but is now calculated on the adult side -- do you understand my question? if there is a drop in -- under the juvenile umbrella, or an increase in the probation department of those repeating offenses, if they are affected on the adult side, it is in that one place that makes a complicated for me to pull out those figures. >> it is complicated. we have some very strong confidentiality rules as it relates to juvenile records. try to come up with that data in terms of when they enter the adult side and do a comparison -- it has been a challenge in the past. we know that once justice is up and running, that will help us share the information. we can run an analysis that takes, for example, some random sample of you that a certain

age. and we can look at the numbers on our side and ask to go over to adult probation to run the numbers since they would be adults at that time. so we can work together to create some kind of analysis, if that is what you are interested in. supervisor mirkarimi: i am curious to get a more full understanding between both, from juvenile to adult. >> we are, too. san francisco is the only jurisdiction in the state with separate departments. it is good for focusing on the juvenile programming, but the challenge with that is when you have two separate departments, the information it comes complicated. >> what is interesting about that -- we are true -- it is true, we are the only city and county that separates the two. but because of the strong 18-24- year-old offense rates, it is the 18, 19-year-old that i am not clear on what they're

foundational history is, their status as you off. so it is like we are starting over again. >> absolutely. one thing we're doing that is a part of this grant is, we had some carry forward funds from the foundation from a previous grant. adult probation is working to contract for a new web-based case management system. we are talking with them and the provider of that system to see if we cannot share that system to some degree, so have the same infrastructure and then create some ways for us to share information to the extent we can. that is a good year out. but it is something we are looking at now. we think it will help in terms of making sure we are sharing not only data, but in terms of programming, that there is a seamless transition, if you will, if a child is moving through to the adult system, that we can make sure that there is no information lost between

the two. supervisor mirkarimi: exactly. related to your exchange with supervisor kim, with regard to the attitude as to why the numbers dropped, several years ago, when the number was spiking a bit -- also because of the immigration concerns, those who are immigrants youth. city government responded and there had been some publications about how we wanted to make sure that the numbers are below -- is that also keeping to the same objectives as well? there is not a cap, per say, that is a bad word, but the numbers have been significantly reduced since that had all occurred. >> they have, but again, we have to look at our numbers,

principally. even a few years ago when we were working through those issues, the number of immigrants youth was still a relatively small percentage of our total youth served. so that number has declined. the total number has declined significantly, so it would not be attributable to that one factor, although that is part of it. because that population has always been a small percentage of our total population served, the larger reduction, we think -- there are many factors associated with it. certainly, that is part of it, but there are other factors. city-wide factors also a tribute, in terms of the economy, programs and other departments may offer. as much as we would like to take full credit for it, we know it is his efforts on the part of the city and county that have helped in that reduction as well. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you.

supervisor chu: why don't we open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi: motion to advance with recommendations. supervisor chu: without objection. item three please. >> item 3. resolution authorizing the san francisco department of public health to retroactively accept and expend a grant from the substance abuse and mental health services in the amount of $325,000 to fund the san francisco adult treatment drug court for the period of september 30, 2010, through september 29, 2011. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. correct carderock. the autumn before you is accept and expend for a grant for the federal substance mental health services the ministrations for the purpose of creating an on- site intensive outpatient

program at the drug court treatment center located at the corner of sixth and bryant. since its inception, the drug court has fulfilled a function of case management care coordination, care linkage, with the acceptance and implementation of this grant and program. we will be able to provide treatment services on site to defendants in the program who are receiving surfaces in leo of a criminal count conviction or incarceration. you asked your approval, thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. do we have a question from the committee? supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. first of all, i am a big fan of the drug court. it has been tried and true and i have been through a few graduation's as well as the behavioral court. what is the location again? >> 409 6thn street, about a haf

a block from the hall of justice. supervisor mirkarimi: the community court that with established for the tenderloin- soma area, is there>> that is a there is interface between the two programs. there are many defendants or offenders who wind up at the community justice center. they may be eligible from suitability as well as legal perspective to participate in the adult drug court. if that is the case, they can be transferred to receive those services. >> in the creation of the community justice center, i could not understand why they were not willing to put more money into the drug courts because it had been proven so

effective whereas i thought it was just adding another bureaucratic step. now that there has been some testing, i was curious about level of interface between community justice and drug court. you're not far from each other geographically but demographically you are probably taking in a fair amount of similar populations. i was just trying to get a little bit of feedback. thank you very much. if we have no further questions, we can go to public comments. that is okay. public comment. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i would like to speak out in favor of this item. i feel our new leadership at the

department of public health deserves all our support, so every grant that goes to the department of public health is going to be well spent. since it involves mental health services, i would like to put a reminder that even local government officials are not supposed to miss use mental health services to punish government whistleblowers like myself. thank you. >> are there other members of the public who wish to speak? public, disclosed. we have a motion to send it for with recommendations. seconded without objections. >> item 4 is a resolution authorizing the san francisco department public health to retroactively accept and expand a grant from the substance abuse and mental health services in the amount of -- from the

time of the september 30, 2000 tend through september 29th, to dow's 11. >> this mimics what we spoke about previously. this is an additional grant we hope to use to implement an intensive outpatient program on site at the community justice center located at 557 poll street. the community justice center, which is a collaborative effort between various groups and a superior court has been working to service those who would otherwise wind up under a justice mandate or within the criminal justice system. we would recommend approval of this grant application and we also have the coordinator of the community justice center and with the superior court of california. >>supervisor mirkarimi: relatedo

my previous question, those who are eligible through the community justice center, are they the ones who are deemed in violation just within the borders of the jurisdiction of the community justice center? >> i am with the superior court. primarily, the guidelines that get a defendant to our program is the geographic region of which the cjc serves, not necessarily the case type. the first element of jurisdiction is our primary conduit into the program. we have a list of guidelines in terms of case types served as well. >> it is always -- supervisor mirkarimi: it is

always helpful to remind the public, what is the border exactly of the cjc? >> i like to describe the border by neighborhoods as opposed to the map. i can provide that to you or the public. we serve the tenderloin completely, south of market, civic center and union square neighborhood. our lines go out to bush st., all the way to third -- it is quite a big swath of the community. those neighborhoods and police stations are within our jurisdiction. supervisor mirkarimi: it just so happens that my district abuts to your border. it struck an initial concern when this conversation came up almost three years ago. how do you answer the question to people who say we have the same needs but yet those people

who are cited a or are arrested or violations occur outside the board but not out -- but not far outside the border, how would the same people get the same level of service outside of the radius? what do you tell people? >> what we were able to do is offer services on site to any san francisco residence. you do not need a criminal case to access the center. any person who may be in need of the services we have to offer can come to the service center and we will figure out and link them to whatever community resources we have available. we are very aware that communities all over san francisco need those resources and we invite those whether you

have a case or not to access those resources. >> there must be a heavy demand on your limited resources. i would think it is the criminal justice system in particular that is driving some of the demand, depending on the uptick of people requiring diversion or attention. >> our primary concern is the people coming through the criminal justice system, but we did not want to exclude others who may need the resources. supervisor mirkarimi: yet again, this is a very special jurisdiction because there are almost two parallel universes for lack of a better digram -- it is the cjc universe and then the universe outside the cjc. >> we try to not only have the services people can access on site but we try to create

community engagement said that resources and opportunities that might be available to participants cjc can be used by the community at large. we work with groups and other leaders who might be able to provide general resources for people in the community. it's a big component of the community justice center and making it effective. not just what we do in house but how we connect with existing resources in the community. supervisor mirkarimi: it is a three-year grant. is typically in annual income and you are asking for. what happens after the third year? does it fold automatically within dph's budget or is there more grant funding? >> we are exploring different ways to institutionalize the program after the three years of the grant. the grant does allow for a no-

cost extension, so after the third year, if we have not expended all grant dollars, we are allowed to extend them into future years. that is a discussion we're having with leadership as far as how to institutionalize these efforts after the grant sunsets. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor kim: my reading is this is funding, not necessarily an enhancement. >> that's correct. it is using current positions that are underfunded and detailing them to the brick and mortar buildings that are the cjc located at 575 pulled street. supervisor kim: when we talk about to go to thecjc is it that they live in this area or are arrested and charged in the

area? >> both. supervisor kim: so if you are arrested the, you have the option to go to the cjc. >> is not an option. if your crime happens in that jurisdiction, it is processed through the criminal court. but if you live in the community, the judges and other cases referred those individuals to us as well. supervisor kim: if it was a person that lives in the area but got arrested outside the area, it could be taken to cjc. >> we have done cases like that. supervisor kim: you serve approximately 500 people a month. over the two years, 42 clients have successfully completed their treatment and legal obligations? >> we do not actually serve 500

clients per month. supervisor kim: thecjc currently serves more than 500 people on a monthly basis -- that is what the grant says. >> that a static population of 500 and given time. rather than by hundred brand new and duplicated clients coming to the program in any given month, it is 500 in terms of the static capacity. supervisor kim: that probably needs to be written more clearly than. how many people get served at the cjc? >> apartment? -- per month? we are currently serving 490 clients per day either being monitored by probation or receiving services through thedph providers. if is a bit more of a static

number. those folks, the cases have a there been resolved or their act to of -- or that are actively engaging in treatment. >> so -- supervisor kim: 42 that actually completed the program? >> that was written one year ago, so the numbers have changed. supervisor kim: that's good. >> the federal government took quite a long time. the solicitation was published a year-and-a-half ago. our application was submitted one year ago. it was not until as recently as december that we received our award modifications. supervisor kim: i will not ask any more questions about it grant, but i would like to get the updated numbers. i will definitely come to visit. supervisor chu: are there members of the public who wish to comment on item number four?

>> it good morning, the supervisors. i have lived in san francisco for 59 years. i would like to speak on behalf of this resolution. i think any money the department of public health gets is a step in the right direction. under the leadership of the new director, i feel the money will be well spent and hopefully will improve the efficiency of the department of public health. i think it is obvious that every money the public health department gets is sorely needed by the residents of san francisco. i think it is the responsibility of this committee to make sure the two main hospitals, laguna honda and san francisco general, have -- does not waste money as it has in the past and i would like to refer to the 2003 performance audit on financial

resources at san francisco general hospital. i'm wondering whether one will be done for laguna honda hospital now. thank you. supervisor chu: are there other members of the public that wish to comment on item number four? public, disclosed. we have eight recommendations to send this. we will doubt objection. >> item #5, resolution of proving a first amendment to a memorandum of understanding between the city and county of san francisco, the city of oakland, the city of san jose, the county of alameda and the county of santa clara that establishes a governance structure and procedures for application, allocation, and distribution of federal urban areas and security initiatives grant funds to the bay urban area to extend the term authorizing the executive

director department of emergency management to execute on behalf of the city. >> this would extend the mou for six months while we work on renegotiating a broader and newmou. this was established in 2006. the board approved a that mou and now we ask you to approve a new one in 2007. that expired at the end of last year. we are in the process of negotiating a new one and we have not finished yet. we are asking all the member jurisdictions to extend the current one for six months while we finish our negotiations. we hope to be back in front of you in the spring time with the new mou and then we'll go into details about the changes. this document does not change the current one, it just extends

the current one. i'm happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: a pretty straightforward item. any members of the public wish to comment on item number five? seeing the end, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to send this item forward? we have a motion to send a set of chord with a recommendation. we can do that without objection. thank you. item number six, please. >> item #6 -- resolution approving the agreement between the city and olin corp. and sodium hypochlorite for, which is estimated to exceed $10 million pursuant to charter section 9 appointed11 -- section9.118b. >> one of purchasing's task is to establish term contracts to provide specific products for a

specified time at prices determined through a competitive bidding process. this allows us to consolidate the needs of multiple departments to achieve economies of scale and it allows the department to utilize the contract and received best prices on an as-needed basis. because the estimate for this proposed contract exceeds $10 million, we are here before you seeking your approval. sodium hypochlorite is a mixture of sodium hydroxide and chlorine. it is an essential chemicals utilized to ensure the safety of public drinking water. it is also used for disinfecting water treatment equipment to meet government regulations and to disinfect with water by removing pathogen's before sending the water out to the day. this contract is critical to the city's water treatment program and is one of half a dozen

contracts that we periodically come to the board seeking approval for. the bid was issued on october 7th, 2010 and bids were due on november 12th, 2010. you will see here a summary of the results. basically, as you can see, olin, the recommended bidder was the low bidder. if you look at the three-year cost, the next low bidder is about $2 million higher, an increase of about 14%. the third bidder was almost $5 million higher, about 34.5% more. the low bidder, olin, is the largest producer of sodium hypochlorite in california and

north america. this is unique in the industry. the product is produced in tracy, calif., and at four plants in the western u.s. to ensure continual product availability. olin has been in business for over a hundred years and the city has approximately 20 years of experience working with this company. as was pointed out in the report, based on the estimated usage, this contract would save the city over $726,000, approximately 13% over the first year. this is compared to current expenditures for the same product. we estimate the contract now will be approximately $14 million for the first three years of the contract. we have requested the board approved a not to exceed amount

of $23.5 million, which would allow oca to exercise one or both of the 21-year extension options to the contract. -- both of the one-year extension options to the contract. i am here to answer any additional questions the supervisors may have. supervisor chu: why don't we go to our budget analyst for the report. >> madam chair and members of the committee, we concur had there would be a savings of about $726,000 in the first year as a result of this competitive bid. we fully support this new competitive bid to purchase this chemical.

we also concur with the not to exceed about 45 years, however, thetwo 1-year options, it's not known now if they will be exercised. our recommendation is, using the actual bid amount for the base time frame to put a not to exceed amount of 14 million -- $14,286,000, and that about is exactly what was bid. >> thank you. just a quick question for the department. i noticed that our budget analysis put together that it is true they had the ability to continue to extend the contract. it looked like what we did was instead of just going to continue the contract, we put it out to bid again. can you explain what the process was and explain why we did not exercise the additional

extension? in this example, it did work out as a cost savings to the city. >> staff goes through a process of reviewing pricing and doing research in that industry and, in looking at the market, it appeared by looking at different indexes that prices had dropped and said the decision was made to actually go out to bid again and test the pricing in the marketplace. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: in terms of that usage question, is it tied to the consumption of water? >> i suspect is tied to the consumption of water, waste water, and rainfall. supervisor mirkarimi: out is that usage compare with in the previous contract time? i'm curious as to whee