract is written such that, if they proceed with that approach, the city will not be in a position to have to pay for additional affordability in. And except for above the level and we want to speak to what those numbers look like. For you. This is a 500 to 600 unit project and 20 percent affordability and 50 percent ami level and we have the ability through identifying Funding Sources, to acquire additional 13 percent of affordability, bringing it to a 33 percent, affordable project. And that is a decision down stream by the board and we will explain exactly when that occurs and we do anticipate the ground level, retail and we are pleased that this particular respondent to our proposal was excited and enthusiastic, about creating a direct, access to the muni station to make that a much more welcoming and inviting experience, and you get to and from that station. And lastly, as you may know, the Planning Department has been putting together a project around the four corners. And since we have so much development, in the pipeline, and at market and van ness and so this has been a part of that conversation and so i want to assure you that this will be coordinated, among all of the other Development Teams who are all, talking to one another, and it has been a collaborative process so that the Residential Projects that spring ford and transform, and is in a thoughtful coordinated fashion. The city will need to find a Funding Source to acquire affordability for 65 units to get to 33 percent. How do we get there . We feel confident, that we have two and two the over lying, and we have both, suds that effect this property. Those fees, and that the generation of fees is anticipated to be about 15 million and so that is one source of funds and that is with certainty. Secondly we have looked at over all revenue, not only from this sale but the next set of sales where we will be offering 16 mission, and 168 on mission, and we have compared those anticipate sales to our pro formo that was brought to you as part of an over all, project, strategy, assuming ratification of the purchase Sale Agreement is a closing of escrow from january and we have a notification procedure for the bond holders who are carrying some debt on the property and so we need to with that debt and working with her and her staff and this is operating our business out of 30 van ness, and it is a favorable lease back at half of the current market rate in the civil center. So we are pleased with that lease back, and one important feature of that is that the city, currently provides the services to the building. We will continue to provide those services as the landlord will not be inclined to make the kind of investments that we might find, appropriate and given that the landlord will see an end to the useful life of the property. And whereas, our staff is in there, so we want to be sure that we are happy to answer any questions that you might have about this project. Thank you, and i know that in july of this board approves the ordinance but i think that the spirit of it was to sell, for not less than 87 Million Dollars, and the sale at 80 million, with a couple of the other benefits on, i understand that you are adding up to 90 million, but, can you plain why, you could not meet the spirit of selling that 87 million . The transaction probably could have been structured differently, to show higher affordability and we felt it important to create the mechanisms that we heard loud and clear were vital. And to move this project forward. And for instance, affordability and going forward. And so, it was a trade off of less cash up front and better strategy, and there is some uncertainty because we cannot tell you exactly when the project will happen. We did conduct with john, on the relative to, and not only to the spirit but the legal requirements under the approved ordinance and, there was a comfort level, that indeed it did. So, again, we have met the tests in a couple of different ways, but most importantly, we have a value here of at least, 90 Million Dollars, before the board today. And then i am, appreciating the slides on the 80 20, getting from the 15 percent on site, below the market rate to 20 percent of affordability. And then, the slide on td socalled, pathway to 33 percent. And so, it is public land and i know that there is expectations that we get up to 33 percent and even 40 percent affordable units including middle income, at times and i know that pathways we veer off of them and you are relying heavily on the other sources that may or may not come forward. And so i am just wondering why it is not much higher than this and getting up to 33 percent and what will it take to get up to the 33 percent . And i know that that is further down the road. But, i need to know a little bit more specifics of how that will work. The Fee Structure is just math, and we do feel confident that we have a source from fees to really take us halfway to 33 percent. The question mark, is the final receipt of proceeds from the sales of the mission corridor, and assets. And we see this, sale as well as other sales in the market place. And feel very confident, that we will be able to hit our targets and that that will create an adequate, Funding Source for this board to make that down stream decision. And so that is not an issue before you today, and the issue is that the contract is solid enough to provide the mechanism, that you all will need to make a smart decision, later on. When we know the exact nature of the project. So the diligence by the developer is completed. And we have a seismickly deficient building and that we know, either requires a tremendous, capitol investment, or an exit. And we are choosing the exit path. And that as the whereas nature, influences the cost. And that the value. And to the city. It is in title under the market, for the certain development and this is not dependent on exceeding those requirements. And so, it is a little bit different than some of another projects that height come before you in an entitlement context where in a greater percentage of affordability is a natural discussion, because there is a quid pro quo there is not one here and we are selling it as is, where is. And we believe that we have exacted the most that we can get from the developer, relative affordability and then created that opportunity without general Fund Pressure to aoe secure, additional affordability and i hope that is uponsive to your question. I am just looking at the slide of the sale and the time line and it looks like that city can elect, affordability, up to 33 percent if needed comes after the estimated lease back period. Entitlement, of the projects, and so it is not until, many of us will be off of the board that could be more aggressive, for the developer, there is a decision that the developer thats make in terms of the anticipated reopener to the market and the opportunity that that might present and that could change the time line and so we are considering that. It could be before the board a little sooner, than suggested in that, and i think that this is a fair estimate of the timing, yes. And then i am not implying that it is connected but when will the good will project be completed . As we look at our many different options in order to find a destination for our office uses, that particular project time line would be ready, and open for business, at the end of 2018. Okay, thank you. Supervisor tang, thank you for your questions and just to build on a little bit. And could you talk a little bit about the level of interest that you had receives on this building . And you know, how many people were why you landed on 80 million for the actual sales price . Happy to and so we had an over 100 initial, interested investers from across the country, those are widled down to an initial, 15, top candidates. Through a series of questions, regarding their intent, and the scope of their project, and the other issues and we wanted to tease out from those candidates we came to a list of four and we came to. And among the four there was aggressive Due Diligence done, primarily on 30 van ess as is, and i think that was an influencer of the ultimate Purchase Price in that there were a number of deficiencies in the building that would have to be addressed. And there is some time here where we will be occupancy and there is going to be costs holding that asset. And so, that is, that is a natural, sort of deduct from the ultimate Purchase Price. And but the good news is that we have finished that Due Diligence and it is not speculative and it is fully executed and ready to go. About 100 companies that initially. Yes. And since our City Attorney is back i wanted to confirm then, that based on what the board of supervisors had passed in july, in terms of the intent, for the sales price, that what we had before us, which is effectively a 90 million, dollars transaction, if that i guess, holds up. And the 5th grader apparently stepped on my sons toes and so i needed to run out of the room. Sorry about that. The ordinance from earlier this year, authorized the sale for 87 million. This resolution, authorizes the sale for the current sale price and so the piece of that ordinance that authorized the sale, does not really matter, it falls away, because you are authorizing the sale ear in the resolution, the rest of that ordinance, made some additional steps, including, waving the surplus, property ordinance, and those pieces of that ordinance were not conditioned on the 87 million dollar, sales price and so, so, the surplus, property, ordinance, findings, in the ordinance that you adopted earlier this year, auk prove the sale with many of the findings are valid and do not need to be amended. Thank you. Mr. Rose could you go to your report, please . Members of the committee and, supervisor, campos, on page 41, table one shows the rent and operating costs totaling, 14. 9 million payable by staoet over the first three years of the hold over lease. On page, 43 which has been discussed here, the initial authorization from the board was to sell the property for not less than 80 million, the selling price now, would be 8 percent less or 80 million. To pay the tax which is typically paid by the seller and that is at a cost of 2 million, and these transfer taxes are deposited into the city general funds and so therefore, as shown on table, two on page 44 of the report. The city will actually receive, 82 million from the sale. And further because of the 15 percent, affordability, there will be 15 Additional Units which are up in the values, and at a total of 533,000 per unit or 8 million and adds the 8 million and plus the two million and plus the 80 million to come up with the value of 90 Million Dollars, and the net proceeds that the city will receive, that is on page, 44 and you will notice in table three, we recommend that you approve this resolution. Thank you. Any further questions for the budget analyst . Okay, why dont we move on to the Public Comment, and anybody wish to comment on item 45 . My name is jazzy and i am with the center for young womans development and i would like to oppose this, because i feel that all of this money is going to building something that happen of us will not be able to afford. And from personal experience, i have tried to apply for jobs that have higher pay and since i have a record i cannot even get the job. And so i feel like, we are building this for who . San francisco is catering, people who have money and privilege. The people, is 33 percent of us that will not be able to, only shows, San Francisco tolerating us. And i dont appreciate that. I feel that this money should not go towards that, it needs to go towards other things and we are not just catering to the rich and the privileged, this is a liberal city and working class people and so we should be able to afford that. It should be more than just 33 percent. It should be 50 percent, 75 percent, 100 percent. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item . Okay. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues we have item before us, if any discussion or love to entertain a motion to move it forward. Sure. Okay, supervisor, tang. Thank you. So i am glad that this item actually came back before us. I know that it was not supposed to appear before us, and so in that case, i think that the explanation provided address my concerns and so i would be willing to send out this item with a positive recommendation. Okay, we have a motion by tang and mr. Clerk could you have a roll call vote on that. On that motion, supervisor tang. Aye. Supervisor mar . No. Chair farrell . Aye. The motion passes. Okay, motion passes. Mr. Clerk, could you call item 46, please . Resolution approving performance contract, between community Behavior Health service and california, department of hel thing care services. Incorporating the mental Health Services act projects for assistance in transition from homelessness the Mental Health plan and the Community Mental Health Services grant. Okay, thank you very much, we have dph to speak on this item. Hi, supervisors i am jill, robinson and i am the director of behavior Health Services and so, the approval of this, agrees that the department of Public Health will abide by the contract with the health plan and that will allow the county to receive, approximately, 80 Million Dollars from the state. This is an annual renewal of these grants as these contracts. Thank you very much, do you have any questions . Thank you. We have no budget Analyst Report on this item and so we will move on to Public Comment. Anybody wish to comment on item 46 . Okay, seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues, could i have a motion to move this item forward. So moved. Motioned by tang and seconded ordinance amending the code, to require providers, and tenant, is receiving and i would like to continue this item for one week. And with that, we will open it up to Public Comment, anybody wish to comment on item 47 . Okay, seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues a motion to continue this . So moved. Motioned by mar and seconded by tang and take that without objection. I want to go back to item four and i understand that the legislation is not ready in written form but we can have him read these and we can accept and move forward. Deputy City Attorney, and so they are preparing the amendments that will be submitted before the end of the meeting. I am not going to read all of the numbers into the record. But, and referring to the nottoexceed amount and stead of a increased amount and putting in the different value on the wrong lines and so these amendments are all, purely nonsubnative and clerical and moving the numbers around to make sure that they are in the right places and the committee will have them before the meeting, and understand that because the jail items will take the time and the committee could vote on these amendments now and the written version will be sent to the clerk. Thank you. Owith that being said, colleagues, these items have the recommendation to approve these items and so these are technical, amendments that we can do based on his description, i think that it will be appropriate to us to act on those now and to move these items forward. So if i could entertain a motion to approve those and the underlying items as amended. Four through 20 . Okay, motioned by tang and seconded by mar and we can take those without objection. Okay. That being said, now mr. Clerk, if you would move on to items 37 to 43. Yes, 37, authorizing the execution of the delivery of the certificate of participation on the taxable based evidencing and representing the Principal Amount nottoexceed 215 million to finance the cost of acquisition, construction and installation of the addition and improvements for the rehab, and facility to be located on the property within the city. Item 38, 215 million, for the cost of 1516 and placing these funds on the controllers reserve. Item 39, the Real Property at 819820, bryant street and, 4446 street, 4506 street, and 4706 street, from lin trust musso trust and myung chun and as the issuance of paper notes and the amounts nottoexceed, 14. 5 million. Item 40, resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of tax exempt and or taxable commercial papers notes in the aggregate amount, of 11,000, and provide the rehab detention facility to replace, county jail number three and four. Item 41, resolution, authorizing the Sheriffs Department to accept and expend the 80 million from the lease to financing and the construction of the facilitation and the interest of these project to replace the jail, number 3 and 4. 42, ordinance appropriate ating 1 million, 483,000 for the Capitol Construction of the renovation of the San Francisco General Hospital to accommodate the mental Health Services in the department of Public Health and deappropriate ating 1 million, 480,000 in the year 1516. 43, amending the ten year, plan for years, 2016, to 2025, to accept an award of 80 million from the california board of state and community, corrections for the proposed rehabilitation and project. We all right everybody, we are going to go into recess, until, next 3 cards. [inaudible] jessica [inaudible] fee be [inaudible] and jessica calderon. Good afternoon. Im jessica caldderon, Youth Commissioner [inaudible] as a individual im deeply disgusted with the decision to build a new jail. The Youth Commission has not had the chance to take a position yet. I find it a great injustice to the youth the city they are left out of this discussion because let me remind you [inaudible] has a parent that is incarcerated. This legislation directly impacts youth who have a lauved one incarcerated or have their own experience with this inside the system. Where are their voices today . Once again, [inaudible] thank you for your time. Thank you very much. The next 3 speaker cards are steve learner andria [inaudible] and [inaudible] guy. Thank you supervisors, i appreciate today. Um, [inaudible] guy from taxpayer frz Public Safety and have spoken many time before and so you know we are against the jail rebuild. We think there are viable alternatives. We started this 3 and a half years ago and one jail is closed so it isnt 2 jails at the haul orrf justice, one is closed. We have to solve the problem of closing the other one. The hall of Justice Needs to be closed. It is our position that within a year you could definitely close the other jail. You could start stopping to rent jail beds to the feds or the state, that would eliminate and decrease the population by 57 beds. Today at 64 which is the jail that is open still is 341 beds. If you dedect those beds that are you renting out as income, that would reduce it to300. You have empty beds at [inaudible] im trying to talk about this in 20 minutes. [audio cutting out] problem solve this and wont have to spend a Million Dollars a bed. Recidivism rates at [inaudible] in a jail. Whether it is seismically safe or not, whether it is beautiful or not, 70 percent still stay in jail over 100 days, all over people are [inaudible] if they are lucky within a month. You are recycling criminality. That does not create Public Safety. I know this is difficult thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon supervisors and chair farrell. My name is [inaudible] the director of the Youth Commission. This a issue the Youth Commission hasnt had a chance to take a position on yet but it is [inaudible] effecting young people with incarcerated parents is among the priorities and [inaudible] the Community Needs assessment for 18,000 young people who had a parent incarcerated. This is a issue that effects the youth and family and effects young people because they are the ones responsible for paying this off over the long term. I dont see all is a chance for young people to weigh in or there is a robust public discussion on this jail build proposal not when the funding was applied for or since then. It is essential young people have a chance to weigh in on the discussion. Youth commissioners asked for the meetings to be held after school hours and they havent had a chance to hold a after School Meetings with a regular scheduled meeting and the monday meeting this coming week will hap too late for their recommendation to be included in your packet next week so i wanted to come out because they are still in school. [inaudible] interested in seeing all young peem ople in San Francisco have a clans to weigh in and continue discussion on this item. The speaker cards are [inaudible] Murray Thomas and mark norton. Jamesy gurber, Jasmine Marie thomas and mark norton. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is mark norton. For those out there in tv land wondering what is going on with all the pauses i think it should bow said noefs appointant of building the new jail are kept out orphthe chambers and that is what they call democracy in San Francisco these days. Im here to oppose the building the new jail and propose weal tear down the bryant street jail. I have the honor several years ago spending about 3 days in the feminie tank at brian streent. It was 1969. I was arrested at a demonstration against the International Industrial conference and ended up in jail. For a brief period of time i was a political prisoner. [inaudible] and i learned that they were not arrested mostly for being at demonstrations, they were Political Prisoners in the sense they were basically in jail [inaudible] for being black, [inaudible] now, i had a gun stuck in my face and had people demand money and understand [inaudible] but i also have been illegally evected and illegally fired and i havent seen anyone come to put [inaudible] and the criminal employer squz criminal bankers and stand behind them in jail. If they did, i might be think a little different. It is time to end the mass incarceration we have now. It is time for the supervisors to think of what supervisor avalos said recently in these chambers on aortrelated issue. Is time to be on the right side of history. [inaudible] in this battle as well. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. Good afternoon, my name is jamesy gurber and [inaudible] project what stands for we are here and talking which stands for 2. 7 million children in the United States that have a parent that is incarcerated. I am not the child of a incarcerated parent but im up here because the youth that i work with couldnt make this meeting because they are in school. [inaudible] commissioners appointed by you, the supervisors requested that this meeting be moved to the Late Afternoon so that student could come after they finish their classes. There are 17, 993 children in the city of San Francisco, your city, that have a parent that is incarcerated on any given day. The youth dissever to weigh in on this isue and have a right to talk about their parents, families and livelihood. The current jail population is 30 percent transition age youth. They are not in the room today, they deserve to be heard in this matter. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker cards are tony robeilous, Danielle West and jess heeny. Tony robe les, Danielle West and jess heeny. Good afternoon, my name is tony robilous and work with a Organization Called senior and disability action. We are oppose today the building of a new jail. It is my hope that you listen to the testimony of the young people that have come this afternoon. What do you have for us . Affordable housing . Or do you have a jail . Do you have an eviction and affordability crisis for people that have lived here all their lives or doand have a jail . What do you have for us . Do you have jobs or a jail . What is going on . What do and have for us . Is it a jail or opportunity . A lot of people that are stuck in the system , stuck in jail is because they cant afford the bail. We urge you to look at alternatives. I understand supervisor kim is looking for alternative to building another jail. The statistics that i have been able to gleam show when all is said in done the cost of building a new jail will be in the i guess in the ball park of 600 Million Dollars. If you look at 500 million is a half billion, 600 Million Dollars not on housing, not on Mental Health crisis, this is a humanitarian crisis San Francisco is under now and think building a jail in the middle of a severe housing and economic crisis is just not right. We urge you to not move this agenda [inaudible] thank you, next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Danielle west and im a [inaudible] with tgi Justice Project and work with [inaudible] im here to echo what our younger sister said about the way transpeople are put in these cages and the way that [inaudible] the transpeople want [inaudible] frndly caging system and that isnt in our best interest. [inaudible] what we need in the community is services and care and not these cages. The fact of the matter is roughly 1 and 2 black transwomen are incarcerated in the life time because of racism. The percentages go lower but the transcommunity especially transwomen are over policed and [inaudible] here in San Francisco in the last 6 mupths we had 3 issues of Police Brutality and know building these cages, i know there is broader conversation fwt mubing women into womens housing, we need to pull out the number of beds and stop with our reconstruction and increase the way we are building safety for the community by listening to the Community Members [inaudible] please dont send the money for transpeople. Dont build the cages, do the right thing, you is the opportunity to make the right choice and stand on the right side of history and it would be better if you chose right instd of railroading this forward. That thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. My name is jess lany and codirector of critical resistance and no new jail collation [inaudible] highlighting the testimony today. We have been here for months, actually years to address and invest in alternatives that caging people and real contemplation and practical investment [inaudible] i dont think it is a consequences that we are here at a Budget Hearing contemplating what is live laelihood for the city. The sheriff disgustingly led you to approve the application by urging you to strike while theireen is hot and apply for 80 Million Dollars of debt. [inaudible] im going to urge you to [inaudible] crisis of mass incarceration and imprisonment. Do something innovative and address the issue. The largest Mental Health facilities now are jails. Do something different, invest in real helt resources. The New York Times and other publications are discussing or ampifying abolishing bail. We know 3 quarters in the San Francisco system are there because they cant pay bail. [inaudible] strike why the iron is hot. [inaudible] to continue railroading ahead with the plan to build more cages where we have so many opportunities to build for livelihood. [inaudible] thank you. The next 3 speaker cards are [inaudible] and paub lous punosea and lee morales. Rafael speary with architects designers and planners [inaudible] supervisor farrell it is nice to see you. I want to say 2 things about the jail, one is the processing is rushed. [inaudible] and back in january of 2014 the budget legislative analyst wrote the project would [inaudible] that was quoting from the capital plan so a lot of us expected this important decision of the project [inaudible] police violence, partner violence. 216 Million Dollars, what else could we do . I would love to see more services particularly mental helths for our clients. Every Single Person that walks through our door it isnt just because the experience one single incident of violence, but there is a lot that comes before and after and i will tell you that 3 out of 4 times i dont know where to send someone where they wont be on a waitest list and told there no Psychiatric Services in theirolog wj or have to get on a waiting list. I have been [inaudible] for 17 years and love the work that we do, but i really do wish we could do more. Every person comes in with multiple issues not just because they were on the street for being gay or denied housing for being trans, but there are a lot of issues of post Traumatic Stress disorder which is aggregated when they go to jail. For them going to Law Enforcement isnt a alternative, it is a place that produce td harm to them. Profiled them and what do you do with that information . How do you undo that . You cant but one way we try to [inaudible] to the services they are asking for is professionally and ethically we cant provide because wree not psychologist but we want to be able to point them in the right direction thank you, next speaker please my name is lee morales and from community [inaudible] same organization. And we do serve [inaudible] hate violence or state violence. We are here to oppose the building of the new jail and want to create cycles of safety liberation and that isnt going [inaudible] people need to create safety in their lives and education and jobs but Mental Health serviceess within a jail sipuation is not what people need and what will be effective. 260,000,000 is a lot of money to invest in something that is quite frngly not going to benefit the needs the people we serve, so i would like to urge you as many other people have here today to not pass this today and allow for the other people especially youth voices that are not here to be able to weigh in on the issue and thats all i have to say. Thank you. Next 3 speaker cards are nick [inaudible] juan atillo and gloria [inaudible] good afternoon my name is [inaudible] youth oreger with [inaudible] also member for justice for [inaudible] im here in solidarity with the people who were here earlier and those in the over pp flow room and thousands not able to be here. We are here as a Broad Coalition of organizations oppose today the jail because we know it is a waste of taxpayer money and negligents the needs of the working class people. The realty is San Francisco has too much jail space. The logic be29 the jail expansion is faulty and untrue. There are about 1 thousand jail beds every day, mean while the population in the jails are declining to be about 65 percent. I know this isnt news to you. As elected officials you know a lot of our families are in crisis and pack these hearings regarding a lot of critical needs the communities have for a last year alone. As members we believe that you should be thinking about those needs. There is a growing gap between rich and poor in the city and know gentrification will cause policing. Expanding the jail will exacerbate the problem. 5 years ago the population in the city was 3. 4 percent and today that number is oen decline. What does mean for the city that is exponded the jail and putting more money in the prizern cystism when the current jail of population in the jail is 56 percent. [inaudible] that make it so our young people and families struggling dont end up in the jail system. We have research that shows where the money can go and you need to hear the voice of the people we heard earlier [inaudible] thank you very much. Next speaker, please. [speaking spanish] what she is trying to say is, hello. We are tired of treating our Community Like we dont exist. It is time for you to stop. Every day i see people ochb the streets with Mental Health problems. I see people that are desperate and have no solutions. These people are trying to sur vive. Every day people walk among the streets and see a person with mental disabilities and they think they are lazy and dont want to work. These people dont have as many [inaudible] not looking at these people. Just walking blindly getting to your 9 to 5. You dont notice these people out begging and crying for help and we are just treating them like we they are not there. Not too long ago the impgrant community is scapegoated and called criminals and it is time we stop this and think about working class and communities and all the wealth we produce in the city to create solutions that prevent crime. Thinking about all the money that can go into the the services that our communities need. We need to think about how can we serve the people out on the streets that are needed, the people that are des prit and have Mental Health needs. We need to think about Public Service squz humanize our experience and think how to better serve the people who are trying to find a place in this community. There are so many ways we can train these people to be productive memberoffs society and have roles in the community and think about how thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is [inaudible] student at San Francisco state university. [inaudible] a jail isnt what San Francisco needs or what the city deserves. It is a shame the board decided to fast track the jail without looking into community and health based solutions. The jail does need it be safe and structurally safe but a new jail wont change the fact that 25 percent of those in the jail are homeless every day. 85 percent are there because they cant afford bail. African american knhunty in San Francisco is 4 percent the cities population but they make up half of those in the jail. This is not acceptable. The new jail will not help these solutions, we need to invest in Real Solutions that prevent the xhounty from having to go to jail. As a student im very optimistic and think of changing the world every day and how it can be better so i feel this jail isnt the way to go. We need to step back, listen to others, listen to different people on the board and take our time to decide if this is what we need and come together to make a better solution because this isnt what we need. The country and city, we all understand the criminal Justice System we have now is not [inaudible] let us come toort and create Real Solutions, Health Solutions and this jailjust vote no on this jail, please. Thank you. Next 3 speakers cards are adam [inaudible] emir [inaudible] and ken jones. Adam jeeter, emir [inaudible], ken jones. Ken jones. My name is [inaudible] my birthday is september 11. I saw about this consference on the news regarding the jail and the rehabilitation. It is a joke. [inaudible] the big problem i wanted to come and address is we have a bigger problem that worrying about jailsism we hb will come with [inaudible] i grew up in monterey, all write town, white mother black father and white mother that was abuseed, beaten and bilittled and ran from the home and called police multiple times. It is a california problem. I can get away with anything if you are connected. I come up here because i wanted something different. Have a life that is a standard and just one. What i learned is being up here it is very similar. Seeing people that work in businesses [inaudible] the abundance ofbecause they know the police they can work with the police and you have bigger issues and need to work on getting your enforcement right. [inaudible] and have accountability. People talk about these things and i talked about these things, you get belittled and put down and put into racriminal mindset because they call you a criminal. You guys need to do your things right, you guys are pretty weak. Thanks very much. Next speaker, please my name is emir [inaudible] member of allf us or none. We a Community Group to [inaudible] how can each of you walk around when you have Homeless People in San Francisco . On the steps of city hall. I still go home at night and [inaudible] since im up here i am one of the few African American men up here that you see me as a member the community or do you see me as a criminal that should be in the prison . Getting ready to spend money on policies that failed. [inaudible] it hasnt done nothing. You want to continue it. There is 20 Million Dollars you can go for every industry that here for social services and melthal health and break the 200 million down and help everybody. You can be the beacon of the western coast and United States and be the beacon to say stop with hard currency and go back to humanity. If you build the jails that means you are creating the problems for quality of life. You all messing up the quality of life for everybody so if you have the streets filled with everybody will you is half the population arrested and half the population Law Enforcement and you are the gate keepers . How can you have thousands on the streets and everybody is comfortable . How can this be a debate where to put funds . Build a new prison, we dontthis shouldnt be conceived. If anybody continues with the process the 90s you are left behind. I employ you to get on the side of history, the correct side. We are right down the block, if you need help we will show you what you can do with the money, viable and save money for other future endeavors. People are here left and right thank you very much. Next 3 speaker cards are joy jackson morgan, lindsey [inaudible] and marvel lafontaine. Good afternoon, my name is man well lafontaine and a father of 3 beautiful children and a former resident of San Francisco and did all most 33 months in San Francisco county jail. During my time there i grew and recognized most the people in there look like me [inaudible] the person that spoke before me. It made me come to a understanding that jails do not equate to Public Safety. [inaudible] back in the days of slavery. Unless it means preserving and protecting White Supremacy as institutions, including everyone who benefitss from it. Public safety according to San Franciscos way of doing stuff means removing black primarily black people and brown people and poor people in places that are deemed prime real estate locations and slated for redevelopment. Building any jail whether it is friendly or whatever friendly, it is anteblack. If you build the new jail, anteblack because there are a number of people in the jail. The same people that are protecting and providing security, are the primary been fishiaries of the new jail well build. It is ironic but it is conflict of interest and if we were on jury duty those things wouldnt be able to serve if there is a conflict of interest. We have to rethink. [inaudible] it is unforpinate but i employ you to look at alternatives and not build the new jail. Thank you very much. Next speaker lisabukeen with california united for responsible budget and urge you to vote no on this jail. Affhas made Good Progress in this area, and reduced incarceration rate with pretrial alternatives and Diversion Program jz treatment in the community. If you vote to build this jail it will be an enormous step in the opposite direction. It is going to remove a lot of the progress that we made. San francisco has a opportunity to be a leader in the state. Right now building a new jail is not demonstrating leadership and nolt innovateing. 47 counties in california are building new jails and all using the same rational San Francisco is that is necessary it will improve conditions, that it will allow for more Mental Health treatment for people that are incarcerated, that is a flawed rational. What San Francisco needs is treatment in the community. We need to expand the Diversion Programs and expand the pretrial alternatives. Building a new jail is going to remove any incentive we have to further reduce the jail population and to expand those programs. If we are prioritizing melthsal health streement in the jails then we are telling our poor communities that if they want Mental Health treatment they need to be arrested and locked up. Thank you very much. The next 3 speaker cards are [inaudible] jones, [inaudible] zoe willmont. George jones [inaudible] and zoe will mont. Good afternoon. Members of the [inaudible] george jones. 71 year resident of japan town and i thought [inaudible] until somebody tried to kill me. [inaudible] a murder i did not commit. That is what i was charged with. Each night i thought what will i do when i get back so it doesnt happen again. The 35 years i am back in San Francisco [inaudible] because [inaudible] like i am right now coming from assault where i was attacked at uc hospital on my way to get breakfast before i went to San Francisco state and i and my bike were knocked down to the ground but started to respond but i didnt. In any event, what do you say [inaudible] you are wrong. A Security Guard came and said [inaudible] im going to the cafeteria. He said let the man go and leave him alone. I have been stressed every since then. Im a construction worker [inaudible] i was there today to sell flowers and [inaudible] torchened in the [inaudible] i have carried this around for 35 years. I have high blood pressure. Why . Thank you very much. Sorry, we have to give the same amount of time for each speaker. Thank you very much next speaker please my name is [inaudible] i am a member of black lives matter bay area and critical resistance and instead of saying i dont want a new jail because i feel like that is obvious, i want to say what it looks like when you approve the funding. What it means is when you approve the funding it means you are waging war on black and brown people and poor people and transpeople in San Francisco you are waging war on people with Mental Health needs in San Francisco no matter how many of the beds are to provide mental Health Services which i dont know how that can happen when you put someone in a cage in the first place. This past black friday black lives matter as well as members of allied organizations and folks who are born, raised and still reside in San Francisco mobilized to the Christmas Tree lighting on union square to put ed lee on notice to speak out against now new jails and gentrification. Frioratizing cages over Community Means safety looks like disappearing black and brown bodies and safety looks like violence and black death. You should think about what solutions are. When we have talked several times about bail reform as a concrete thing that could reduce the jail population to the point where no new jail would need to be constructed and to you safety looks like the [inaudible] and to us this is a clear cut declaration of war on black and brown bodies and transand poor bodies in the city to make way for people you feel have a stronger financial interest in developing and pushing our people out. No new jail in San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you nex speaker please. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is jo and Program Manager of project [inaudible] a program for incarcerated children in San Francisco. We get told as children of incarcerated parent we are 7 times more likely than other children and youth to become incarceratedism San Franciscos jail population is 30 percent transition age youth, that is 18 to 24 year old yurth make up 30 percent the jail. Saying we want to build a new jail is saying you want to incarcerate the children of incarcerated parent. Fact the money is coming from the debt fun [inaudible] many for safe and Affordable Housing in San Francisco. Our youth cant afford to live here but wie can afford to build a new jail bed for them. The idea of a state of the art jail is twisted. I heard the jail is going to be state the art. The idea of a state of the art jail in and of itself is a twisted idea. It is great for children to visit parent and have a important high school and be the state of the art place for services. There will be Mental Health but what does it say blt San Francisco if the supervidesers here in the room say you have to [inaudible] to get a hi school diplomao get mental hlth care support and visit your incarcerated parent inked of in the home. It says San Francisco has the priorities twisted and the city i grew up in and once loved it no longer having the priority set it should. As a child of a formally incourseerated parent and native san franciscan not in my name will you build a now jail. Next 3 speaker cards are arvon williams, civilia johnson and john rami rez. Good afternoon. My name is john [inaudible] [inaudible] president of sheriffs manager ands supervisor association. The sheriff support the project. [inaudible] at the hall of justice present a safety concern to the the association, the inmates housed there, the civilian staff and general public that come to the facilities and all criminal justice partners that work and or interact with those facilities on a daily basis. The safety concern [inaudible] seismic hazard. The [inaudible] Community Corrections sited [inaudible] linear design. The increases cost of repair sw maintenance need today keep the facilities to include sub[inaudible] standards. There is also a strain on other facilities unable to house the high security inmates at the maximum security facil taiz. The current facility lacks [inaudible] the rdf would address the increasing needs for the inte jz those are [inaudible] the award by the state of sb 863 Funding Forces the rdf proposed by the Sheriffs Department isnt a continue ygz of traditional corrections but a example where San Francisco seek tooz reduce the jail bed count while exchanging that space for designated areas allocated to rehabilitation, services to include public spaces for the community. Thank you. One more speaker here. I am at the end our speaker cards. If there are members of the public that wish to speak that havent spoken yet, if you inside the chambers line up and outside please feel free to come forwards. [inaudible] johnson and i have this [inaudible] issues that are put on this [inaudible] and i have never seen anybody in my life so jealous of the music that i play. I think [inaudible] has been a disaster for the United States and i [inaudible] going through the 15 years, going blind and not being able to register what im looking at and think this is saying something that it is not. [inaudible] because of the glasses and in julyim getting these glasses changed and that has