basically a box that is much stiffer and stronger. ~ goes so that during the earthquake the upper floor will not collapse down on this story. it can be done in about two weeks' time. voila, you're done. easy. >> for more information on how to get your building earthquake ready, >> chair cohn: hi, everyone. good morning. oh, god, that was -- clearly i'm the only one excited about budget. okay. all right. all right. let's see. hopefully my excitement will be contagious and you will get fired up. i want to welcome you to the budget and finance sub committee. i want to acknowledge our friends at sv

gov tv. tom and leo are assisting us with today's broadcast and we have with us linda wong. she came back to, who. sometimes budget gets long and hard. thank you, linda for being here with us. i want to recognize my -- oh, my god. it's an all women team today. we have sandy fewer. say hi to your husband. >> supervisor fewer: hi, hon. >> chair cohn: we have stefani over here. let's call item four, please. >> item number 4, the health code to designate the city attorney rather than the district attorney to institute judicial proceedings to appoint conservator for persons with mental health disorder and compel participation in out patient treatment to the office of the city attorney to institute such proceedings and appropriate fundings for that purpose. >> chair cohn: thank you. so we have supervisor reed that's

the sponsor of this legislation. today we have jill neilson from the department of ageing and adult services that will also be making a presentation. the floor is yours. thank you and welcome. >> excuse me, i'm sorry. >> chair cohn: yes, supervisor reed. >> thank you for taking this item first. the legislation before you today amends the health keycode to designate the city attorney rather than the district attorney to handle judiciary proceedings related to mental health conservatorships. that's when the court provides a guardian for someone who can't make decisions for themselves. it's no secret that the city is grappling with severe mental health challenges. sadly we have many mentally ill individuals that can't care for their needs and they need a

conservator to get the treatment and help they need to get better. being left on the street without this kind of intervention is inhumane and not helping anyone. compounded with chronic homelessness and sometimes substance abuse these mental health challenges become more acute and must be addressed with sensitivity, compassion and dignity. just the same way individuals dealing with mental health challenges should not be locked up in our jails. mental health conservatorships should be handled like -- should not be handled like criminal cases. being mentally ill is not a crime. these cases should be handled in civil cases, the same way we treat cases related to family law and assisted out patient treatment cases under the laura's law. that's precisely why i brought forward the legislation. by transferring the responsibility of conservatorship cases from

the district attorney to the city attorney's office we are decriminalizing mental health issues and ensuring that we are helping individuals get the services that they need to get healthy and stabilized for the long term. through this legislation -- though this legislation does not mandate that the city fund a specific number of positions in the city attorney's budget, it states that it is the board of supervisor's intention to do so. as we enter into more robust budget conversations one of my personal priorities will be seeing that we fund the positions necessary to handle these judiciary proceedings and handle them well. with this legislation you have a commitment from me to work with members oh of the budget committee, the rest of the board, the city attorney's office and the mayor's budget office to come up with the right number of positions as we consider this legislation today. i think it's important that we

educate ourselves and the public about the conservatorship process. conservatorship in san francisco is incredibly complicated and is not something that we as the public -- as public servants take lightly. this is about temporarily taking away someone's civil liberties for the purpose of providing much needed potentially life-saving treatment. treatment that might not other wise be accessible to them given their mental state. it is critical that we really understand what it takes to conserve a person and understand how many cases the city attorney will potentially be taking on with this legislation. for a brief over view of the conservatorship process, the deputy director of programs at the department of ageing and adult services is here today to do a short presentation. we also have john gibner here from

the city attorney's office, katherine miller from the district attorney's office and heather vinese and cabos gain bessier from the department of health available here today. please forgive me if i have just completely butched your name. >> chair cohn: you didn't practice that one. >> so i will turn it over to jill at this time. thank you, colleagues, for allowing us to proceed with this particular item. >> thank you very much president breed and good morning, supervisors cohn, superwisupe supervisor fewer and supervisor stefani. i'm jill. i'm with the department of health services. here we go with the powerpoint. thank you. i've been asked to provide a high level over view of mental health conservatorships in california and discuss the role of the

office of the public conservator here in san francisco. first i wanted to thank president breed in her interest in assuring the most appropriate legal representation. our department fully appreciates and supports the intent of the proposed ordnance. the role of the public conservator is to oversee the psychiatric care of adults that are gravely disabled and not able to accept services on a voluntary basis due to this condition. grave disability is a legal basis that's used for determining the appropriateness of conservatorship. it refers to the inability of an adult to provide for their own basic needs, specifically their own food, clothing and shelter. the mental health conservatorship system in california is really complex. to start off my discussion i just wanted to quickly clarify a couple of terms that are often misunderstood. lps refers to the name of the bill that was

passed in the late 1960s and it took full effect in california in 1972. lps conservatorships, mental health conservatorships are essentially one in the same. i want to distinguish these two terms from the public guardian. there's some confusion about the role and the inner play. the public guardian is a program that's also operated by our department and this program oversees conservatorships for adults with cognitive impairments, dementia like alzheimer's decide. -- disease. public conservatorships tend to be established for the life span of the conserve person. when the act was passed the intention was really to end lengthy,

indeterminate and involuntary commitments that were really complon at that time. the model that was established under the act is a recovery model. it's really based on the understanding that mental illness is treatable. i have some codes here. 5150 might be a term that many are familiar with. a 5150 hold can be used for danger to self or danger to others. most individuals that are held on a 5150 generally stabilize within that 72 hour period. they might be released even after a few hours. it's a much smaller percentage of mentally ill individuals that do not recover within a few days. those individuals can be held on an involuntary basis under psychiatric care for additional holds. the office of the public conservator doesn't get involved

in these cases until we receive a referral from a psychiatric hospital. typically we don't receive a referral until someone is on a 5270 hold, which you can see from this slide here is a 30-day hold. i've provided here just a really high level data snapshot to help you understand san francisco's current public conservator case load. a few key facts about the public conservator's office also. i've always provided the supervisors with a hard copy of a more indepth data dash board if you are interested. i'll be happy to comment on any of the comments in that dash board if you have any questions. as you can see we have a small team of 14 ftes they are licensed social workers. over all our total case load this past march was 537 clients. usually our over all case load hovers in that general range. in march we

received a high of 23 new client referrals but on average we receive about 16 referrals. i've also included here the number of conservers with pending charges that we will discuss in just a moment. these 77 conservete's are cases that will need to be handed if the representation is moved over to the city attorney. i also just wanted to provide an over view of the different types of mental health conservatorships that are handled by our office. traditional lps conservatorships make up the majority of our cases and those are for clients that are gravely disabled due to mental illness. murphy conservatorships are a subset of those conservators with pending criminal charges. these were previously found incompetent to stand trial and they have

serious pending felony charges on top of those characteristics a conservetee is considered to be a substantial danger to others. we currently have 15 individuals on murphy conservatorships. these are cases that would need to continue to be handled by the district attorney's office. in san francisco we are really proud that we are developing some innovative conservatorship programs that allow conservetee's to live in communities that are less restrictive. if you compare our program with other counties in california you will find that we are fairly unique in that sense. our community independence participation program is a voluntary conservatorship program. under this collaborative court model they come to court monthly and they receive wrap around community-based services. we are working to place appropriate

conserve conserve conservete's into the community. these are contested. these are individuals that are safely able to remain in the community. really quickly, i just wanted to review the role of the deputy conservator in the public conservator program, the over arching frame work we take is we are really trying to help our clients achieve recovery in the least restrictive setting as possible. our social workers in our program make up a critical part of the conservatees. we have a really close collaboration with the department of public health transitions team around the placement. this slides outlines our current relationship with the district attorney's office and our assigned ada is in court with us at least weekly. she represents our office not just

on cases that involve pending criminal charges but on all of our cases including our collaborative court cipp program as well as traditional lps. i also just wanted to highlight that the district attorney actually will handle jury trials and they have the right to request a jury trial every 6 months. the biggest change looking forward at the ordnance that would -- the biggest change for our office is we would be working with two legal teams opposed to one. here i have tried to lay out the different types of cases that would be handled by the city attorney and those cases that we believe would still need to be handled by the district attorney. as i indicated before, we estimated that there are about 15% of cases that involve criminal charges that we think would still need to be handled by the district attorney's office. we would work with the city attorney on all other types of conservatorship cases including potentially the new housing

conservatorship that's been proposed by senator scott weiner through senate bill 1045. working with two different legal teams is absolutely a change that our program can accommodate. we have a very effective working relationship with the district attorney's office and i feel confident that we would be able to develop the same effective working relationship with the city attorney as well. in fact as you can see the public conservator is very accustomed to working with multiple departments and stake holders. here i listed out the partners that our collaborates with around the care and protection of people including the department of public house, the department of homelessness and supportive housing and law enforcement and the jail psychiatric division just to name a few. it takes a lot of care to provide care for our most vulnerable relationships. many of my partners are here today and i'm happy to answer any questions that i can and

defer to them for questions outside of my scope. thank you. >> chair cohn: thank you. i have a few questions if i may. how long has the san francisco's office of public conservator been around? when was it first established? >> the law went into full effect in 1972. one of the change -- there's been several changes though. we initially -- the office of the public conservator was actually under the state of california. i can't tell you exactly when the office of the public conservator came under das but it's been about 15 years ago. >> chair cohn: so i was wondering, has there ever been any program evaluations or audits of the program? >> we do receive every three years -- we've been subject to an audit from -- actually our partners at the department of public health and it's really around services that we provide

that are reimbursed by medical. >> chair cohn: is it dps that condu conduct the audit or a third party? >> i can't speak in great detail about these audits but we are working with quality assurance divisions at the department of public health. >> chair cohn: okay. so in this particular context we are talking about a grave individual, right, that's suffering from not only mental illness but substance abuse and incapable of living on their own. what other levels of service, if not -- probably not under the public conservator but just that maybe das is a part of or the department of public health that you may know of? how do we -- i guess the word i'm looking for is -- i would imagine that there are varying individuals with varying levels of needing help. we saw one earlier today. the one that was in the chamber today probably doesn't qualify for the program

that we are talking about today, could use a little support. i'm wondering what are the characteristics that you used to distinguish who gets placed in which category? >> so the department of public health operates community behavioral health services. >> chair cohn: okay. >> the assisted out patient treatment program is one program that's also operated by community behavioral health services. when we are looking at whether an individual necessitates the restrictive services provided under mental health conservatorship we are first trying to find out whether the individual has the capacity, the willingness to accept services on a voluntary basis. the first point of entry would really be through some of our community-based clinics and certainly we have intensive case management programs that are provided by the city and also funded through city contracts

out to cbos. many of those case management programs help to keep individuals that may be struggling with mental illness but not gravely disabled. those programs can be vital to keeping those individuals independent and safe. the department of ageing and adult service also operating the adult protective services program. about 50% of the cases that adult protective services intervening with involve what we call self-neglect. very often that's an entry point for individuals that aren't maybe struggling with mental illness, perhaps substance abuse and may not have insight into their own needs. our adult protective services workers will go out, conduct unannounced home visits, try to engage with clients and try to get them connected to behavioral health services and case management services and a variety -- a broader array of

services that we offer here in the community. >> chair cohn: so on -- well, it's page 3 in my hand out but it's probably slide 6, types of mental health conservatorship, my question -- you answered it but it derives from this slide just to tie it back to the presentation as to where i was going. >> okay. >> chair cohn: i just wanted a little bit more context to it. anything else that you wanted to add? >> in terms of how we determine what type of conservatorship program that we would identify for a client, all of our conservatorships, mental health conservatorships are initiated through the holds, the 5150 hold to start with that is laid out in the lps act. i'm not talking about assisted out patient treatment, i'm not talking about laura's law at this moment, i'm just talking about conservatorship. so once we

have an individual stabilized at a psychiatric hospital we have one of our deputy conservators go out, meet with the client and we work with the psychiatric team and we try to identify the real key services that we need to identify, what level of placement does that client need. so clients that have greater levels of impairment may need locked psychiatric facilities initially out of an acute care setting. clients that are higher functioning, clients that have more insight that are more willing to participate in their treatment and service plan, those clients might be eligible to be placed in a community setting. when i say community setting i might be talking about a residential care facility for the elderly or a board and care facility as they are commonly known. we also have clients that we place in sros and we wrap them with a lot of services including home care that might

be provided by home bridge or in home supportive services as well as visits from case managers multiple times a week, day programs. individuals that are in the community i will mention we do have -- that are under conservatorship we have on file with the court what is called an affidavit b. the affidavit b does permit us to involuntarily provide medications. it's something that we have to enforce rarely but it is a tool that we are able to use with those clients that are presenting as higher functioning, that seem to be able to function safely in the community. we want to make sure that we are going to be be able to help them to stay on their medications. that's very often the critical piece within the recovery plan. >> chair cohn: thank you. so what will happen to the da staff members previously working on this? >> i don't think that i should comment on that. perhaps -- >> chair cohn: okay. let's do this, this is a natural break. thank you for your presentation.

does anyone have any questions for miss neilson? >> supervisor fewer: what about the out come in these people who go under conservatorship what is the results and what are the impact on these individuals and then the second part of my question is what kind of trends are we seeing around conservatorship? that people are needier, that they need more service and therefore more resources? are we seeing -- what kind of trends are we seeing? is this -- have we been seeing the same amount for so many years, seeing more seniors. you can give me a snapshot. what is the impact and the result of this? then the trends? >> well, i think that you'll

see there on average or conservatees stay under conservatorship for 5 years. although lpss are intended to be short term. what you can see is that the individuals that we are serving do have serious mental illness and it takes time for them to achieve recovery. in terms of the trends that we are seeing, i think that senator weiner's senate bill 1045 is laying out what one of the most consistent trends that we are seeing at all of our community-based health clinics, all of our hospitals. substance use disorder is really a common element in the clients that are coming into our psychiatric emergency rooms that are presenting as being very gravely disabled. one of the things about the somewhat antiquated lps law is that we are not able to use substance use disorder as

a try tier yeah for conservatorship. in fact, the lps act only referencing chronic alcoholism. so one of the things that we are hoping to do with senate bill 1045 is actually modernize this language and provide our courts with the tools that they need to be able to use substance use disorder as a criteria for conservatorship. we are very hopeful. in fact i was in sacramento on tuesday with the mayor's office and with senator weiner and i was really pleased to see that the senate judiciary committee was very own coura -- encouraging and supportive of the bill. i think it could provide san francisco with high schools that we need to reach a broader spectrum of individuals. i don't want to quote too many statistics but we have those prepared for our trip to sacramento on tuesday. it's about 60% of the individuals

that are presenting to psychiatric emergency room are actually showing up with meth induced psychosis. there are other drugs that our homeless individuals out on the streets are using and it agitates psychosis walking to bart or wherever we are going. i think that san francisco people come in close contact with mental illness and there's really an interest at this time to try to broaden the tools that all of us have out our disposal to help those that don't have insight when they are in the throws of addiction and not able to think clearly. >> supervisor fewer: i think my first question isn't how long do people stay in there. under

conservatorship. what is the impact? so if we have -- what happens to them after 5 years? what happens to people? what is the out come for individuals? i think that was my question. >> i'm sorry if i didn't answer your question before. we ideally are moving individuals into a less restrictive setting and off of conservatorship. ultimately that is the goal. >> supervisor fewer: do you have data or numbers and how many you have moved and how successful? >> i don't have it but i can send it. >> supervisor fewer: if you can send me that data and the data for sacramento. i think that would be interesting to review. i have the same question that sup supervisor cohn had, if we move from the district attorney to the city attorney then should we

be moving ftes also? their workforce? >> chair cohn: we'll ask that when we get the district attorney's representative up. >> supervisor stefani: i just wanted the particulars when you are done. >> chair cohn: thank you. i usually listen to the bla report after the staff presentation. >> supervisor stefani: okay. >> chair cohn: right before public comment. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> chair cohn: i'd love to hear from the district attorney's office and the representatives. good to see you. it's been a long time. you've done a great job. >> good morning, supervisors. katy miller from the district attorney's office. our mental health unit is one in my division along with collaborative courts and juvenile units. i wanted to say three things that answer the question. first i just wanted to thank supervisor breed for

working with us to clarify that the cases that originate through a criminal matter will still remain with our office. we think that makes sense for a variety of reasons. it tends to be the standard way that this work is divided when you look at how a number of counties also do this work. so thauj for that. we -- thank you for that. we appreciate the amendment and the clarification. right now we have two staff who are primarily doing this work, an attorney who is here with me this morning, leslie cogan that can answer any detailed questions about the process. it varies for her month to month how much time is spent doing the conservatorship work. on average i would put it at 50% of her time. then the paralegal firm, the mental health unit, she serves the entire unit and 40% of her work is spent doing this work right now. our intent is to have these two positions be fully doing the work of our mental health unit. so right now this is only a portion of what they do. i think if they had more

time they would spend more time doing this and i want to support what supervisor breed is saying about the need to create the three positions in the city attorney's office. i think this should be fully resourced work to be as effective as possible. it is just a portion of their roles so our hope is with this work -- with some of this work being transferred they will be focused on all of this mental health work that comes out of criminal cases. so the paralegal will be serving the mental health unit in its entirety monthly and the district attorney who does this work will be focused on the cases we keep through this process as well as our other mental health work. that inc o includes that variety of things.

>> chair cohn: are you satisfied with that? thank you. one question about the district attorney. will the da keep their staff for the cases related with criminal activity? >> i'm sorry. say that again. >> chair cohn: will the district attorney keep the staff that is related to the criminal activity associated with conservatorship? >> the current staff members? >> chair cohn: yes. the team is not going to be disassembled. >> correct. >> chair cohn: what are they going to be doing? >> in addition to the work that we do right now this is only a

part of what that -- what our office does for mental health. so the bulk of our work is actually spent doing the cases in the criminal justice system related to folks who have been found incompetent to stand trial, not guilty by reason of insanity or mental offenders. that is 300 active cases and hundreds more of inactive cases that that team is monitoring. the way that we do that work in our office is when somebody has been found incompetent or questioned about an individual's competence to stand trial in a criminal matter is raised that case comes to this mental health team. our mental health team manages that case during that time where that incompetency is the issue. the attorneys on that team are not trying the cases, they are not resolving the criminal matter but they are managing and monitoring the time that that person is going through a competency and things like that. so that is an big

part of cases, 300 at any given time and hundreds of inactive. that's the bulk of the work that those attorneys do. they are often out numbered and we have to beg and borrow from other thing -- teams. if we don't do them the attorneys doing them will round out that criminal work. >> chair cohn: thank you. supervisor breed. >> supervisor breed: it's important that we expand the capacity for addressing these particular issues which is why based oh -- on the work that the district attorney's office is doing in terms of the case load there's concern about the capacity to take on these cases, especially those that have no criminal component associated with them. so i think this is one of the reasons why it's so important to move this ordnance

forward for the purposes of not only changing how we look at the cases but also making sure that we have dedicated attorneys for the purposes of addressing them so that we can get people conserved a lot easier because sometimes these cases can drag on. -- drag on for too long. i just want to make sure that the folks here understand the need to not reduce anyone's capacity for the purposes of moving this forward. >> chair cohn: thank you very much. do we have any other staff presentations? i think that's it. let's go to the budget and legislative analyst and hear her thoughts on this item. >> good morning, chair cohn and members of the committee, president breed. i think a lot of testimony has already been given here today that is sort of repeated in our report. in terms of case load in the

district attorney's office when we wrote the report miss miller told us there's about 518 cases that were mental health conservatorships being handled by the district attorney's office. of these 518, the district attorney obtain responsibility for 27 that have criminal charges associated with them. the remain 491 are civil cases transferred to the city attorney's office. the proposed ordnance does not actually commit the board of supervisors to a specific level of funding or position in the city attorney's office. this would still be subject to approval in the fiscal year 2018-2019 budget. the city attorney said they anticipated a need for go additional attorneys and one claims investigator to handle the case load. one of the reasons that they gave us was the incidents of increased homelessness and increased need in the city to handle these cases. but we do consider this

to be a matter because of the language in the ordnance that says it does commit to new positions. i'm available for any questions. >> chair cohn: do you have the estimated cost of those three positions? >> so the cost of the positions for fiscal year 18-19 the positions would begin in january, so halfway through the year. it was $358,000. annual it's $700,000 >> chair cohn: is there a way to shift the money that was allocated from the district attorney's budget -- i guess this is a question to the mayor's budget director. is there a way to allocate money from the district attorney's budget to the city attorney's budget to cover these possibly

future costs? >> kelly kirk patrick, acting mayor's budget director. yes, there are a number of ways through the budget in which the funding where it is budgeted, you know, could be worked out. one way a position could be transferred from one department to another. that's called a transfer of function. then other wise it's a budgetary conversation about where resources are allocated there you the budget. >> can i respond to that? i think part of what i mentioned earlier, part of the challenge we have with addressing these particular cases in general have a lot to do with capacity. and the need to do something different that's going to help us move through the process for the large number of cases that exist. so based on my conversations with both the district attorney's office it's not as if the district attorney is still handling a large case load because of the criminal

cases related to people who have mental illness and who need to be conserved. so based on the conversations with the city attorney's office there is clearly a need for increase in capacity. i do think that before any decisions are made we should do an analysis around that but it was my understanding that this is going to help allow the district attorney to actually move through these cases in a more timely manner and the need to hold onto these positions is necessary. in addition to the increase i think the goal ultimately is to make this process more efficient and part of doing that is to increase the capacity for the case load to move these cases along in a more timely manner. >> chair cohn: thank you for the clarification. thank you miss kirkpatrick. let's go to public comment. any member of

the public that would like to comment? i have one card from ken. please come up. you'll have 2 minutes to speak. >> i worked for one month as a security guard on a psychiatric ward back in the day when san mateo general was still called hope. the chief physician at the time, his death was a great loss. back then there weren't so many patients arriving with psychiatric problems due to drug use. i was wondering if it's at all possible to reduce the cost of implementing this program in the future if you might reduce some of the syringes available to reduce the number of injections or to -- oh, also to reduce a number of people being introduced to that method in the first place basically.

>> chair cohn: thank you. are there any other members of the comment that would like to comment on item four? all right. seeing none public comment is closed. president breed, any last minute comments before we take action? >> president breed: thank you and thank you everyone for being here today. colleagues i realize that passing this will also open up the door to an addition on a financial need which i think is necessary and appropriate in light of what we know is happening here in san francisco on our streets every single day. it's not humane to continue to let people who need support, who need services exist without providing an option to help them in this particular way, appointing a guardian for the purposes of helping someone get on the right path, get healthy and get into a safe environment is extremely important and the increase in terms of the dollars that would be invested in this particular

program could lead to the kind of results that i know that we all want to see. so i ask for your support and i'm looking forward to making sure that the requested needs of the city attorney's office are addressed so that we can make this conservatorship procease -- process here in san francisco a lot better than it has been based on the lack of resources. thank you so much. >> chair cohn: supervisor fewer? no? supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: i just wanted to move this forward and thank supervisor breed. >> chair cohn: without objection. thank you. madame clerk. we are going to go back to the top of the agenda. let's start with item number 1. >> authorizing the sheriff's department to apply for justice and mental health collaboration grant program funds for the period of october 1st, 2017, through september 30th, 2019.

>> chair cohn: thank you very much. to the sheriff's department, thank you for being flexible today. this is a resolution. it's retroactive that authorities the department to apply for and receive social workers for mentally ill people. released before pretrial. very specific demographic. all right. so you're definitely not kristin hollins but welcome. >> no, kristin had to leave. >> chair cohn: not a problem. the floor is yours. >> i'm ali reicher. it's a $300,000 grant awarded to the sheriff's department called a justice and mental health collaboration grant. the purpose of this grant is to bring a master's level social

worker and embed them in our pretrial service agencies, san francisco pretrial diversion project. it's a collaboration with the sheriff's department, san francisco pretrial diversion and ucsf city wide. so the purpose of this is to train the pretrial staff on working with recognizing mental illness, implementing a screening assessment and have the clinician provide linkage and referrals to community health services. the grant also includes money dedicated to housing fund for those client and the clinician is working with to put in the temporary emergency stabilization housing.

>> chair cohn: thank you. supervisor fewer has some questions. >> supervisor fewer: would we will able to serve all people with this report? >> yes. before i write grant reports i submit them to a city attorney to look at. that's not something they have asked us about and that's something that this -- that folks who are being released pretrial are so we are not reporting on status, legal status. >> supervisor fewer: so, we are not. so we wouldn't have to turn over any sort of information to the federal government about whom is being served with this grant? >> they ask for numbers of clients that we are serving and some demographic -- since i haven't -- you know, we haven't done the accept and expand yet so i haven't dug into the reporting requirements. any requirements would go through the city attorney's office. >> supervisor fewer: okay. then about the housing fund, this is only a grant for $300,000. what is the housing fund and how much of this money would go towards the housing

fund? >> let me check. for the first year of implementation it was only about $30,000 because we have to do this plan process and implement the tool and bring on the clinician. i think it's $60,000 for the second year so it's a pretty small amount. san francisco pretrial does have the sheriff's department provide them for a housing fund for clients released on assertive case management which they typically use for sro room. let's say that client is waiting to get into residential treatment where they want to keep them stable, they will put them in a short term sro and they have to come into their office on a daily basis and check in. it's a way to expand that piece of their budget particularly targeted for these clients that are working with the clinician. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> chair cohn: any other questions? no. okay. there's no budget legislative analyst report to review. we are going

to go to public comment. any member who would like to suppose come up. seeing none public comment is closed. thank you. i'll make a motion to approve and send with a positive recommendation and we will take that without objection. item 2, please.

>> about 2,000 acres have been set aside in perpetuity and need to be managed accord to go the terms that allowed us to build and reconstruction of water system. contracting will cover monitoring and oversight of the week being done and supplement our staff efforts and support other work as well under permit conditions and including water

quality. as was mentioned the initial ward was proven in 2013. four contracts, $5 million each over 14 years and it was the term that brought it to the board at that time. we were notified a contractor would discontinue their environmental services so at the time our commission, redistributed the authority to the three other contractors. at the moment, we're seeking both retroactive approval of the previous action our commission took and a slight increase in authority. we need to build the bridge to make sure we have the resources to accomplish the work that needs to be done and particularly at these sites. and this is a quick slide of restating the action that our commission took. >> thank you, i appreciate that. glitz to the budget legislative annal cyst and hear her

thoughts. >> yes. according in response to what mr. ramirez said they were approved in 2013 for the four contracts they totaled $20 million. there were revisioned made to the contract because of the changes with one of the contractors in 2016. the department is now being asked for retroactive approval by this board for those changes to those amendments. in addition they're asking for two of the three remaining contracts to increase the contract amounts by a total of $2.5 million. if you sort of look at the revisions and the total changes to the contracts, the net increase to the program is 995,000 from the original amount of 20 million to almost $21 million. according to our information, at end of 2018, they will be running out of contracting authority. they want these arts through the

end of the year to do the environment almon terring report and then they're going to go out for new contractors for the remainder of the program. there are funds within the water system program budget to pay for these contract changes and we recommend approval. >> thank you, i appreciate that recommendation. let's take public comment. public comment on item 2. >> i was wondering what exactly has changed because it all seems a little vague and ambiguous and when the gentleman spoke of building bridges i see one exercise exiting and one company entering. i don't see anna den da or contract stipulation that say in the future event that such and such and anything like that. nothing solid. >> anyone that would like to see. public comment is closed.

ok. i will accept the budget legislative analyst's recommendations and like to make a motion to approve with a positive recommendation and seeing no objects. thank you. >> madam clerk, item 3. >> resolution designating those agencies qualified to participate in the 2018 annual joint fundraising drive for officers and employees of the city and county of san francisco. >> all right. the resolution determines the eligibility non-profit charities for the cities joint fundraising drive. i'm going to read into the record what those organizations are. we have america's best local charities, asian pacific fund, black bay area united fund, earth share california, global impact, united way of the bay area, community health charities of california. and today we have ms. joan from

the city administrator office to make the presentation. >> good morning, thank you. every year our office receives the applications from the federations interested in participating. we review their adherence to the requirements of the administrative code and all seven federations applying this year did meet the criteria. >> that's simple and clean. ok. question. does this list represent all eligible applicants? >> it represents all those who applied and they were all deemed eligible. we did add one organization about three or four years ago that met the criteria so they were added to the campaign. >> can you tell us, for the record, what is the criteria and selection process you undergo when putting together this list? >> the criteria is listed in the administrative code and it's in our report. the first one is they be a

federated agency representing 10 or more charitable organizations, of which 50% representing in the counties of san francisco, san matteo, santa clara and so on. the other requirements that they be i.r.s. eligible as a non-profit and they be an existence with 10 or more qualified charities for one year prior and that they submit a copy of their most recent certified audit at the time of application and finally, that they present all this information to the board and then is forwarded to us for review. >> can you talk about how is it advertised? i kind of feel like if i didn't work with the city and i didn't hear this report i wouldn't know that there was an opportunity to apply and be a part of this program. talk to me about how the program is advertised and how outreach is conducted? >> i have not heard of

advertising or outreach being conducted. >> how do these organizations know of this opportunity? >> each of the federations have many member organizations. one is united way is an example. and another is earth share or >> very large organizations. >> yes. the way they operate is you can donate to them and they donate to the smaller organizations. there hasn't been advertising outreach of which i'm aware. >> ok. is there any of you all have questions? all right. and i see we do not have a v. l.a. report. let's take public comment. anyone would like to comment on item 3, please come up. all right. public comment is closed. all right. i make a motion we approve this and we send it out with a positive recommendation and i think we should send it as a committee report. can we take that out objection.

and is there any other business before this body? >> there's no further business. we're adjourned, thank you. good

gentlemen. i want to welcome you back to the chamber.