consistent basis once the improvements have been finished. i think some of the people there, in a certain sense, discourage use of the property during the daytime, so i think there should be more enforcement of whatever needs to be enforced. this way, neighboring residents can come to the property and use it more often. in regards to the park, i also think that there should be more publicity in the general neighborhood and to encourage people to use the park. i see fliers and other publicity regarding other neighborhoods or their parks. i do not remember seeing anything about publicity for parks in the lower income neighborhood. so maybe a park and rec department should try to publicize these facilities in

the lower income neighborhoods, rather than just publicizing facilities in the high income neighborhoods. thank you. [bell rings] supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. a quick question to jake. can you speak a little bit about the timeline of this project? when are you going to rehearse ground and went do expect to be completed? >> we are actually out to bid right now. we expect to accept bids in june. go to the rec and park commission in june or july, a break ground in august or september. construction will be through the end of this year and all of next year. we're looking at opening in early 2014. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: just a question about local dollars on

this project that would trigger a local hiring requirements? >> there is currently no city funding above the we're complying with full local hire requirements as part of the process. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. this item was heard, and public comment was third in the budget analyst report. do we have a motion to send forward with a recommendation? we have a motion to set it forward with recommendations. we will do that without objection. thank you. item five, please. >> item 5, resolution authorizing the acceptance and expenditure of state transportation development act article 3 funds for various pedestrian and bicycle projects in san francisco in fy 2012- 2013, totaling $907,824, including $453,912 for the departed of public works and $453,912 from the san francisco and municipal transportation agency. supervisor chu: thank you very

much. >> good morning. i am the new transportation finance analyst with the department of public works. the proposed resolution before you authorizes the director is dpw and the director of transportation's sfmta to accept and expand a total of $907,824 in transportation development act article 3, or tda article 3 state grant funds from the metropolitan transportation commission in fiscal year 2012-2013. for background on the funding source, the transportation development act of 1971 earmarked a quarter percent of the general state sales tax for transit and created a local transportation fund in each county to receive those funds. the state board of equalization returns the general sales tax revenues to each county's local transportation fund according to the sales tax collected in the county. article 3 of the tda apportioned

2% of the quarter per cent sales tax for by facilities, pedestrian, street, and erode the dollar project. the funds are allocated by the metropolitan transportation commission annually and disbursed under article 3 to the nine bay area counties. dpw and mta are submitting a joint countywide applications. attached in the committee package are detailed budgets for the expenditures for dpw and mta. the agencies are splitting the available funds equally. and he proposes to use $453,912 for bicycle education programs as well as bicycle facility engineering, implementation, and maintenance -- means. dpw proposes to use $226,956 to repair public sidewalks. the remaining $226,956 will be used for preliminary engineering, planning and design

of curb ramps at various sites selected from a list developed by dpw in conjunction with the mayor's office of disability. programs designed with these grant funds will be constructed in fiscal years 2013-2014 using funds from prop k, the local have since sales tax measure to the metropolitan transportation commission does not require that counties provide local matching funds for this grant. we had mta and dpw programs that here that would be happy to answer questions from the board. supervisor avalos: thank you for your presentation. i see others coming in. a question about the bicycle safety outreach and education programs. how are those conducted? i guess that is a question for the mta. >> yes, i will ask them to step up. >> i am with liveable streets at the mta. typically we take about 10% of the tda allocation and use it

for a variety of ongoing activities, as well as new initiatives that we come up with. we have used them in the past to purchase bike lights or giveaways and also conduct bike education classes that the san francisco bike dollars in conduct for free. we have other ideas this year including a training video for muni drivers on how to interact more safely with bicyclists. it can be incorporated into the regular minnie driver training. and an idea to do a mik-- a bike bell. the way. 10% of that amount is $45,000, so we'd stretch it as far as we can. but it is not a substantial amount of funding but we still rely on prop k to fund some of

those activities as well. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor avalos. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number five? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we do not have a budget analyst report on this item. we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. we can do that without objection. item six, seven, eight, and nine. >> item number six, resolution approving an amendment to the contract with an addiction, research, and treatment, incorporated, doing business as baart for methadone maintenance services to $27,209,317. item seven, resolution approving an amendment to the contract with asian american recovery services for fiscal intermediary services by $66,510,8454 and an additional four years.

item number 8, resolution approving an amendment to the contract with the apollo held st., incorporated, for retroactive claiming of aged accounts services by $3,675,000 for eight years -- for an additional four years. item number 9, resolution approving an amendment to the contract with triage consulting group for retroactive claiming of aged account services to $1,823,761 for eight years. >> i am from the ph. i will be speaking on the first two. then it diana will speak on the second two. as described, the first contract is with the bay area addiction research and treatment. we called it baart. the second one is with asian american recovery services. i wanted to make a comment on

the recommendations for these two contracts. both of them, the recommendation is around a concerted -- the contingency. the contingency process is and then that we implemented as a result of the board of supervisors citywide contract task force back in 2002, and this is specifically a recommendation in there that the department piloted in 2003 and then implemented in 2005 as a way of providing us to react more quickly and to improve contract streamlining and a the contract certification process. the budget analyst has proposed changing the methodology, which i think their recommendation is a logical. i am not going to argue with the logic of it, but i will say that by as having the maximum contingency capacity, what that has allowed us to do is to react quickly to changes that can occur suddenly, especially program closures.

recently, there was a very large program closure, and we were able to move the funding to another agency without a break in services. but because these dollars are so large, agencies cannot absorb and carry the cost of services prior to having the money in their pocket. they can do that a little more easily if it is already services they are providing. but if you're moving a whole program, and it is possible there could have been a break in services in that case. so allowing this full capacity of the contingency is what has allowed us to have that flexibility. and i would just say, because maybe it is not clear, but the contingency is not something we can spend unless we actually have the money. like if you set up a bank account, you cannot start withdrawing dollars until you have money in the bank account. so if it is a contingency with 12% or 100%, the fiscal controls

are here with the city already. the comptroller's office certifies the availability of funds each time we try to set up a contract. so i do not know what benefit it is to the city to reduce the contingency amount, but i know for the department, it will delay, i am sure in some cases it will delay contract processing. hopefully not, but it could possibly cause a break in services if we are moving services from one agency to another. supervisor chu: thank you. >> i am the director of patient financial-services for the san francisco general laguna honda and community clinics for the

department of public health. the two requests for your approval are two vendor contracts that we used primarily at san francisco general to have, in the past four years, assisted us in further collections from peers -- payers that may not have been identified at the time that we had the patience accounts processed -- the patient's accounts processed through our patient accounting area. for san francisco general, our department has been allotted about $287 million, and this is two vendors that help support the continuance of furthering our collection efforts.

the apollo specialty aged accounts are identifying retro medi-cals. oftentimes patients come our way, and we processing them forbes medi-cal -- for medi-cal applications which can take over eight months. they are able to use the retro accounts and be processed. they have been successful in their collection efforts to approve a our bottom line as well as triage whose specialty is in managed care. in the initial portion of their contract with us, they were able to assist us with some refinements of our procedure to capture more revenues, which we implemented for workers' compensation, for example. and with the recommendations, we

have been able to tighten up our procedures and of course their collections of been reduced based on that. but that is the relationship we have with them. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report? >> madam chair, members of the committee, supervisor farrell -- first of all, when the contingency policy was adopted by the board of supervisors, there was never -- it was never contemplated the contingency -- we talked about an original contract and a contingency on an original contract. not in that policy was a first amendment or a second amendment or a third amendment. so now when we have amendments, it is absolutely ridiculous to have a contingency amount that would be based on prior expenditures already incurred. it is also true that the

department, as the the promise did it, that all funds are subject to appropriation approval by the board of supervisors. but if you inflate a contingency amount to an amount that is miscalculated, that is an invitation for an outside contractor to come back to the department and intend to convince the department that funds are needed. i am not saying the department did not do a good job in monitoring it, but it is absolutely an invitation to the bottom line is the contingency amount should be based on future expenditures. it should never be based on prior expenditures that have already been incurred. the contingency is for something that may happen that was not anticipated, not on prior expenditures. our recommendation is, on these items, to reduce the contingency amounts to the calculation we made which is based on the prospective expenditures and to approve the resolutions as amended. supervisor chu: thank you.

to be clear, with regards to your room addition for the contingency levels, it does not eliminate the contingency. it says for the contract that has already been incurred, you know what need a contingency for that. the going forward, we're still allowing that 12% contingency. >> that is absolutely correct. we're not questioning that the department to not have this flexibility in the contingency amount. you're totally correct. supervisor chu: thank you. i would like to go to public comment on these items, but i do have a question to the department with regards to contingency. let's open it up to public comment. if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on items six, eight -- 6, 7, 8, or nine, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. to the department, given that -- at first i was kind of ambivalent about which way i would go on this contingency issue, but i think the rationale

that our budget analyst has laid out is pretty compelling. so aside from allowing the department flexibility, is there any other compelling reason? it is not as that there is no flexibility. there is still a contingency that allows for the department and the contract to move forward. is there any other reason or rationale that we would have to sort of not take the budget analyst recommendation? >> no, it is logical. it is just that we have been doing the same methodology since 2003, and it has worked. it has allowed us the flexibility of the full range. when something does come up that is larger, like the recent closure of a program, we can manage that. but i get it. it is just that -- yeah. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. it sounds like we still have a fairly large contingency for these two areas, correct? ok. colleagues, we have a recommendation from the budget analyst on item number six to

reduce the contingency by 1.166252. can we take that recommendation? we will do that without objection. on item 7, we have a recommendation to reduce the contingency by $5,388,999. do we have consensus to do that as well? we will do that without objection. items number 6 and 7, moving those two items forward with recommendations as amended. to items 8 and 9, to move those forward as is with a recommendation. do we have that motion? we can do that without objection. thank you. item 10, please. >> item number 10, hearing to consider release of reserved funds for the san francisco police department in the amount of $7,212,750 to fund the cops hiring recovery program. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have the police department with us on this item. >> good morning, supervisors,

ladies and gentlemen, i am the dubie chief from the administration bureau. with me today -- as a deputy chief from the administration bureau. we have two captains with us. on behalf of chief suhr, we're requesting the release of the department of justice cops in grant funds awarded to us in san francisco in 2009. this would be the fourth and final installment that was used to hire 50 police officers to help our continuing efforts in community policing. all 50 officers have been hired and the funds should be a policeman did in up -- suspended in approximately 19 months. the project will end in 2013 -- the funds should be fully spent in approximately 19 months. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. could you talk a little bit more about how this is able to increase community policing capacity and what the specific

outcomes were of this grant? >> as you know, we're going through an enormous phase of attrition. for example, the month of may and june, we will lose 31 officers. this 50 officers helps us remain at staffing levels to continue foot beats, help us with efforts in community policing boards at each of the 10 district station, helps put officers at community meetings, funding several -- staffing several of the projects at all the district stations. we have got several examples that the captain can talk about, including great efforts and the tenderloin station in helping children and seniors did to and from locations in the tenderloin -- and get to and from locations in the

tenderloin to other districts. i will ask the captain to come up to expand on it. >> good morning, supervisors. yasser from the community relations unit. i will give you a double-i am from the community relations unit. i will give you a snapshot from the area community policing. we have the fishing program. every year, we take 1500 kids out to san francisco bay and go fishing and the deep sea. it is a 10-week program. it is a public-private partnership. we also had the wilderness program. we take kids from san francisco school district to angel island for a daylong cams and hikes to the presidio. we have river rafting at the american river, sailing and pie act -- kayaking in the san francisco bay. we're partners with operation

dreamed. all through the year, we have a project that is going on. for instance, during christmas season, we're with the forty- niners for a toy drive. this past year, we had 3000 children participate. during thanksgiving, we have a turkey giveaway. over 700 families benefited from this giveaway. recently, we had our easter egg hunt at garfield park. we're currently working on summer camp programs and field trips. recently, chief suhr had a basketball tournament. he partnered with the university of san francisco. there were 15 teams of boys and girls who participated. we provided lunch for all the kids, and we were treated by the university basketball players during lunch time. they did a three-point shooter out with the chief and several students who participated in this tournament. there were police officers who

also participated, and it was organized on a volunteer basis. right now, we're working on the youth work program. 125 kids vying for jobs and mentoring this summer. and this is going to be involving fortune 500 companies such as google, zynga, and wells fargo. we're partnering with the sheriff's department for a garden program for these kids and internships in the police stations. the chief has been going to numerous high schools in this city. he has been talking to at risk youth who are on its defense on whether to continue or quit -- who are on the fence on whether to continue or quit school. he emphasizes the importance of staying in school. he brings in a special speakers who work for the city and graduated with a high school education and have flourished in

their careers in the various departments of the city. i have numerous, numerous programs, and i could go on and on if you like. supervisor chu: no, thank you. that was helpful to learn about the community programs that sfpd has, particularly with young people. the hiring program, does this have officers attend community meetings and the district boards as well? >> yes, it does. another project is the citizens police advisory boards. each police station has a citizen's police advisory board. we have residents from that district meet with the captain. the captain meets monthly in a general community meeting. we also have various forums, such as the business forum, asian pacific islander forum, african-american form, arab- american forum, latino forum,

and a faith based forum where we can keep an open dialogue and have two-way communication between the police department and the various communities we serve. supervisor chu: i do appreciate that. particularly in the tenderloin station, the community outrage that happens there is incredible. i think the quality of the relationships that the foot beat officers all the way up to the captain have with the residence is wonderful to see. i think we have a strong relationship there. guyandotte -- i am not sure how that is replicated throughout the city. but as important as it is for the chief to be out there, it is important for the officers that what the beat to also be able to go on these trips with the youth in the committees and attend the meetings because their the ones walking. it increases the trust and the sharing of information that makes the neighborhood safer,

and it helps those officers also develop a good perspective of the neighborhood. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor kim. why don't we go to the budget analyst report? >> madam chair, members of the committee, supervisor farrell, on the bottom of page three, we point out that a total of nine milk -- 9,000,003 and $60,000 of the previously released funds leaves a value of about $7.2 million bid of the police department has accounted for were they spend that $7.2 million when they release it, and that accounts for a projected budget shortfall. $3.6 million in 2012-2013. the remainder in 2013-2014. as you know, there is a

requirement of general fund monies due, for one year after the grant has expired, and in accounting of the general fund money shows on page 5 of our report of about a little over $7 million in projected general fund monies to be expended in connection with this grant. we recommend you approve the release of that amount in cops in grant funds on reserve. supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number 10? seeing none, public comment is closed. ok, we have got a motion to release the reserves. before we do, i ask that the department also follow up -- you talk a lot about community policing and that it is also present in the teravelle district. a lot of our neighborhoods have talked didn't -- have talked about the fact that they do not see the presence.

i hear it but do not see it. i would like to know what your real plans are for community policing. if you're going to be implementing community policing, which we think works, it should be in every place that is appropriate. many of our neighborhood commercial areas are appropriate for that. >> yes. supervisor chu: thank you. we can take a motion to release reserves, and we will do that without objection. thank you. item 11. >> item 11, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code to extend the fell rebate program for two additional years, through june 30, 2014, and increase the total amount of available funds to $2 million for film rebates during that time. supervisor chu: thank you very much. i should have mentioned this, we're joined by supervisor farrell, who has been patiently awaiting his item here and brings this film rebid extension funding to us. would you like to make a few opening comments? supervisor farrell: thank you

for having me here today. today we're talking about the film rebate program extension that i introduced a number of weeks ago at the full board of supervisors. and suzanne is here from the film commission, and she's going to be speaking. but to refresh your memories, this legislation. -- essentially extends the current film rebate program through june 30, 2014. it is currently set to expire on june 30 of this year. it appropriates up to $2 million in additional funds for the rebate program. the program dates back to 2006, was prompted by a report commissioned by our film commission here in san francisco neshoba employment in motion picture and video production in san francisco had dropped by nearly 50% from 2000 to 2006. it revealed that the city's high it revealed that the city's high cost of production was