>> hello, welcome to the regular pleat meeting of the budget and finance committee. my name is carmen chu of the finance committee. i'm joined by supervisor avalos and supervisor kim. bless you. our clerk today is alisa miller. at sfgtv we have mark freeman and mike bunch. do you have any announcements? >> yes, please make sure cell phones and collect nick devices [speaker not understood]. items acted upon today will appear on the january 125th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. would you call item 1? >> item number 1 is a resolution authorizing the san francisco department of human services to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $105,000 from code for america labs, inc., toward the cost of participating in the 2013 code for america (cfa) fellowship program, which has specially selected the department of human services to receive technology design services from cfa to increase access to public benefits by the city's lowest income residents. >> thank you. for this item we have dave curtis. >> good morning, chairman chu, commissioners -- commissioners. supervisors. happy new year to everybody. this particular resolution we're kind of excited about. it's a technology grant.

we were fortunate to be chosen by code for america to participate in this. code for america is a relatively new nonprofit that's been doing some cutting edge technology working with various cities throughout the united states and connecting citizens to their government. this particular one we're straying from their model slightly in that we're folkuousing on a specific group of clients in developing a technology solution to help clients access benefits they're entitled to quicker than normal channels. so, the purpose of thises they will be providing us three fellows that are in the selection process now, and these are techy people who will be coming and interviewing, working with our staff to take a look at the problems and the challenges we're facing in accessing benefits for our citizens. and then coming up with proposed applications that will help resolve this problem. >> thank you very much. and for this item, in terms of

the grant, this is not something that would require the department to hire additional people because the individuals they're bringing on are from their side? >> correct. they are interns that they are hiring. the funding, there is a general fund match for the funding goes to support the three fellows for the duration of the project. they'll move them out here. we'll provide some office space for them when they're working with our staff. they'll be out doing study groups and interacting to fully understand what the challenges are. and then they will go back with code for america and develop the solutions and then we'll do beta testing on those solutions. >> i think we do have a question. supervisor kim, i believe. >> thank you. so, i actually had a question about the retroactivity of the grant. but it seems like the fellows haven't been selected yet. is that because we're in the budget analyst report it says it's retroactive from october for 15 months. so, is it really going to begin at another date, then? >> well, essentially the awards were announced in october.

that's when we got our award. there's a couple of prep meetings to understand, you know, how the process will work. the fellows are being selected now. in fact, they'll actually be chosen later this week. the actual work will start at the end of this month. >> so, are the fellows spending 15 months or -- >> they'll spend, yeah -- well, the duration of the project is 15 months. the fellows will really end their work, i believe, next september or october. >> of 2000 and -- >> of 2013. >> so, this year. >> yes. >> so, it's really a nine-month fellowship, not 15 months? >> we kind of left -- we kind of left it open on the end because we don't know what follow-up work we'll have to have. we don't anticipate there will be any, but it just depends on how fast they come up with a solution and then our it folks along with our colleagues, the department of technology, will implement the -- whatever the technological solution is. most likely it will be a

web-type application, all public facing. >> okay. so, it's a different type of fellowship, then. i'm used to fellowships that are time certain for as long as it takes to develop a solution. >> we first schedule to anticipate -- they should have the solutions ready by about next october. >> okay, okay. and then i notice that there were $75,000 of general fund from hsa that's being utilized. and i was curious what that was originally slated for it. >> the funding, both the funding from hsa and the department of technology's contribution were funds that are in our it budgets now for expanding projects. * we're just dedicating them to this project. >> got it. and then my last question is -- and by the way, i think the project is really exciting. i mean, i personally understand the need for this and i do believe we need technology solutions for some of these inefficiencies. but what if the goals are not

met? we are being asked to contribute two-thirds of the budget, right? so, but i understand that that is also more affordable than if we went out to the market and asked [speaker not understood] about the [speaker not understood]. what if we don't develop efficiencies or we're not able to find a solution or we are able to find one but it's really not cost-effective and it's actually rather expensive and there are additional costs? >> well, during the project, once they do the research, then they find out what -- they will come back with several proposed solutions. so, we'll be meeting in committee to find out which ones. we want to move forward with and which ones are are sustainable for us. because i agree with you, there is a risk with some of these high-tech solutions that they can't be sustainable. >> right. >> so, we're aware of that and so ask code for america. so, they'll be can uming back with several options for us. we'll vet it during the process. >> is this their first year of fellowship? we don't have a track record to look at in terms of other projects they've engaged in with other municipalities? >> well, they have other

projects that they've engaged in successfully. this is the second year of it. they chose five cities on the east coast that they rolled out and had a very good success record. and this one they've expanded and i think there's 7 cities in this second go round. so, they are different fellows. the fellows are chosen each year. >> okay, thank you. >> dave, just a question for you. in terms of the problem that hss or, sorry, hsa has identified in terms of technological support that you do have, what is it that you're actually seeing as a problem? are people applying for benefits and then lapsing out of it because they're not updating their applications? what is generally the issue that's being -- >> it's not so much -- once we engage them, we can keep them on the benefits. if people don't know that they're eligible for benefits, so, they may not be engaged in our services, but they're eligible for say food stamps which is cal fresh or possibly medi-cal. especially with the changes

happening in medi-cal. so, what we want to do is increase our penetration rate with the citizens of san francisco because we know there's a lot of citizens out there, low-income citizens who could be taking advantage of these benefits, but are not. >> i see. so, it's rile when someone comes in the door and requests sort of services for one program, really the department's goal is to say whether or not that individual might qualify for x or the other program? >> it ties in with some of the revamping we're doing with all of our program services. kind of a a no wrong door exit. we get a client into one of our facilities they can apply for all of the services at one site. so, this is a good tie-in with the way we're moving forward in that. >> and then this might be out of your department's jurisdiction, but there was conversation sometime ago around the health department's process. and, so, they had their application screening process the 1e application process, needed something difficult or is trying something different now. the intention was to say someone comes in the door, they're eligible for [speaker not understood] medical

services or programs, they would be able to screen them for that. is it that hsa is not tied in with that system? is it the intention they will be one day through this effort? >> i think that is the long-range goal. the eligibility is so different for the medical programs than some of our programs, ours is kind of a little lower hanging fruit. once they get in, they certainly -- we do connect them and we work very closely with department of public health, especially mental health and substance abuse on engaging those clients and those services, too. but it's getting them through the initial door and getting that screening to see what services are available. >> is there a conversation among the departments to make sure that applicants who are come intion through either hsa or dph will qualify for medi-cal or who qualify for food stamps may likewise see whether or not they're eligible for some of the other programs? >> it is especially part of the conversation we're having with the affordable care act that goes in next january. yes, so, we are having the conversations, but so far i will say it's been compartment alliesed. >> but the vision is to get

there? >> yes, absolutely. * >> thank you. i believe that the budget analyst has a report on this item. >> madam chair, members of the committee, as shown in table 1 on page 3 of our report, the proposed 105,000 code for america grant would provide 29% of the total project costs of $363,000. it is also reflected in that table the city would provide the balance of 255,000 or 71% of matching funds with 75,000 as the committee has pointed out of general fund revenues from hsa's fiscal year 2012-13 budget. and then 180,000 of revenues allocated to the department of technology's 12-13 budget and that's through work orders from other city departments. so, approximately 70% or 126,000 of the total 180,000

work order funds are general fund revenue. so, if you add the two general fund sources, the city's matching general fund costs would be 201,000 of the total match of 255,000. and we point out on page 4 of our report shown in table 2 that most of the 360,000 project costs would pay for salaries and benefits for the costs for three code for america fellows and code for america support staff. we consider approval of the proposed resolution to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors. >> okay, thank you very much. why don't we open this item up for public comment. are there minimum pers of the public who wish to speak on item number 1? good morning, supervisors. my name is douglas yip. i would like to speak in favor of this resolution. i think anything we do for the

poorer citizens of san francisco is a step in the right direction. also i would like to thank this committee for holding today's hearing which is occurring today, which is more than i can say for tomorrow's cancellation of audit and oversight. thank you. >> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor avalos? >> thank you, chair chu. just a quick question. it's about -- we have funds from the general fund, funds from the department of technology that are going to be the matching funds and is there an appropriation or budget for those? >> yes, they're in the existing fiscal year 12-13 budget already. >> great, thank you. >> thank you very much, colleagues. we have this item before us. do we have a motion to send the item forward? >> motion to approve and move forward with the recommendation. >> we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation and we can do that without objection. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. item 2, please. >> item number 2 is ordinance

authorizing the office of economic and workforce development to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $3,000,000 from the department of labor for the techsf-workforce innovation partnership, and amending ordinance no. 165-12 (annual salary ordinance, fy 2012-2013 and fy 2013-2014) to reflect addition of one class 9775 senior community development specialist ii grant-funded position (0.77 fte) in the office of economic and workforce development and one class 1053 is business analyst - senior grant-funded position (0.77 fte) in the department of technology. >> thank you very much. please introduce yourself. >> thank you. i'm [speaker not understood]. the tech sf workforce innovation partnership is a three-year grant from the department of labor that began back in july of 2012. it goes through june of 2015. it's primarily work force investment act funding. it will be used to implement industry-based solutions with the it sector to cultivate local talent and the [speaker not understood] workforce systems and operations to meet the ever evolving needs of both the local employers and job seekers. so, of the $2 million grant, 1 million will stay within the city between oewd and the department of technology for two positions. and the rest of the money will

be subcontracted out. >> can you speak a little bit more about what the grant would do? >> sure. basically it leverages our existing techsf partnership to implement some new technology solutions and new programs to enhance the overall techsf program. so, part of the project will be developing new curriculum and project based learning internships and projects with san francisco city college and [speaker not understood]. there is a large component of that. about 20% of the grant is for evaluation. we'll be implementing a new techs to work system for letting job seekers know there will be a tax alert about job openings. and then other entrepreneurship training, the bay area video coalition. >> thank you. and the two positions would be added into your department's budget, both are limited in

terms of their duration, right? >> yes, by the terms of the grant, yes. >> i believe that there's no budget analyst report with this item. given there's no matching funds that are required from the grant, and so why don't i open this item up for public comment. before i do, supervisor kim. >> thank you. i actually did a hearing request yesterday at our board meeting to learn more about kind of where we're at with tech assess because it is something that's incredibly important to our office as we encourage and support a lot of the tech companies in our district that we also create to real jobs for members of our community. so, i'm curious, you amex that this would be working on the curriculum. * mention it's not going to increase per se the load or the number of students the program can take. does it include step ends for the classes or internships?

* stipends how will it enhance the existing program? >> sure. the existing program is to train 400 people over the three years of that grant. this grant will add a project-based learning kohl point at city college. so 125 students will go through that. and an additional i think 100 at san francisco state. so, there is some limited funding within the city college subcontract that will be going towards stipends, but they are just the professors would be developing project-based learning with the hopes the companies would provide the internship stipend. >> i see. project based learning and direct internships with some of the companies either with this grant or the tech companies would actually provide, okay. >> yeah. >> and when you said 100 sf students, these are currently enrolled sf state students that will also be filtered into the

program as well? >> yes, participants that would be enrolling in techsf existing or the life of the grant. >> okay, great. i'm really excited to hear more and i will also speak with someone about the hearing and some of the things that i hope to learn as we move forward with this. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. why don't i open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number 2? please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion? >> motion to move forward the recommendation. >> we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation and we can do that without objection. thank you. item 3, please. >> item number 3 is an ordinance authorizing the office of the treasurer-tax collector to accept and expend a grant in the amount of up to $80,000 from the earned assets resource network for implementing the office of financial empowerment kindergarten to college program, and amending ordinance 165-12 (annual salary ordinance, fys 2012-2013 and 2013-2014) to provide for the creation of one grant-funded position in the office of financial empowerment. >> thank you. we have greg cato from the treasurer tax collector's office. >> good morning, supervisors,

greg cato from the office of the treasurer and tax collector. the item before you today is a accept and expend grant to fund a full-time outreach coordinator to support our community outreach efforts for the kindergarten to college program. this is going to be a 100% grant funded position with no matching funds required. as you may know, the kindergarten to college program started two years ago and is now operating in every elementary school in san francisco. as of this school year and every kindergartener received a college savings account in his or her name. our early results are very promising. families have saved over $180,000 of their own money into accounts and a majority of our savers are -- come from low-income families. however, what we have noticed is that in order to maximize our program success, we need to

develop more resources to high touch outreach and communication with families. currently we just have one person who is both administering the program and doing outreach. and, so, in order to reach the over 50 schools -- elementary schools in the district, we are secured private fund totioner hire a full-time coordinator who will allow us to significantly increase our efforts to reach and educate families about the benefits of kindergarten to college and the importance of saving early and often for education. this will also allow us to provide more support for schools and communities that face extra barriers to successfully participating in the program. and i am happy to take any questions about it. >> thank you. just a quick question for you. so, this is a position that is a one-time grant it sounds like. do you expect that this grant might be something that continues, you'll be hiring on an additional person to do outreach work for at least the duration roughly a year or so? and i guess the question is generally what is the long-term goal if this grant is not

perceived to be a reoccurring one, for example, do you have activities in mind for this person to be able to accomplish during this one year that can help set up a program for, you know, success moving forward? what are some of your thoughts around that? >> um-hm. so, we have funding for one year. if we find that it's successful, the earned assets resource network that has provided grant is committed and is very interested in funding it for ongoing years. if we find it's not successful or if funding is not available from any of our private -- any private philanthropy that wants to fund this, we will probably end the position. >> thank you. this item does not have a budget analyst report with it. if there are no further questions, i will open this up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item number 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion? >> motion to move forward with recommendation. >> we have a motion to send item 3 forward with recommendation and we'll do that without objection.

>> madam chair, i believe there is an amendment that needs to happen. on the bottom of page 1 and the top of line -- page 2, there's a repeat of the same sentence. we need to delete one of those. >> a motion to make that amendment. >> yes, can you repeat the area where there is a duplication? >> yes. on page 1 lines 24 through 25 are duplicated on page 2 lines 1 through 2. we'll go ahead and delete on page 1 lines 24 through 25. >> great. okay, so, we have a motion to eliminate lines 24-25 on page 1. we can do that without objection. actually, why don't we rescind the vote on sending the item to committee first. we'll do that without objection. then we have a motion to remove

lines 24 and 25 on page 1. we'll do that without objection. and to the underlying item as amended, we'll send that item forward with recommendation as amended and we do that without objection. thank you. okay, item 4, please. >> item number 4 is an ordinance authorizing the department of the environment to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $13,100,000 from the california public utilities commission, through pacific gas and electric company, to implement an energy use and demand reduction through energy efficiency program and amending ordinance no. 165-12 (annual salary ordinance, fys 2012-2013 and 2013-2014) to reflect the addition of five grant funded positions (fte) at the department of the environment, for a term from january 1, 2013, through december 31, 2014. >> thank you. we have i believe guillermo rodriguez from the department of environment on this item. and i believe you have an amendment. >> good morning, supervisors. yes, i do have an amendment i'd like it make on page 1 * to make on page 1. [speaker not understood]. line 8 numeral 5 should be changed to 3 in the bolded section.

the 3 ftes that are mentioned, we are correcting that typo. >> if you can speak to the item. >> certainly. just a brief background. this is the fourth contract since 2003 continuing energy efficiency programs in san francisco. the funds are authorized by the california public utilities commission through pg&e and implemented by the department of the environment. in 2006 the program is expanded and named to energy watch to be used by all local governments and the pg&e's territory. and over the years the program has become extremely successful enabling san francisco to receive additional funds to increase our activities and serve more san francisco rate payers. during the last program cycle from january 2010 through december 2012, pg&e increased its funding to the energy watch program from an original 11.5 million to just under 20 million. of that amount, 11.3 million

went directly to 3200 businesses and multi-family units throughout the city to pay for energy improvements. just to give you a sense of what the savings have meant for customers, we have reduced the city's carbon emissions by over 52,000 tons and that's equivalent to taking 83 cars off the road and powering almost 24,000 san francisco residents for a year. let me now touch on the new contract that's before you. it's 13.1 million. it's for the next two-year cycle from january 2013 through december 2014. the cpuc has labeled this new cycle of funding a transition period and has ordered investor owned utilities to continue to fund successful programs such as san francisco's as well as look at new and innovative pilot projects. for san francisco, we received our full funding request for energy watch as well as an additional 1.4 million for innovative initiatives with a goal of