>> you had a lot of experience they used mounds one hundred and 6 years ago. >> the people that built those mounds came in later this is as important as it is. >> sounds like you're doing fine. >> yes. we're preserving the past for the future it's interesting. the last item i want to report on we and turner attempted the february 27th partner center i know that director reiskin was there and mayor ed lee we wholeheartedly support the process so we'll be working with web core and engaging in the process what our trade various trades and will report on that

later that concludes my report >> you've go on got one member of the public that wants to address. >> i think we're okay on. what do i think? >> very briefly and widening the clock back an hour a couple of points open the financial specifically attachment to status of the contracts on attachment 4 which is expenses. on attachment 2 second line the downtown extension engineering this contract from last year this is the renewable of the 4 pointed $2 million contract the prop k funds no one is talking about the percentage i think this should go to the 1 million that the planning department is looking for as a study to the

downtown extension in the i 280. moving to the capital and expenditures i hope you can find this useful once again the specialized services look at the downtown it's $26 million we may have to scrape this so we need to move forward. on the revenue side there is an interesting line we're got a grant from the homeland security and of a hundred thousand dollars. the way i look at it, you know, there is a discount of $50 million of the b h s thinks is necessary and our map experts have come up with the recommendation is we invite dhs to come and look at it transbay

and give us a second opinion and eventually decide how much we need to spend >> okay. this includes the members of the public this is the - we can move into our regular calendar. item is to award the subcontract for 8 million plus for t g concrete super structure package and increasing the districts costs and increasing the authorized construction fee by 3 million 950 and authorized the sub garden insurance policy to

44.90. directors mark will report >> good morning mark with the program manager. we advertised the super structure back in 2013 to basically complete the balance of the structural concrete work for the center which is the completion of the 10 foot wall for the sandbox. also the ground floor concrete slab and the other slab the bus deck and as well as the roof-deck there are 37 feet of concrete work. the bids were open february 11th and the estimate the budget it

was approved in july of 35.5 million and it was updated to $33.3 million the estimate that we complete at the end of february was $35 million. we had 5 pre-qualified biders consumer construction and other submitted bids at connecticut could. connecticut could informed us they were bidding other projects and couldn't submit bids they were busy and the csa can wanted to focus their attention on the bridge construction and not this type of work.

this - this project had trans group had several deduct alternates they were approved as a part of the july project alternate 4 was added later than. it had all the for $48.7 million they submitted a bid into through that and the bids are evaluated on the plus bids and the alternates. it's recommended that we accept the deduct alternates 13 and reject 4 it provides a structural architecture concrete finish number two, of providing

a set of concrete the bid parts for this particular alternate is 64 hundred dollars and $3.4 million and this a alternate is you much more than 64 million dollar and we ask you reject this and possibility discuss it with shimming any questions and is what caused the higher prices. it's solely recommended that the project be w5ur9d to show me any questions they've submitted a fair and reasonable bid. their bid taking a look at according to what we think the reduced costs or the costs savings with the mobiletion since they're on the dock side he construction of the below

grounded concrete. the market code continues t conditions this is on a critical path and it's essentially, we you award it now for the schedule. we look at the scope of work the concrete there's no opportunity for cost scope reduction. the total bid all the time is $48.4 million it's recommend to fund the budget between the amount and program revenues this is $22 million with the contingent of $8.2 million and $33 million for the allocation and $99.4 million for the

contingent and 8.7 million and the balance will be 7 three or four $.4 million. the group will be the first pathology awarded and the c mc agreed to have the payment bonds as the shourns program to address the subcontractors the subcontractor program has several benefits and increase the composition open the project. over the life of the program it's expected to save millions of dollars and if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> any questions. >> i have just some comments

and then a question. first of all, i support the recommendations to move forward. i think it's on a critical path and even though that's a lot more money we need to move forward. i think the recommendations is right like on the other packages the disparity between the engineer estimate and the c mc estimate is troubling are the philosophy is the bilateral and engineer are working together in the development of the xylophone to come to the end with the end results of estimates far apart is the collaborations are not working go. so that's concerning with the disparity of the bids so few

bids and so different seems like it is cause for concern and it would be the quality of the bid documents and whether or not they're looking different things seems like the engineer and the contractor seem to be looking at different things it's concerning and i say that because we have a lot more to be bid whatever it behind the disparities we want to understand. the last comment on the alternates i appreciate the amount it is hard to look at the numbers so as we are developing alternatives we may want to look at more substantive things. my question i think i saw in the staff report there were 4 addendum issued can you explain

to us the purpose of the timing and the magnitude of those addendum. maybe that's contributed to the results we've seen >> i don't have the information open the and i dim but it should include the inquires as part of the package. the other information i don't have but i'll share it later on >> randy do you have that informati information. >> again may be looking at the addendum what they have in them might be lessons for the future bids. >> if i can respond to a couple

of your points on the s b e risks some have risks and this package doesn't. the risk by the engineer estimate was based on the speciality item and the market conditions are so tight it will deplete the engineers opinion that is driving the costs that's not part of this package. on the alternates are not in the bidding in this panhandle but their future alternates. the alternates number one is the opening in the roof. the opening in the roof >>was for skylight in the future that is alternate to be deleted so that's really $250,000 on alternate futures. the only thing i can share this

is a good bid. had we had 4 biders or more we could sharpen our pencils but this this is a reflection of the economy. this is quite a bit work and there's quite a bit work out there >> i did you know, i have some questions on the moving from paid performance to this insurance. but i appreciate the quick response on this. i have talked about the executive director my only concerns is to make sure that someone reads through the

performance bonds for our construction manager general contractor they expect the paid performance to continue downhill hill if this is a case if someone reads through the funding agreement to make sure that all of the similitudes would be paying performance bonds i'm previously confident that that that's a good move given we do the research >> so we have a motion and second call the roll please. also the members of the public of the public and director metcalf. director reiskin. director harper that's 4 i's and item 7 is approved. that item 8 is the minutes of the february 24th meeting

>> so moved. >> we have a motion and second. >> any members of the public. >> director lee. director reiskin. director harper. that's 4 i's and the minutes are approved >> okay. then we're adjourned. >> that's concludes our

♪ >> i am so looking forward to the street fair tomorrow. >> it is in the mission, how are we going to get there? we are not driving. >> well what do you suggest? >> there are a lot of great transportation choices in the city and there is one place to find them all, sfnta.com. >> sfmta.com. >> it is the walking parking,

and riding muni and it is all here in one place. >> sitting in front of my computer waiting transportation options that is not exactly how i want to spend my saturday night. >> the new sfmta.com is mobile friendly, it works great on a tablet, smart phone or a lap top, it is built to go wherever we go. >> cool. >> but, let's just take the same route tomorrow that we always take, okay? >> it might be much more fun to ride our bikes. >> i am going to be way too tired to ride all the way home. >> okay, how about this, we can ride our bikes there and then we can take muni home and it even shows us how to take the bikes on the bus, so simple right here on my phone. >> neat. we can finish making travel plans over dinner, now let's go eat. >> how about about that organic vegan gluten free rest rft. >> can't we go to the food

truck. >> do you want to walk or take a taxi. >> there is an alert right here telling us there is heavy traffic in soma. >> let's walk there and then take a taxi or muni back. >> that new website gives us a lot of options. >> it sure does and we can use it again next weekend when we go to see the giants. there is a new destination section on the website that shows us how to get to at&t park. >> there is a section, and account alerts and information on parking and all kinds of stuff, it is so easy to use that even you can use it. >> that is smart. >> are you giving me a compliment. >> i think that i am. >> wow, thanks. >> now you can buy dinner. sfmta.com. access useful information, any .

>> welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors for wednesday, april 23, 2014. my name is mark farrell, i will be chairing this committee. i am joined by supervisor avalos. i want to thank the clerk of the committee miss linda wong as well as members of sfgtv covering this meeting. >> please silence all cell phones and any electronic devices, please be sure copies of any documents be submitted to the clerk. >> thank you, madam clerk, please call item no. 1. >> item no. 1, ordinance amending ordinance 16013 to reflect the addition of 68 new positions at the human services agency for implementation of additional work associated with increases in state and federal funding. >> thank you. i believe we have clint moor here on this item.

>> good morning, supervisors, trepbt row, director of human services agency. we have a powerpoint and i will walk you guys through. in brief, what we are requesting is spending authority for increased state and federal revenue that's largely due to growth in case loads as well as initiatives at the state level either governor's initiatives or initiatives that were in the statute from prior years. the first slide is sort of an overview. two of the items and the largest item is the in home supportive services as well as the cal are really more technical in nature. i will walk you through nonetheless. the enhancements in services and increases in staff are really reflected in the cal works, cal fresh and children

and family services areas. so i will start with cal works. in fiscal year 13-14 the governor and legislature approved a significant increase in funding statewide for the cal works program. i want to give you a little context and history for this. two years ago the governor proposed shortening the time frame that families could be on cal works from 48 months to 24 months. the response from advocates and from county human services agencies was that if the time frame for being on public assistance is shortened, we need more tools to help our families move from welfare to work. and so the governor and the legislature agreed and in the subsequent year funded what you see before you, the $231 million in new state funding. >> you said from 48 to 24 months? >> correct. >> and that was state law?

>> correct. essentially what it does is it limits the type of activities a family can participate in after they are on aid for 24 months so really the message it's sending is you basically have two years now to engage in cal works welfare to work services and move towards self-sufficiency rather than 4, which obviously has a huge impact on our families, many of which aren't ready to move from --. >> was there opposition on that? >> there was. some of it was a budget context and part of it was his view of reforming the cal works program. the governor's view statewide there weren't enough families participating so the idea coming from his office was to shorten the time frame and create some urgency. >> some pressure on the families.

>> right. sdpietz our opposition it did pass but the lemonedout of the lemons was the significantly increased funding before you now. basically what the funding is for, it recognizes many families are not ready to move into the work force. they might be facing issues of homelessness, substance abuse, the whole range of issues many families are dealing from in dealing from public assistance to self-sufficiency. so the funding is for several things. the first is a state-wide standardized assessment that all counties should use for families and this is basically trying to assess hr employ bltd and their needs and strengths are in designing a welfare to work plan. the second area is what's called reengagement services. this is really targeted to families that have not been participating and provides funding for not only case workers to support families but also services to help folks reengage in their

activities. and the third area, which is sort of what i think is the most important, is what's called stablization services. these are basically flexible state dollars that are allocated to our county to provide intensive case management if necessary, to address homelessness, we could use it for rental subsidies, for example, domestic violence counseling, behavioral health needs, it's really a flexible pot of money. it's targeted for families who aren't yet ready to move from welfare to work. the idea would be a 6-month services that would be at least 6 months in duration and that 24 month clock would not start ticking until after that 6 months of stablization services are provided. >> so, mr. rourke, for the 7.9 allocated to san francisco, do they have the flexibility to spend it as you want or is it mandated within these buckets that you spend it on? >> it's actually fundable across, with the exception of one pot of money, it's fundable

across the entire allocation for cal works. we can make the determination to use it for more case workers, child care, so we are doing just that. we've developed what's called a family stablization plan that was submitted to the state department of social services for their approval. the other big area of funding is for subsidized employment. as you know, san francisco has for years had a very robust subsidized employment program called jobs now. some of the additional funding is going to expand that jobs now program which places parents who are on public assistance into paid work either in the public sector or private sector. the state funds are used to offset the wages that are paid either in the public sector or for private employers. so the second half of the slide is more the detail --. >> i'm sorry, on the jobs now,

how have we seen the number of jobs year over year rise and fall? are they pretty stable? what do we see in terms of jobs now, jobs created. >> in terms of the actual subsidized slots or post subsidy? >> will, those are two good things to talk about. >> we have been, and this funding will help, there was also an additional pot of state money two years ago under assembly bill 98 that provided more state dollars for subsidized jobs as well so our slots have been growing. i don't want to guess. i think our slots now are in the -- i think we have about a thousand placements now in our current jobs now program, roughly. >> that will be great. and if your office can send to me and jeremy in my office staff year for year what we see in terms of jobs and placements.

>> be happy to. we do a year end summary report that we have in our agency. i'll forward that to you. so to continue on the cal works august mentation, to comply with these new mandates, we are proposing to add 22, a little over 22 positions as well as services in the community an and additional subsidies for jobs now. what we will achieve by adding these staff, which are social workers and case workers as well as employment specialists, we will get families enrolled in their employment plan within a week. currently given our current staffing configuration it's typically 3 to 4 weeks to get into a plan. we'll be able it provide the family stablization services that i talked about before including expanding child care for homeless families, additional intensive case management and expanded behavioral health services, among other services. we're going to cease an ssi advocacy program. this is especially

important for parents who are disabled and therefore unable to work but who are not yet on federal disability. so what the ssi advocacy program will do is help parents who are disabled, as well as children who are disabled, navigate that process to apply for federal cash benefits which is a much higher cash allotment than is the cal works program. we will be able to add between 70 and 100 private sector subsidized employment slots and then we're going to leepbten public sector trainee slots from 6 months to a year and this is especially important because one of the exit strategies for the public sector subsidized employment program is actually entrance into city employment. we have been very successful, for example, in the human services agency, folks who have been in the subsector program being hired out of public assistance and into an agency that's helping folks navigate