this shows phase two, the ship. after the event, the court would build up the remaining building, which includes the customs and border protection and security rooms come install marine of equipment. and complete the improvements on the ground, which is the northeast plaza, a two-acre plaza and the crown prince -- ground transportation area. that is between pier 27 and kurt 29 area. it is an approved, we have an extremely compressed schedule to deliver it in time for the event. in order to meet the date stipulated in the host and venue agreement, the general contractor needs to place the order for steel now because of the long lead time. this process begins shop

drawings, purchase of steel fabrication and installation. the poor recognizes the city may disproves the event, cruise terminal, or both event. we acknowledge to place the order now, prior to the project approval is at some risk to the port. however, this is the best course of action because of three reasons. now is a great time to purchase the deal. prices are low and we have indications of prices will escalate. if the cruise terminal project it disapproved, the court to cancel the fabrication. 3, this lower-cost deal could be reduced. as indicated in the memorandum, no construction worker insulation will occur at the

site until after the regulatory approvals are granted, including environmental review under the california quality act and the port commission and city have approved the project. for the street package, local participation level has been set up 20% with a gold no less than 10 percent of the work hours to be performed by disadvantaged workers. local enterprise goal is 17%, but the total -- the total value of the entire contract. for funding sources, as proposed by the port staff, funding for the amended contract will be provided by culmination of the ports 2010 revenue bond proceeds for the fiscal year 2011 for capital projects in the port share proceeds from sale of the watermark condominiums. the availability and use of the

watermark condominium proceeds are subject to the release of 17,000,700 $900,635 reserve by the board of supervisors' budget and finance committee. it is anticipated the item will be heard by the board finance committee. in conclusion, for staff request for commission of an approval to the construction manager, general contractor contract, with turner construction company to provide funding for the subcontractor bid package for structural steel subject to city certification of the final eir, approval undersea sequa. >> so moved. >> second. >>commissioner woo ho: when you mentioned under option 2, how much money would be expended?

you mentioned you could cancel at so -- as some point, but how much money would have been invested? to go i do not have the table, but i think the last part would be installation, which i believe was $2.7 million. the first part of the shop drawings, which is basically engineering time of 225,000. after that the steel would be ordered and delivered to the fabricator and brought to their sight. the added labor for fabrication -- >> it would not be all this deal? then you said you could resell it if for some reason -- >> we could reuse it on other projects, but we get the most of you before it is fabricated, certainly after it is installed

we only have one use for it. take a right. thank you. -- >> right. >> it is 3.7 million we would have been advanced. i would say would be advanced for steel use somewhere else. it could be used at the back plants, pier 70, any number of places, we just would have purchased it sooner than we would have for those projects normally. on the other hand, we're trying to buy it at the low point of the price curve. and the steel could be reused? >> it is hard to say at what point we would exercise the cancel option, but the order would include purchase of raw steel and the fabrication and delivery. if at that point but project

does not go forward, then we would be meeting to employ this deal elsewhere in the portfolio. if at some point the project receives approval sooner, we could exercise our determination rights at any other point in the delivery stream. >> is there a point where it would be harder to use this field? >> it is specialized for this building, not for the site. you come put it somewhere else. it is a building that will look like the building we envision for pure 27. is that correct? >> yes. could be. >> could be, is that what you said? [laughter] what i am getting at is we would be able to use whatever funds

are expended, that still could be utilized elsewhere and not be out significant funds regardless of the point in time within which we had to terminate. >> correct. there are many materials we do inventory. we would be purchasing steel, fabricating it in a specific format and indicating it in using it in approval for other projects. the limitation would be if you build a building somewhere else, it would have to look like the building from which to fabricated the steel. does that make sense? >> i have a more mundane question. where are we purchasing the steel from? >> the lowest bidder. >> where is that currently? take a we have not gone out to bid for it yet.

current bids are coming in from salt lake city agree prices, but it depends on market conditions and time. there is no by america causes. >> i understand that. but putting people back to work might be a good thing to do. strongly consider that. >> any other comments? >> specifics with the wording of increase of funds. is this exclusively for the design and fabrication of the steel, or is there any added cost that we had already previously granted approval for? is that increase this cm --

>> there is considerable extra cost. it is approved, but not spent. in other words, we have approved these up to a certain amount -- >> is this additional to what have been approved? >> yes. >> so they're getting paid extra for the steel fabrications component or not? >> they are getting a percentage to manage the work. it is in the initial 3.9 something. >> so it is not additive? sticker you are correct. -- >> you are correct. >> the 6,050,000 that is requested is added to the turner contract, but it will be

payable to whoever supplies the subcontract? turner fees are are ready approved in the previous contract, so it is additive, but not to turner's bottom line? to go that is correct. >> that is correct. >> any public comment on this item? commissioners, and more comments or questions? all in favor, >> the item has been approved. >> item 11, new business. any public comment on public comment? no. >> a motion to reconvene to executive session. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye.>> are we ready?

>> move to reconvene in open session? all in favor? >> aye >e. >> move to adjourn? >> second. >> meeting adjourned at 5:23 p.m.

supervisor mirkarimi: good morning. welcome to the public safety meeting. we understand supervisor campos will be joining us certainly. madame clerk, could you please read items #one, to, three, and for? >> item 1, a resolution authorizing the fire department to spend a grant in the amount of $230,000 from the federal emergency management agency for fiscal year 2007, a supplemental port security grant program for assets to enhance the fire department's water-based response capabilities and increase its protection of the port of san francisco and the san francisco bay. item #2, authorizing the fire department to spend a grant in

the amount of $7,870,484 from the federal emergency management ag and seat for the fiscal year 2008 port security grant program to enhance the fire department's water-base response capabilities and increase its protection of the port of san francisco and san francisco bay. item 3, authorizing the fire department to accept an expanded grant of 645120 -- $645,000 for the security bent -- for $645,125 to increase its protection of the port of san francisco and san francisco bay. item #4, authorizing the fire department to accept and expand a grant in the amount of 107,000 to enter $96 from the federal emergency management agency for the purchase and installation of seven commercial washer extractors to clean personal

protective a quick assessment. -- personal protective equipment. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. >> i'm here on behalf of the fire department to present the first four items on the agenda. the first three are resolutions requesting approval by the board of supervisors to authorize the department to except and expend approximately 8.7 $5 million related to water and pour-based projects. -- approximately $8.75 million related to water-based projects. the department applied for the program coordinated by with assistance from the united states coastguard. in january of this year, the far apart was notified we were awarded eight projects totaling $8.75 million.

this is one of the grant programs under the federal department of homeland's security. the purpose is to increase management at the nation's ports and protect the nation support infrastructure. these projects are water-based and designed to enhance the port and a response capabilities. the san francisco bay qualifies as a highest risk status as a port. the three different fiscal year grants for a total of $237,000, the 2008 grant is for $7.9 million, and the 2010 grant is approximately $650,000. it is good news in the current economic climate. there are no matching funds required by the department for any of these projects. the largest project is in the 2008 fiscal year both in scope and financial size, a new type to fireboat. currently, there are two fireboats and they're both over

15 years old. this would allow the department to purchase a new fire boat. the department is not actually receiving the money from. a fiduciary agent has been set up and we will be working with them for reimbursement. the department is very excited about these upcoming projects, more so in light of america's cup coming to san francisco. we request you move these to the full board for approval. on the fourth item, an additional grant from, a resolution to have the department approved a grant for the purchase of installation of several wash extractors for the department. in august of last year, the board of supervisors passed a resolution at -- recommending a gift of five washer extractors to be used to clean personal protective equipment of members. these were donated by the san francisco fire fighters cancer prevention center. at the time, we were working

with the cancer foundation and applying through for a grant of the dish -- of an additional seven washer extractors for a total of 12. the department was awarded the grand earlier this year. the total cost is 140 -- $134,000. a match is required which comes to a cost inc. to department's budget. the total amount of federal funds is $107,296, that is the 80% federal contribution. these machines are heavy-duty machines used to clean personal protective a quip and white coats and pants over the course of responding to incidents, they could be sought with toxins etc., so the goal is to increase not all health and safety department members but reduce wear and tear of personal protective gear and help them out by washington. i'm happy to answer any

questions. supervisor mirkarimi: this is all pretty straightforward. is there any change in staffing? >> no. supervisor mirkarimi: colleagues, any question? is there any public comment? public, disclosed. we take this with recommendation. so moved. madame clerk, item no. 5. >> a resolution authorizing the district attorney to renew its current agreement with the california victims' compensation and government claims board, an agency of the state of california, for a revolving fund and the amount of $75,000 to be used to pay for verified funeral and burial expenses for eligible homicide victims and emergency relocation for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault from the july 1, 2011 through june 30th, 2014.

supervisor mirkarimi: good morning. welcome. >> i'm from the district attorney's office. we have a contract with the state victim's compensation program. the revolving fund is full of money that allows us to make payments faster to providers, victims, and their families. if there is a homicide, we are able to pull the money out for the funeral burial expenses within a couple of days, otherwise we would have to wait for a longer process. this pool of money allows us to do that. homicide cases, domestic violence, and sexual assault cases. supervisor mirkarimi: sometimes my office and i know others have had to intervene to get assistance for victims families who do not have the wherewithal to pay for funeral expenses and other accessory costs. does it get to a point where we exceed the capacity of money

made available to the city in being able to assist that population, especially if the population is increase relative to the homicide rate? >> know, we have not run out of funds to assist homicide victims and their families. i would imagine it's a rare case when there is outside involvement needed to get these expenses paid. for example, when a homicide happens, the crisis response team responds immediately, they go up to the scene of every homicide. we have a close working relationship with the crt professionals and they will walk family members to our office. if that does not happen, our advocates reject immediately, but the contact information from the medical examiner, and start making contact as soon as a homicide has occurred. this is something we work on quickly. the homicides, we do not wait. the only wrinkle is the state has tightened up their interpretation of their guidelines for eligibility.

so whereas a case in the past where there is a homicide and the victim may be was engaged in a drug deal, that would still go through. today, that would be tougher to push through because the state is looking at whether the victim contributed or was involved in the crime. >> all the dollars associated our state driven, is there any match local dollars at all? >> there is no local match. >> is there a need for added assistance of local dollars or what is provided for by the state is sufficient? >> in terms of their appalling fund, that has been working well. when we get to item number six, the general victim compensation staffing, the dollars, we have taken a cut to that grand, so we have had to pick up one of the positions on the general fund, so there is additional need their. >>supervisor campos: i'm wonderg

if you can give us information as far as how many families have benefited from this service? >> our data is not real good. the state keeps the data. what i can tell you is for fiscal year 2009-2010, we paid out over $3 million in benefits to victims, their families and providers. that was for a total of 1120 cases filed in san francisco. that's not the number of victims we see, that is closer to 4000, but the number of applications was 1720. -- supervisor campos: what is the rate at which applications are approved or denied? what is the percentage in terms of applications that are approved? >> i don't know the answer to

that and it depends on the benefit. in this last fiscal year, the numbers are lower for approval because of state guidelines. supervisor campos: what i am trying to get to is to have an understanding of how what we are doing relates to the need that is out there and i think that requires having a better sense of how many people are applying, how many people are seeking help, who actually ends up getting the help, and to the extent applications are denied, what the basis for that and i'll is -- the bases for that and i'll are. -- for that denial are. >> i don't know if i will have the breakdown, but i think we do have the percentage of approvals and denials. supervisor campos: i think it is something we as a city should be

aware of and have that information. to the extent this is a state- run program, where there may be a need where a gap needs to be filled, we need to be mindful or aware of that. i don't know where the money for something like that would come from, but it's something we should consider and certainly look into. to do that, to have a sense of whether or not there's a need for the city to step in and supplement what the city is doing, we need to find out what the need is and we need to get a better sense of the way of the land. thank you very much. supervisor cohen: following along the lines of the supervisor campos, a want to know which department manages this data. >> it is the california victim compensation claims board. supervisor cohen: is this a

politically appointed board? >> is appointed by the governor. supervisor cohen: all seats? >> yes. supervisor cohen: do you have the information on what the average payment to each family is? >> i do not. i don't know if they would have it. supervisor cohen: so say my son is killed and i live in public housing. i make an application, where do i find that application? >> in the d.a.'s office. supervisor cohen: then who reviews it? >> the claims staff employed by the d.a.'s office. supervisor cohen: then what happens? >> it will determine eligibility and send it to the state. supervisor cohen: does the state have final say? do they have the ability to overturn the decision made at a local level? >> they do. supervisor cohen: i suspect you probably don't know what that ratio is.

>> i do not. supervisor mirkarimi: just picking up on the threat of this discussion, who advocates for the victims' families to the state? is that you? >> yes. that is the advocates in the victims' services division. because of the problems we're having now with the state's tightening up their guidelines, advocates have become experts on the appeal process. they're ready to assist them throughout the process. >> i would think part of -- supervisor mirkarimi: i would think part of that advocacy would be to be well equipped with statistics as to who is getting the kind of funding necessary and is getting rejected. i think that would empower san francisco to be more vocal either to the state or signal to the city government that state is not helping to the degree they should so maybe we need to step in. i have to tell you, less than one month ago, i had to spend a very sad morning with the mother

whose son was murdered in hayes valley. she was very distressed and it was hard to have a measure discussion, but she was not getting assistance. her office did have to call on the expenses that she felt completely overwhelmed, and very distressed about. not that i expect your office to be the ones that fix it all, but it bubbles up quite a bit that we have had to intervene from our office over the years to try to usher people through the process. i do not believe this is as smooth as it sounds like, and i have a feeling there's a larger population out there getting rejected then we are aware of. it would be nice to know that for sure because it is anecdotal. >> i think it would be nice to have the data. the process is rarely smooth

because you're dealing with families that have suffered a devastating loss. the first time they come to our office, sometimes they don't even remember they have been there. it's not uncommon for them to go to another office and say no is helping me when they have been held to the rest of our ability. but we cannot help everything and we cannot make the pain go away. we're always open to calls from other agencies for assistance, but those advocates, especially on homicide, i am positive they reached out to that mother before they called you. supervisor mirkarimi: i think it helps to tie the loop up so the d.a.'s office and the victim's witness assistant does not feel alone in this process, that there would be a more collaborative effort so we are at least half of the game, especially if the state is going through the kind of fiscal crisis is going through. that least prepares us so that in the budget committee, which i

sit on, we are able to then anticipate potential need. it seems to be relative to the violence rate and homicide rate we have been experiencing, and it has been seesawing quite a bit. >> we were collectively, so we will accept any help that is available. . supervisor mirkarimi: we may want to have a different relationship so that binds the officers and potentially criminal justice agencies, so that they're a little more alert to the fact that this is a need that needs to be addressed. thank you. we appreciate everything. i do not believe we have anymore questions. any public comment on this item? i did not call the next one, so -- i am ok for