mayorresolution approving the emergency solutions grants program and authorizing the mayor, on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to apply for, accept, and expend the city's fy2013-2014 emergency solutions grants program entitlement in the amount of $1,528,852 from the u.s. department of housing and urban development for an unspecified period starting july 1, 2013.mayorresolution approving the fy2013-2014 home investment partnership (home) program and authorizing the mayor, on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to apply for, accept, and expend the city's fy2013-2014 home program entitlement from the u.s. department of housing and urban development in the amount of $3,763,707 and to expend program income in the amount of $30,000 for the period of july 1, 2013, through june 30, 2018. >> thank you mr. clerk. >> good morning. director of committee development for the mayor's office and community development now. i'm here to present these four items, we usually present our had you had funded programs to you earlier in the year, this year because of some lateness in congress's decision making, we're here just at the he tail end of the year to present these expenditures schedules. we presented to you in the schedule when this item was introduced and provided you

today with some slightly amended expenditure our program saw a block and it's a 6 percent increase from last year to this year. unfortunately our emergency solutions plants program which funds many of our homeless programs, a significant decrease, a 27 percent decrease, unexpected, our understanding is congress took from the emergency grant program to fund, to back a deficit in the care funding from the mackenny program from hud. and we saw a slight increase of 3 percent and our

hopkn support for aid's housing and we saw a decrease of 11 percent. that's unfortunate. what that means for our cities and grantees, let me tell you, we're in the middle of a three year funding cycle and we're going to go into our second year, so the grantees will see no change from last year's schedule to this year's schedule. we were able to cover the decrease in our emergency solutions grants program by allocating some of our increase in community block funds, all of our esg programs are eligible for sbg funding so on the community development side, virtually all the dollars had to be used to back fill the significant decrease in our homeless service budget. on the homeless side -- >> i'm sorry. we will go back to that entirely. >> we were able to cover all

those costs. the decrease on the sdbg side means our discretionary dollars we have for capital funding for facilities that's where we took the hit because we wanted to maintain the service side. on the hopkins side we were able to maintain our fund for the operations of our long operation care facility. the hoplica is significant in many ways and creates a structural problem for our city. we have relied on, hopple service. to maintain our service, we will no longer have any dollars available for capital rehab for our, had opple facility. putting that into per speck tefb we used to be able to set aside half a million for our funds, when i first got to the city, we had $3 million

available on the cd bg side for capital community facilities funding. so we move from $3 million on the cdbg side and only $800,000 for the city for capital rehab for our community facilities. i think we've done that for a good reason because we wanted to maintain the service level but it creates some structural issues in how do we work with our community facility to manage their capital needs. in addition, we saw a decrease in our fund to go the partners in san marine county. this used to be in under the san francisco redevelopment so people may not have been familiar with those programs, but as i said the grants program really is similar. the program that you

saw last year because we're in the middle of multiple air funding and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have before the program. >> we have a bunch of amendments. >> can you walk-through those. >> the amendments on the resolution are entirely on the amounts for each of the four resolutions. so on the committee development block grant, resolution 130492, the previous amount of 16 $16,204,000 is amended to 17 million 1 hundred ,155,000 # hundred $81. and the program income amount on page 2 is

amended from 6 million 9 hundred $6,963,291. those are the only amendments on that resolution. on the emergency solutions grant, resolution which is number 130490, the original amount of 1 million $1,528,852 has been amended to 1 million 1 hundred $1,182,146. that is the only amendment on that resolution. on the home resolution which is 130489 the original amount of 3 million 7 hundred $3,763,707 is amended to 4 million. and the program

income -- the total amount of 3 million 4 hundred $3,493,707 is amended to 4 million 1 hundred $4,113,100 and that's the only amendment on that rez collusion and the final resolution item 130491 and the total is amended from $9,000,400 to 8 million 6 hundred $8,633,125 and the total amount including the program fund is amended from 11 million $11,071,158. that's the only resolution. the reason for these multiple amendments, prior to receiving

it, hud advised us to have a 5 percent decrease with all programs and it was not 5 percent, some where higher, some where lower. all the expenditure schedules and the environmental review and it has been realigned with the actual hud allocation amounts. >> okay. thank you. any questions. >> okay. >> i do have a question actually. on hopple. interest was restoration that the mayor made in the budget from federal cuts but since the mayor presented his budget it seems there could be $3 million i've been hearing from the service advocates and i'm wondering if hopple funds are included in that amount of money if you would know. >> to my knowledge, the mayor's budget didn't reflect these cuts. it wasn't anticipated

and it was 11 percent and we thought it was 5 percent. we were able to retain our service dollars and all of the mayor's was reserved at services. we have to have a discussion to support the housing opportunities because to this point, hopple is the only one for non service facilities so now is the time to have this discussion. >> how much was the cut that was made to hopple. >> it was an 11 percent deduction, so the entire dollar amount for the area including marine county was a little over $1 million reduction from $9.5 million to $8.6 million. we did set aside some funding for a one time planning processing to have an aid housing plan. it went from 2007 to 2012 and it's time for that plan in view

of the changes and epidemic. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll open up to public comment. if anybody want to comment on, 2,3, 4, 5, please step forward. >> motion to accept the amendments on all of these resolutions and to move forward with recommendation. >> we can accept a motion to accept the amendments and do so without opposition and approve the underlining items and we can do without opposition. mr. clerk can you call item number

6. kimresolution authorizing the department of the environment to retroactively accept and expend a gift in the amount of $20,000 from ch2mhill to build out the department of the environment's ecocenter at 1455 market street for an unspecified period starting february 1, 2013. >> and we have rodriguez in the department of environment here. >> good morning supervisors, rodriguez. department of environment. this is part of the gift's efforts in our move from 11th grove street to our current location and the dollars were to support maintaining and expanding our eco center, if folks were familiar with our street, it was our commercial store front facility and this -- this gift was an ability to maintain that ecosystem in the new space and part of our larger efforts so happy to answer any questions that folks may have. >> colleagues any questions. >> okay. thank you for being here. we don't have a budget in this report for this item. so we'll move to public comment. anybody wish for public comment for item six.

public county is closed. recommendation, we can do so without opposition. mr. clerk can you call item number 7. mayorresolution authorizing the department of public library to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of up to $750,000 of in-kind gifts, services, and cash monies from the friends of the san francisco public library for direct support for a variety of public programs and services for the period of july 1, 2012, through june 30, 2013. >> thanks we have maureen singleton. >> good morning supervisors, the proposed before you will allow the library to expand $5,000 of cash money from the san francisco public library for direct support of a variety of programs, such as sf summer read, staff development and recognition. one city, one book and san francisco in the

60, robotic program for youth, e learning support and the annual puppet program for children, library production and many programs. with the support the plans, the library have more than 2,000 in fiscal. we ask for your support on this resolution and i'm here to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you, comments, any questions. all right. much appreciated. we don't have any report for this item so we'll open it up to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item number 7? >> ramiski and i'm a member of the board of the san francisco library and i want to thank you for your support in advance for this resolution, the acceptance of these funds. the summer reading program is just starting and i'd love to have each of you to check out of the

26 branchs and get involved in the summer reading program. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. anybody else like to speak. if there's any members that like to speak, please line up over the far wall and we can take you. >> i'm the executive director for the friends of the public library. we're delighted to make this grant of $650,000 and we've raised a half million dollar for the branch improvement which we helped open up the baby branch and beginning our fundraising for the north branch. thank you. >> thank you very much. anybody else want to comment on this item. okay. public comment is closed. calling a motion to -- >> i'm in support for that grant. >> we have a motion by supervisor mark to move it forward and i'm going to do so without opposition. thank you very much. mr. clerk can you

call item number 8. yeeresolution approving funding increase for an emergency public work contract under administrative code, section 6.60, to repair a kitchen cart wash leak and related mold abatement at laguna honda hospital in an amount not to exceed $595,3: >> okay. we have john thomas from our department of public works to speak on this item. >> good morning chair, john thomas from public works, the item before you request to exceed the $250,000 opposition to abate elite and mold from a car wash facility at the lagoon in a hospital and the rehabilitation center. the leak was identified in september of 2011 and was immediately addressed to prevent any further leakage and to secure the area from access by any staff or resident, the team took an investigation, both in designers and insurance

carriers to determine a course of action. by 2011, they were redirected to design the space and it was incompatible with its use. it was completed in april of 2011 and an emergency was declared in june of 2012. the department entered into a contract with dell ford property reconstruction during the summer of 2012 to perform the work and that was both more extensive and challenging than was anticipated. demolition continued and i'm here to continue to cover this increased demolition cost. in addition the department is in agreement with the budget to seek competitive bids for the

restoration work as we could not reach an agreement with the contractor for the remaining work. the department ask for your support on this item and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> do you have any questions at this point? >> why don't we go -- maybe come back to you. we have a budget report from mr. rose. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, on the bottom of page three of our report we say it's shown in table three, we submitted invoices. in addition they offer the contractor estimate expenditures of 266, 723 to complete the reconstruction work and the total project cost presently at 95,367 and on page 5 of our report we point out that given the significant

delays of the 8 months prior to submitting this request to the board of supervisors, additional four months to submitting to the budget of supervisors and the subject emergency request for not to exceed 595 meeting the emergency and authorizing this contract award without undergoing the city as bidding process. we recommend that you do amend the proposed resolution to reduce the requested emergency authorization by 266723 to not exceed 395268. i would recommend -- the reason we're recommending those amount because those expenditures that been occurred and we ask you to see bids to the lowest response

of bidder for the reconstruction work at laguna honda. >> if i questions for mr. rose. >> actually i do. mr. rose if you can tell us what typically is the standard for declaring an emergency? >> mr. chairman, mr. avalos, basically many years ago and i don't remember the exact year, the department, i believe it was in the department of public works requested authorizations to award sole source contracts on an emergency basis without the utilization of competitive bidding because if it's a true emergency the work has to be done, for example the most recent example -- >> immediately. >> immediately being right away. for example the most recent example the board of supervisor approved an emergency contract yesterday regarding a water main burst in

district 7. so that was a kind -- as i understand it, that was the kind of emergency where there would be a, in fact the definition of emergency to get more to your questions supervisor avalos on page 5 of our report we point out that in accordance with administrator code 6.60 an emergency is defined as an unexpected occurrence or discovery of a clear and danger demanding immediate action, emphasis added to prevent damage to life, health, property or public services. so that was the back drop and there have been many request to the board of supervisors where an emergency was declared and work was started immediately and the work was completed on a timely basis. in this case, clearly

there have been delays for whatever reason. we don't question that, but it does not in our professional judgment appears to be an emergency and that's why we recommended that the balance of the contract be submitted -- be contracted out on a competitive basis without a sole contract. >> thank you. just a question for mr. thomas, what were the factors that were involved that led to declaring an emergency in this case and how would you count for the lag time between the original ns that something was arrived to the actual declaration of the emergency which happened about nine months afterward. >> so there were several issues at play. first was the difficulty in ascertaining what the cause of the problem was, so our first step was to address how the water was

getting through the slab and down to the lower floors causing the mold. that was done immediately with forces that were available to us on hand. the emergency there that we felt generated the need to declare the emergency back in june 2012 the hospital was operating in a difficult situation, unable to use the car wash that they needed, they're serving nearly 800 resident and needing to clean their equipment on a regular basis so we needed to address the mold that we did as quickry as possible but the restoration and the increase cost that we experienced because it was more extensive than expected caused that to slow down and stop. >> how are people being fed now? >> the kitchen is still open. we have that area secured. it's now clean, so there's no risk to anybody. that is the

work that was completed as of november of 2012. so at this point -- >> it seems like there hasn't been in terms of carrying out a function of lagoon in a honda that they're able to carry on. >> yeah, they are. we have a temporary cleaning facility for them, but the emergency that did exist was the clean up and the addressing of the leak. that part has been accomplished and the remainder should be -- >> there's a time to recover through litigation costs to -- >> there were several facets and that's one of them, yes. the other is water leak and the insurance support there. >> mr. thomas, what we have before us is a continuation of an emergency contract so can you talk about how you think the current situations that continue emergency. >> the modifications that we're

requesting here actually only close out the cost incurred to date and we'll bid the remainder of the work. we're not requesting emergency. >> so you're okay with the budget recommendation and summary. >> yes. >> mr. rose. >> i wanted to make one other clarification in reference to supervisor avalos's comment, the distinction here is that the department is correct in stating that the emergency was cleared in 2012, however the emergency was discovered in september of 2011, again a distinction between the water main burst in district 7 when it was discovered, an emergency was declared and the work has begun. in this case the emergency was discovered way before the emergency was declared. >> the challenge was the design in place. it was part of the problem we were facing. we didn't want the typical repair work to go in and repair in

kind and have the same problem continue beyond. >> okay. thank you mr. giver. >> just to followup on mr. rose's restoration of emergency, the administrative code contains a few examples that are not exhausted and one of the examples of an emergency fitting within this this category where you don't need to competitively bid is unfor seeing occurrencing of character in hospital beds, the lack of hospital beds or the lack of surgical, mental health or hospital services so relieves the patients without medical services, so again not kind of thing on how this was made but that may go to your question. >> okay. thank you very much. we had a budget reports, calls

any other questions and go to public comment. go to public comment. anybody commenting on this item, please step forward. public comment is closed. thank you mr. thomas and thank you mr. rose for being here. we have an agreement for the department. motion to accept mr. rose's -- >> i may ask that we add and the department include language and provide a copy of the contract when it becomes final. >> we can do so. any comments from the department about that. i assume that's a standard procedure. we can add an additional amendment. so we can do mr. rose's an amendments and the amendments articulated by the clerk. >> before we -- >> we can accept those oppositions without move. >> i actually -- i appreciate the last comments from mr.

giver and from mr. rose as well. i do not believe we have a real modified emergency here especially because of lag time that came between discovery and when emergency was really declared and when work was actually performed. i think there was probably assessments made by not work. and an emergency would require something a that would be much more immediate in the response from the city. so i just want to make sure -- i'm not sure how we beef up our abilities to -- when we declare -- from the time when we declare emergency or not. it seems contemporary so how can we make sure the department is going to follow the code, that's the question for mr. giver. >> much like the question i had before, how can we assure we

can approve resolutions, not retro actively but moving forward. we have processes how we carry out our functions as a city and we need to follow them. how do we piece to code? >> john giver, deputy city attorney, i have a few responses to that and one is that the department should and generally do confur are our office what is an emergency. we have a certain amount of discretion with the $250,000 to make that judgment. emergency situations come up and they need to make judgment and give the board over that threshold. in terms of policy decisions that the board could make in the future, the answer is

probably revisiting the ordinance if you're concerned about how it's about the threshold. >> we have a mechanism where there was an $80,000 estimate that rose up. it doesn't happen every occasion where there is a problem like this, but it happens frequently, so maybe there's a way to trigger a mechanism where there's a review when there's a potential for cost of increase that can be more unfor seen. >> absolutely. >> mr. chairman and committee, monique from the control offices. instances like this have occurred in the last number of years where declaration of emergency is made and then a lot of time goes by before the actual approval of a contract or the work required to mid gate that emergency is presented to the board. perhaps one of the things that we could do

administratively is ask the department which would be public works and the big inter prize department who have the ability to contract on their own to notify the city administrative office when an event occurs, it might trigger an emergency and we can put our heads together to determine the next steps and include notifying the board of supervisors to the chair or the finance committee or the board can take a look to see if it appears that all the emergency conditions have been satisfied that would allow contracting without the bidding requirements but we can control -- in the control office we can provide technical assistance to this department so everybody is in agreement. the circumstances in which those emergencies occur and again what the contracting process should be. we can include the contract of administratioin