amounts by 2%. supervisor avalos: are we making restoration's -- when we make restoration's and add backs, we have not been funding specific ordered -- organizations. we give it to a general service and it is up to them to make the decisions, based on the performance of contractors, the work that needs to get >> so me it seems important to be able to give the department that kind of flexibility to carry out that service. i guess the mechanism of how we call it a contingency, certainly we don't have money set aside for fiscal year 2011-2012 yet. only for fiscal year 2010-2011, and that is only a certain amount of money. i feel somewhat comfortable,

you could explain if there is a way we can set up some mechanism to better understand what is going on orchestrative process for this to carry forward. if there is not one, i might be comfortable approving as-is. >> the department currently has approve from the board of service in terms of dollars to fund the agencies at the $602 million level. if next year there is a contract cola, they will have to bring the contracts back before the board, all those that exceed the $10 million over the course of five years to get that approval even though you have already approved it in the budget. again, that is what the department is asking for. perhaps the reporting neck nix might be the way to give the board of supervisors the information it is looking for. perhaps every year the department should compare the original dollar amount by agency and the final amount by

agency to show how that flexibility has been used. but again, the department cannot increase any of these contracts without an additional appropriation, whether it is grans, add-back, supplemental appropriation or the movement of money from one agency to another. supervisor avalos: you are saying we approved up to $602 million for the current fiscal year. so the contingency of $702 million doesn't exist? >> it does not exist unless the department approves it. so $602 million is the amount for that particular line item across the department. what the health department is doing is looking forward in five years, what is going to happen to the dollar amounts in the next five years. they want the ability to grow any one of those agencies'

budgets by that amount as money becomes available. as the department changes its service delivery, maybe one day aids services will not be necessary because of the new prevention that is going on with the pharmacuticals, and maybe they want to eliminate that service and put the money some place else, and the contingency allows that to happen. what is being capped is the total dollar amount by the resolution by this board of service as to what the dollar amount of the agency contracts should be. and the department has incorporated this flexibility to be able to increase those dollars so long as those dollars are appropriated. supervisor mirkarimi: through the chair, is that practice then extended to say another department like h.s.a., who also has quite an extensive network of social service providers? >> no.

one of the things that human services agency does for child care, for example, it does combine them, and it estimates some cost of living adjustments over the course of the 3-5-year period, which is another way of doing it. so when you approve the dollar amount for three years, the only thing the department has appropriateded is the first year, and they can only increase it the second and third year if that money is appropriated. so departments do, when they come to the board for a multiyear contract assume some growth generally, and those are aed proved. it is not called a contingency, and it is likely not 12%. supervisor mirkarimi: no. in my whole time on the budget committee, i've never seen a contingency of 12%. this is unique, and trying to disseminate with how this might be practiced with some of the other departments who may find

themselves in a similar prickment. >> the 12% is only a 2% increase for any contractor over the coors of the period. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor avalos: so the $17 million is spread over five years? this flexibility we are built in not to exceed amounts is spread over five and a half years? we are giving the department the flexibility to make those decisions? >> that's right, over the life of the contract. supervisor avalos: let's open this up for public comment. any member of the public who would like to comment on item number four >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a resident, p.i.c., a.r.e., l.l.o. with the new mayor and board of

service next year, i hope 2011 will be the year of transparency and accountability. this item on the agenda and the discussion that i've heard the last 20 minutes lacks both. the questions i have is, number one, why five-year contracts? why not two and then see how these 20 service providers are doing? and then maybe there would be less of an issue regarding a contingency fee. the other question is why 20 non-profits? why not 10? when you fund 20 non-profits, perhaps you have a duplication of services that that money could be used in a better way to provide behavioral services to the city's most vulnerable. i think you're going to shirk

your responsibility by just allowing the representations of d.p.h. and passing this on to the full board. thank you. >> walter paulson. i guess there must be 20 ways to have good health if you have it. 20 ways to be healthy. just live out the back, jack. make money plans, stan. we need more money there. just hop on the clipper bus, gus. we sure need a lot of money. it means so much. and i'm sorry to see you in such mental health pain, which is something i am going to make you smile again. and i say we appreciate that.

supervisor avalos: we will close public comment. that is what i think we would like to do. you can walk us through a mechanism for reporting back, a process, the best way that could be done? >> sure. the think the best thing in this instance would be to put it in a resolution so it would be clear that the committee is expecting a report that identifies the dollar value of each contractor on and annual basis. supervisor mirkarimi: and so after an activation of when that 12% kicks in, at least a

report back. >> well, i think the department should report any changes to the contract amounts each year. so some contracts may not have change at all, and some may have change. to the extent there is any challenge, that is reported to the board or the committee, i think that would provide you with the information as to there is either growth or additional service or other kinds of changes that have been implemented by the department consistent with their appropriation. supervisor mirkarimi: but through the chair. i'm wondering of the timing of when this committee is in the throes of budget delibyations, if there is any information pertinent as it might instruct us, even during the intensified process of add-backs, that type of reporting would be much more useful to us. >> that would be the exact time because by the end of the

fiscal year, the department would know which contracts had been increased over the course of that year. it would be very easy for the department to provide the committee with information by agency, the original amount, the year ending total and the expected dollar amount for the new fiscal year. then that can be considered by the committee during the budget . supervisor avalos: it makes some sense if we are talking about -- if we are making decisions as a committee around our restorations and add-backs to have that information. that would be most pertinent for that discussion. >> yes. supervisor mirkarimi: yes. >> i could help with the department and the clerks to put some language in the resolution so that there is certainty as to what the reporting requirement is and when it curse. supervisor mirkarimi: good. thank you. supervisor avalos: ok.

so we can make that amendment. colleagues, i think that would be -- any other amendment we would want to add to that? i don't think there are. supervisor mirkarimi: i would motion to support this,. just forward i want to say that we then are prefacing our support of this based on a trailing resolution that clarifies a report process on how the 12% contingency fee would then be communicated back to this committee and the board of supervisors. supervisor avalos: we also want to make an amendment -- make the resolution retroactive, is that correct? it already is? supervisor mirkarimi: it is implied. supervisor avalos: colleagues, based on the amendment, can we approve? >> mr. chairman, can i ask if

that includes the first recommendation to specify in this legislation, the contractors, amounts and types of services being provided? the first recommendation, not the $602 million, the entire amount that the committee is approving, but to specify. there is no specificity on these contracts. supervisor avalos: can we add that to the resolution? >> yes. supervisor avalos: that would be part b of that recommendation. colleagues, we can take those amendments without objection? ok. very good. would you call items five and six? >> item number 5, order north korean authorizing department of emergency management on behalf of the city and county of france, serving the primary grantee for the regional

catastrophic prepared ns grant programs funds in the amount of $3,470,000 from the california department of homeland security and providing matching funds. so reflect one gravent funded position. item number 6. ordinance authorizing the department of emergency management on behalf of the city and county of france for the combined bay area urban area for a grant in the amount of $34,262,131 from the united states tep of homeland

security, and amend ordinance number 11-10 to reflect the addition of two grant-funded positions. supervisor mirkarimi: the department of emergency management. >> we have before you two regional homeland security grants that are managed by the way area. they are both before you because san francisco is the fiscal agent for it. that means the federal government cuts the checks for the regional grants, and we disburse it to the region. these are annual grants the we bring them before you every year. the first grant is $3.5 million. it is too the entire bay area over three years. approximately $500,000 of that will come to san francisco. the san francisco money provides continuing funding for two planners, emergency

management and one grant manager. there is one new position, which is a regional low justics planner four, and they will be doing planning for the entire region. they will sit at emergency management. the rest of the grant funding for the region does things like long-term recovery planning, transportation plans, life lines, utilities, and designing and runs exercises to run the plans. happy to answer any questions you have on kcra 3 weather plus five-day forecast. supervisor mirkarimi: mr. chair? supervisor avalos: no questions. ok. thank you. that was on both items? >> that was item 5. i would be happy to it inwith item six. supervisor mirkarimi: both were called. >> that is the -- another one of those grans we are the

fiscal agents for. it was for $34 million. there no match. this grant is more specifically targeted on terrorism and law enforcement. out of the $34 million, san francisco is going to get about $9.5 million. that funding is allocated for things like the police department, come stat, crime lab. there is money for medical analysis equipment in case we need to identify path generals like anthrax, things for the fire department. there is money for disaster service workers and things like that. the grant will fund two deprant management positions at the department of emergency management that we are going to detail. these positions used to be work-ordered from the controller's office, and we were advised to fund it direct l from this grant. additional money goes for equipment planning, training for four courses, exercises and the like. i would be happy to answer

questions about any of the projects. supervisor mirkarimi: just one. what is it in terms of the allegation to the crime lab? >> the amount? >> yes. >> let me look that up. supervisor mirkarimi: and specifically to which purpose in the crime lab? >> let me find that for you. it is in the equipment inventory and lab development. you asked the amount, and i believe it is $334,000. it is focus on terrorism, enabling us to recognize things that are biological hazards or explosive hazards, giving our crime lab the ability to do that for terrorism prevention services. supervisor mirkarimi: and this is a grant renewal, correct? >> that is correct. san francisco has been getting pony for though grant since about 2003. supervisor mirkarimi: i am aware of that.

what happens since we, touch woodall, have not had a terrorism incident or biological incident with the money that has been sent to the crime lab before for these specific purposes? >> i am sorry, supervisor. what i am clear on your question. supervisor mirkarimi: unused funltsdz in terms of being -- funds in terms of it being applied to the crime lab. how is that then reconciled? since we have not had an experience like that, but we are renewing a grant for funds allocated but that don't, fortunately, have to bed used. where are those funds? >> i think i understand your question. i am not sure that in the past that we have had funding to the crime lab for that kind of analysis. i would have to be back and check previous dwrants to see if we have had that before. when we developed these

allegations, the police department and departments submit their requests for what their requirements are each year. they are not necessarily the same for each year. the chief submitted the priorities for his department. i am not sure if we have done funding for a project like this in previous years. i would have to check and get back to you. supervisor mirkarimi: this is labeled as a renewal, so it is a natural question to ask. before renewing it for a grant of moneys that have been allocated for those specific needs in the past, and those needs have not been allocated, luckily, because we are trying to be preventative, is there a way to find out if this has happened? >> i would be happy to check with the police department and ask them the way they have spent their funds in the past, and if they have spent it on crime lab purposes in the past. the grant is a renewal, but the projects funded change year to year depending on what the priorities are and what the

grant guidelines are. the department of homeland security changes every year. two years ago they decided that 25% of the grant had to go to law enforcement. we had never had to do that before. was of that we had to we prioritize more funding for things requested by the chief and the sheriff. they are going more than in the past because that is what we are told to do. supervisor mirkarimi: through the chair, is it possible to get more clarity on that? not now, but in the future. >> do you mean before this goes to the board of supervisors? supervisor mirkarimi: no. any time. obviously the crime lab has been of import to the board of supervisors and the ski government. allocation of funding is important to us and how these funds are being applied. >> sure. supervisor mirkarimi: a renewal, if it is a renewal, i would like to know exactly if that is the case, or is this new for this specific slice of

this grant. >> absolutely. we can confirm with the department and get back to you in a few days. supervisor mirkarimi: appreciate that. thank you. >> sure, no problem. supervisor avalos: thank you for your presentation. we will go to public comment for items five and six. items five and six? >> walter paulson. all i am saying is give peace a chance. all i am saying is give item six a grant. all i am saying is gives peace a chance. all i am saying is please give money to item six grant.

supervisor avalos: if there are no other members of the public who would comment, we close public comment on items five and six. we will move those forth with recommendation and take that without objection. to the full board with remuneration. i need to check with my legislative staff. it will be more than five minutes. just a quick recess.

supervisor avalos: ok, wore back in session. if members of the audience could go to a whisper, that would be great. thank you. would you please call item number seven? >> item number seven. order nancy amending the san francisco administrative code, chap six, public works contracting policies and prose, subsection 6.22 g to establish a local hiring policy for city public works or improvement projects are choirs contractors and their subcontractors to perform a certain percentage of project work hours using san francisco residents. making find things in support of the policy, authorizing incentives for contractors who exceed local hiring requirement s, mandating assessment of

liquidateded damages, and establishing monday torg enforcement and administrative procedures in support of the policy. supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. young. colleagues, if you can bear with me on the introduction. this is a very complex piece of legislation. i want to make sure i cover a lot of base ways. i'm reading from my talking points here. colleagues, for the past several months i have sat down with employers who perform public work, met with unemployed construction workers who live in san francisco, convened meetings with advocates and community leaders to hear concerns, met with individual building trade unions, minority and small local contractors, read all the published reports on local hire, looked at what other jurisdictions like cleveland are doing to promote construction opportunities for their residents, spent time their residents, spent time with our city attorney