for communication systems with no change to the term to expire april 27, 2020 for a total contract amount not to exceed 34,930,020. item 10 is resume lieutenant-governor approving amendment number 1 and 4 to contract cs-155-2 for the final design and construction of the central subway project with the design group to increase the contract amount by 1, 010,600 for amendment number 1 to lower the chinatown station and $6.3 million dollar for amendment number 4, for additional work necessary to provide engineering services through completion of central subway project stations, with no change to the length of the term, for total amended contract amount not to exceed $47 million.

>> supervisor kim: we have the acting director of the subway project, before i let you speak, i want to begin the presentation with supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame clare, let me start by saying better late than never. as the author of proposition a, from the board of supervisors, to the sfmta and its commission, i very, very specifically did not give up the board's powers pursuant to charter section 9.118, which is why all of the previous items on this calendar have been coming to this committee and the board. and i did that so that the board would maintain oversight pursuant to that charter section. and obviously, we're going to vote for these things today, we have to, but i was rather taken aback by the statement in the budget and legislative analyst

report and i have to get this off my chest, that the reason these were not submitted to the board of supervisors prior to june 2014 was due to central subway staff's misunderstanding of the sfmta charter authority. let's be very, very clear, section 9118 applies to the sfmta, any project over a certain period of duration or certain dollar amount comes to this board of supervisors for approval. that's the way the law has been for decades. it has not changed and i never want to see this happen again. >> thank you very much. good morning, chair kim, vice chair peskin, board president mayor-elect breed. i'm acting program director for central subway. i want to apologize on behalf of the program and all the various staff members that are working on these amendments. i do understand your concerns and what you've raised and one

of the things that we endeavor to do is not to come back to you, but i do want to make, as i present this, we have one other element, supervisor peskin, we need to clarify that may need to come in front of the board. because one of the things we did as part of the review, when doing the amendment 4 was review all of the professional service contracts and determine if any of the other amendments are not in compliance. so beyond these two, we have a third that we're in the process of verifying and putting a package to come back, not only to the sfmta board, but this board. and then also going forward, what we plan to do, all the amendments, we have a checklist we need to check off. we're adding this element as verification process to include the charter section. in doing so, our preparer and reviewer can actually then determine whether we've done this check so we do not repeat

this. parallel to that, director of transportation mr. ruskin has implemented something parallel and we're in t process of reviewing all contracts beyond central subway to see if clients compliance issues. i'm hoping this will be the last time we do for a retroactive commitment. again, i apologize for the error. it's on me because i'm the director. but just to quickly summarize the three amendments that you have in front of you, amendment 6 for the cs 155-3, this is actually to redesign the track profile, when we lower the tunnel profile to gain further

separation between the bottom of the existing muni tunnels and the top of the central subway tunnel. and in doing so, we gain greater safety as we board the tunnel under market street and 4th street. and this work has been done. in addition, we have other work beyond central subway related to the main metro for upgrades of the legacy communication system, and that's part of the amendment 6 that you have in front of you. in addition, amendment 1, value of $1 million, this is actually related to the central subway chinatown station. this was put forth to lower the station by 25 feet, so we can gain better floor condition on lower part of the station. in doing so, we can construct the chinatown station safely and

more advantageously. since the mining operation has been completed, we have experienced little or no sediment to the adjacent building which is basically one of the elements of this lowering work. the last amendment is amendment 4 which is currently for approval, not retroactive, but just for approval. this relates to support elements for design and construction as the project experience delay, we need to continue to provide engineering and construction support services. so that's basically the additional extension of years fort central subway project. in addition to that, one of the things we committed to the chinatown station, because of the mining technology that was used, we want to ensure that we have specialty engineers on site doing the mining of the chinatown station. so in essence we provided better coordinati

coordination, better direction to the contractor so we have no safety or any other issues during the construction. but part of the element was that because the construction of these -- the station was slower, we had to actually do construction mitigation, which was to increase the shift. we had one shift ten hours. we doubled that to two shift, ten hours and in doing so, we had to increase the engineering support effort. that's part of the reason we're here. and that's the third element. with that, i'm open to taking questions. >> supervisor kim: seeing no questions, at this time we will move onto ms. campbell. >> so for file 18-063 this is retroactive approval of amendment number 6 to the contract with hntb-b & c joint venture. the original contract was approved by the board for $32.3 million. there have been seven amendments to this contract.

six of the amendments came below the charter threshold of $500,000 for board approval, but amendment 6 was for $1.3 million. because this a is retacrove approval, we consider this to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. and then file 18-046, this is a retroactive approval of the amendment number 1 and approval of amendment number 4 to the contract with central subway design group. the original contract was approved in 2010 for $40 million. there have been three prior amendments and amendment number 1 did exceed the $500,000 threshold set by the charter. amendment number 4 is pending before the board now. it's $6.3 million increase in the contract. we do give the budget details on page 33 of this report.

we recommend approval of amendment number 4, we consider approval of amendment number 1 to be policy matter because it is retroactive. >> supervisor kim: thank you. at this time, we'll open up public comment for items 9 and 10, seeing none, we're closing public comment. colleagues, can we move forward items 9 and 10 with recommendations. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor kim: we have a motion and can do this without objection. please call item number 11. resolution authorizing the general manage other of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute professional services agreement number pro, 0068, biosolids commission digesters facilities construction management, for augmentation services for an

amount fiat knot to exceed $42 million, for a term of seven years to commence following board approval through july 2025. >> supervisor kim: i see the biosolids project manager is here to present and alan johnson is also here to answer questions. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm caroline chiu. so this biosolids project is the has largest project in the sewer system improvement program. the ssip is a large capital improvement program aimed at addressing our aging sewer system and to ensure a long-term and seismically safe waste water system. so through the project, we're going to address the aging infrastructure and outdated

structures. located at bayview hunters point area, it critical to our structure of the city. we're going to replace the solid handling portion of the treatment plant, one half of the plant, as shown in the figure in yellow, is the existing system. you'll see that those existing digesters, the circular tanks on the bottom of the yellow square, were built in the 1940s and are located across the street from residential homes. so through this project, we're going to locate a brand new facility adjacent to the existing plant, but you'll see from the outline in blue, it's furthest away from the neighborhoods. so what do we get with the project? well, basically, the project applied best treatment

technologies and through that efficient treatment, we're going to be able to provide more treatment with less numbers of digesters for example. we're going to increase the level of treatment to ensure that we have more options for beneficial use of the treated biosolids, meaning we keep it out of landfills. and we're going to develop a combined heat and gas system, to utilize all the bio gas to support the facility and generate up to five mega watts of power, which is enough to sustain the facility with any left going the treatment plant. we're going to meet our level of service goal, to reduce odoor -- odors in the area. so here's a layout of the new facilities. once again, you'll hear me say that we located the digesters, which are the five tanks on the top, adjacent to the railroad

tracks, furthest away. and we located key process facilities within the center of our treatment plant, providing an adequate buffer from the community. and we strategically laid out two maintenance buildings for our operation and maintenance staff along the edge of gerald, because we felt it to be a friendly neighborhood edge for the community. here's an aerial view of the new facilities. i think we spent -- we made it a priority not just to look at modern technology, but we spent a lot of time in working with the community to really try to make sure visually and architecturally, it is something we can all champion. and once again in the front, you see the two maintenance buildings, providing like an office building setting. so where are we today?

we're at 95% design with construction anticipated in early 2019. we are aiming -- delivering this project through what we call a construction management general contractor approach, in which the contractor is on board n working with our design team, providing review, identifying means and methods and identifying risks early in the project so we can engineer them out now in the design phase, versus construction. the project, we just got that approved and we have the funds appropriated through our controller's office. and lastly, i want to highlight that the biosolid project was selected to receive a low interest loan through the water infrastructure and financing innovation act. this loan is the largest single

allocation in their history and for us in the puc and the city, it translates to overa hundred million dollars of savings i debt service going forward. so, now the approval before you represents really the last resources we need to make the biosolids project go into construct. i think you understand that the project entails a large complex construction effort on a constrained site. the construction work will be led by the puc construction management staff, but given the workload and need of expertise, we did need to add staff. we issued rfp for professional services to augment our construction management staff. and the arcadis team ended up being the successful proposer. the contract before you is a $42

million contract. and here in front of you is a breakdown of the scope of work for that contract. and you'll see in the last column that at a minimum, if not greater, 50% of the work to be completed is going to be completed by a subconsultant firm under that arcadis prime. so, in conclusion, i'm asking your approval to allow the san francisco puc to enter in agreement with arcadis to augment our staff for the biosolids digester project. we welcome any questions you may have. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. my only question actually is to ask about the committee outreach process for the design of the site in the neighborhood. >> i think even before the

conception design, there was a huge level of outreach. even started when we were doing the master planning where we formed a digester task force. so a lot of that was the first metric we walked a way was move the digesters farther away from homes which you can see. that has continued. we do updates to the southeast community group and as we approach construction, we see more on the ground coordination and information sharing with the local community as we begin construction. >> supervisor kim: what are the potential environmental impacts to the neighborhood? i know that these are systems and infrastructure we need to have, so i'm not protesting the actual construction of them, but in terms of the siting, are there any environmental impacts to neighborhood beyond odor and

smell? >> no, that's a very good question. i think because it's a large construction, we're going to be proactive and pre-emptive, and we plan like a traffic control plan. we will have to close streets adjacent to the site, but we're starting to work to develop that traffic control plan. since the southeast plan has multiple construction, it's not just coordinating with the neighbors, but the other construction jobs. so to help us, we did a procurement to brung on what we call -- bring on what we call a oversee program so there is overarching umbrella to make sure we're not just coordinated within the fence line, but the outer edges of the site are informed to minimize those impacts to the neighborhood. with respect to odors and i think, the other thing is, one

of the reasons we need the cm augmentation, because we plan to have a lot of inspectors on board, not just to inspect the job, but to meet our requirements we laid out as part of the eir, to make sure for example, there is no idling cars, or that traffic is minimized or efficient. so all those tools are already being built in to hopefully negate issues that -- i mean, construction elements we know exist, but sort of soften the impact all around. >> supervisor kim: will there be a site that the puc will maintain so neighbors are aware of the construction schedule? >> turned out we've implemented -- it's basically a construction website where we e-mail to inform biweekly. and obviously that can ramp up

depending on the effort, but there is also a call-in number, that people can call in and say, what is going on? >> is it a voice mail service? >> depending on at the peak construction, i see it a live uring the work hours. and our lead of the projects will be in the front line of answering a lot of those calls. >> supervisor kim: great. thank you very much. this time, we'll move onto ms. campbell, budget offices. >> the contract with arcadis is for approximately from august of 2018 through july 2025. this is for construction management staff augmentation services for the biosolids digester facility project at the southeast water pollution control plant. this is part of the sewer system improvement program. the contract budget for $42 million is shown on table 1,

page 38 of the report. for this budget, $36 million is direct labor cost and we show overview of the labor costs in table 2, page 39 of the report and we recommend approval. >> supervisor kim: at this time, we'll open for public comment. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion on item number 11? move forward with recommendation and without objection. thank you, can you call item number 12. >> resolution authorizing the general manage other of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute an amendment to the memorandum of agreement with the united states department of the interior, national park service, yosemite national park for comprehensive management of watersheds, for an amount not to exceed 27,004,364

and total duration of four years from july 12016 through june 2020. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i see the deputy assistant manager with the pc is here to answerquestions. >> sure. thank you for having me. i appreciate the opportunity to present on the item. so as you heard, we're asking for an additional two years of duration of our memorandum of agreement with the national park service and to increase the funding request by $14 million. could we have the slide pulled up, please? this shows the part of the water project, watershed that lies within the national park services yosemite national park. the watershed is 459 square

miles and controlled and managed by yosemite national park. by way of background, the act of 1913 authorized the city of san francisco to construct the water project in yosemite national park. under the raker act, san francisco is required to reimburse the national park service for the cost of inspection necessary to secure compliance with the sanitary regulations that are cited in the act. as well as the cost of roads and trail maintenance and expenses incurred to the park service. they also have an exemption for filtration of water delivered from the project to the customers. and these activities are things

like stock management, waste water treatment. the park service developed a memorandum of understanding to cover the costs of the requirements in addition to funding, to enhance water quality in concert with the filtration exemption. in 2016, the board of supervisors approved a resolution authorizing a memorandum of agreement between the puc and the park service for a comprehensive management of water sheds within yosemite national park. it included not exceed $12 million for a two year term ending june 30, 2018. the proposed resolution before you authorizes a two-year extension to june 30, 2020. and increase not to exceed now amount of $27 million.

the table that you see here, shows the categories of activities to be performed and the associated cost of the initial mou, which is the first column and the second is a cost of program activities as proposed in the next two-year period. to date, they've paid the department of interior, $12 million. this amount is $100,000 less than the initial moa. it had included a contingencies that wasn't needed. the most significant area of increase is in special projects. on the next slide i'll address those increases. but in general, in the other program areas, the increases that are seen are to cover cost of living and also to restore a level of spending in program areas that didn't receive appropriate funding during the initial moa period.

the sfpuc was in a drought and it reduced spending. this next slide is the slide that enumerates, the special projects and what we intend to do with the money. the projects were initially identified during the initial moa, but because we didn't he funding because of the drought, they were pushed off. these projects benefit both puc and park service. and the costs are shared with a few exceptions. what you see is san francisco's contribution on this slide. the composting toilet, the design funding would be funded by the puc and we believe replacing the flush toilets will reduce the waste water

discharged. the park service will be responsible for program management and environmental requirements. the wilderness stock framework helps to determine the capacity and understand stock behavior, build monitoring terms and determine baseline conditions of the camps and meadows. those are the two most significant projects you see here. just to note thathe puc is the sole beneficiary of the raker boat replacement. i'm happy to take any questions. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. seeing no questions, we'll move onto ms. campbell. >> much of the information has been covered by the puc representative, there is an increase in the contract recently approved in 2016, so for the next two years, it goes

from $12.2 million under the original two years, to $14.7 million for the remaining -- or the two years under the proposed modification. this is 20% increase and much of the increase is driven by the special projects. there on page 44 of the report, table 2, it does list the special projects. there was a contingency for the first two years of $100,000 that was not spent and we recommend a reduction from $27 million to $26.9 million and we recommend approval as amended. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i'm sorry, i did not know if the puc agreed to the amendment? >> we're fine with it. we didn't have any emergencies in the last two years and hopefully don't have any coming forward. if we do, we'll find a way to reallocate. >> supervisor kim: seeing no

members of the public commenting, public comment is closed. can we take a mnioo amend as articulated by the budget office? we can do that without objection. we have a motion to move this forward with positive recommendation to the full board. mr. clerk? >> item number 13, resolution approval the 4th amendment to the contract between the city and county of san francisco and the tides center to provide supportive housing property management under the delivering innovation, to extend the contract term from july 12008 through june 302019, and to increase the contract amount for a total contract amount of 47,734,035. >> supervisor kim: thank you. the deputy director of administration and finance of

the department of homelessness and housing will beer to present and answer questions on this item. i also see doug gary, codirector of dish also available to answer questions if members of committee have it. >> thank you. good morning, madame chair. i'm deputy director for administration and finance or the department of homelessness and supportive housing. the item before you is a resolution to approve a fourth amendment to a contract with tides, which is the fiscal sponsor for developing innovation and supportive housing for dish. dish provides management services, totalling 449 units. the amendment includes a combination of state, federal and general fund resources. the resolution before you asks for a one-year extension to the existing tide dish contract. so that we can continue services

without interruption. the increase in the contract was proposed to be $7.2 million, we're in agreement with the budget and legislative analyst recommendation to ruc that amount in line with current you're expenditures and what we project going forward for the next budget year. oca has approved a onetime full source waiver for the contract extension and this will allow the department to rfp o the services next year. with the rest of our permanent supportive housing portfolio. many of the projects as you know, we inherited from either the department of public health or the human services agency. those contracts and agreements had bearing expiration dates and that will allow a comprehensive rfp process.

that concludes my remarks. if you have questions, i'm happy to answer. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i just want to note that hsh has state thad they were not abo take on the competitive rfp process because of staffing. i just wanted to ask if hss was prepared to take this on as stated in the budget legislati analyst report? >> we are, thank you for the question, as you know, we're still a relatively new department and inherited hundreds of contracts in various degrees of expiration. we also had a huge financial system transition, along with a lot of staff turnover, and rapid increase in new work, new navigation centers to get into contract, new supportive housing units. so unfortunately, we did need to request a one-year extension.

i do feel confident that my staff can take this on and we have additional resources coming through the budget process to better support the contracts team, so we can align our contracts with the expiration dates and do the competitive selection process we're required to do. >> supervisor kim: great, thank you very much. we'll move to severin campbell for the presentation for the budget and legislative analyst office. >> the original contract with tides was for $7 million, there have been two amendments approved by the board to increase the current contract amount to $40.5 million. this contract expires in june 2018. and as talked about, there has been request for sole source waiver to extend the contract for another year, to july 2019 in order to go through rfp process. so the budget being requested, the increase in the contract is

$7.2 million, increasing the total contract amount to a little more than $47 million. we do detail the budget on page 48 of our report, table 2, the $7.2 million increase. based on actual expenditures of the contract to date, we're recommending a reduction of 1.3 million nods the total contract amount. so the contract will be reduced from the proposed amount of $47.7 million torques the revised amount of $46.4 million, otherwise, approval is recommended. please stand by.

>> i also understand that henry gong is also available to answer any questions for the community

members today. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you very much for hearing this. the sheriff's department is asking to approver marked for services. a four-month extension. this proposed extension is here because we've awarded a new food service to aramark. there's time allowed for the scope of service for the new jail food contract around the good food purchasing requirements. it was passed yesterday out of the board of supervisors. it was determined that this legislation will have no fiscal impact and then back to the good food purchasing program, when

the center for good food purchasing program spoke on the legislation that was passed out yesterday, they mentioned that we have been working with them since november of last year, and, in fact, they were part of the panel for the rfp evaluation panel, and we continue to work with them initially in the scope of the contract. we set a 12-month time line to complete a baseline assessment, but yesterday, as resolution urges us to move forward in four months, and we're working with a aramark to meet that. >> you also spoke about coffee services. does that mean we don't provide that today wrn t-- within the

current contract. >> we do. we have current feedback from the inmates about what they like, what they don't like about the hot meals, the food in general. we're always trying to incorporate customer feedback and coffee service for inmates will be new. >> that will be new? >> yes, ma'am. >> great. thank you very much. we do not have a bla report on this item. at this time, i am going to open up for public comment on item no. 14. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. can we take a motion to move this forward with full recommendation to the board. mr. clerk, can you please call i team no. 15. 15. 180477 resolution authorizing a lease amendment to extend an existing lease of 33,998 sq. ft. at 617 mission

street/109 new montgomery street with maclean properties llc and douglas g. moore, trustee under the connor children's trust no. 2, for the department of child support services for a monthly base rent of $158,657.33 for a total initial annual base rent of $1,903,887.96 for the period of july 1, 2018, through december 31, 2024. >> thank you. i see the deputy managing director of the real estate division is here to present on this item. it's also my understanding -- although i don't see her -- that the director of san francisco department of child -- i'm sorry. supervisor peskin was blocking my view. to answer any questions on many item we may have as well. thank you. >> thank you. i'm here on behalf of the child services. it's a state-funded department that establishes and delivers

child support services on behalf of custodial services. 617 mission street, also known as 109 new montgomery street. before you for your consideration and approval is a resolution authorizing the extension of existing lease for approximately six and a half years. the current lease requires an extension of an option by this december. it would commence the next december in 2019. under the current lease, it pays annual rent of approximately $42 a square foot. this will normally go through december. based on an independent third-part agreement, if continued under the existing rent and extended it january 1st, 2020, it is based

on $71 based on the fair market rent at that time. however, we negotiated a blend and extend rate for an early extension starting july 1st and a flat rate extending through the six and a half years. they will not increase the budget to accommodate is fair market rent increase commencing january 1, 2020, and threatened instead to move the caseload to another office, such as alameda, requiring san francisco residents to commute. they decide to stay at the current location as it's convenient and near public transportation, especially since two-thirds of its clientele come from the bayview. as supervisor kim stated, karen is here to discuss any questions you may have about their programming clientele and wish tay at this location. so commencing july 1, 2018, we

propose to have a fixed rent over the next six and a half years, and under the proposed extension, it would be $56, about a 30% increase through 2024. it doesn't include electricity. this blend does decrease the total over that period of time for more than $2 million. in addition to the extension, we got two more five-year extensions of 95% of fair market rate subject to approval and updates with the general clauses. we agree with the budget analysis recommendation, and we have staff from dph if you have any questions regarding their programming. thank you. >> thank you so much. i don't see any questions from members of the committee. so at this time i'm going to move on to ms. campbell, director of the budget analysis office. >> as pointed out, this existing least at this site actually

extends until december of 2019. this legislation would approve a lease amendment that would begin a new term on july 2018. that's 18 months prior to the termination of the current agreement extension. the rent would go up from the current amount of $42 per square foot to $56 per square foot, but then it would remain flat over the term. we have an estimate here of the cost impact of the city of doing this early lease -- sort of terminating and moving into a new amendment. there would be an additional cost of $415,000 because of the increased rate per square foot.

there's a calculated savings over the initial six and a half year term of this amendment of $2.7 million. we do recommend approval. >> thank you so much, ms. campbell. at this time, we'll open up for public comment on item number 15. seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion to move forward this item with recommendation to the full board, and we can do that without objection. thank you so much, ms. quorum and also mr. roy for being here today. mr. clerk, can you call the next item. >> clerk: yes. 16. 180564 resolution authorizing a renewal agreement for the use of space and communication services within an existing data center located at 3101 gold center drive, rancho cordova, california from the state of california technology agency, office of technology services, for a three-year term, commencing july 1, 2018, through june 30, 2021, at a monthly base rate of $62,720 for a total

annual rate of $756,840 in an amount not exceed $2,385,938.10. >> and, ms. quorum is here again to present on this item. the department of technology department deputy director of finance and administration is also here to answer questions. committee members, i forget to mention this, but we have an overflow room open in room 263 if members of the public would like to be in that room and watch this meeting. and we'll also be calling public cards. so even if you are in the other room, we'll be able to call your name, and you will be able to speak at public comment. thank you, ms. gorum. >> thank you. this resolution has to deal with the city's backup data storage in case of a disaster and recovery of said data so that

operations can continue. so before you and for your conversation is a resolution authorizing a renewal agreement originally before and approved by the board in 2013 for use of space and communication services within a state of california technology agency's data center in rancho cordova by the city's technology disaster recovery services. it lapses next week on june 30th, and it would be updated for a three-year term through the end of june 2021. that's the length of terms that the state will give. the rates the state charges are non-negotiable. they're set by the state of california rate schedule. not the exceed amount, we can't go over it, 283 -- $385,938 for all three years. the annual cost for the first

year under the proposal is $756,840. that is, again, up to that amount. the second and third years increase annually by 5%. the increase is not only due to the rates established by the state but a request for an increase in the number of potential cabinets, not necessarily the department of technology would use them, but we can go up to. right now, we're adding up to 20 cabinets. they would like to go up to 30 cabinets amount. briefly, dte can answer other questions if you have them about the program. briefly, as city departments consolidate their systems and going up to the rancho cordova and as data storage and backup is created as part of the recovery plans, more storage space is needed. again, mr. levinson and mr. reese is here from dte to answer any programming questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you so much.

i do remember the discussion of this item in budget and finance committee several years ago. i don't have any questions. so at this time, we'll move on to ms. campbell at the budget legislative analysis office for their report. >> page 56, table one in the report shows the annual cost maximum cost of the agreement to the city. the rates are set by the state, as ms. gorum said, and there's an estimated increase. so on page 57, the increase is detailed in the agreement going forward for the next three years compared to the existing agreement. as you can see, the major change in terms of the actual rates has to do with the increase in the number of cabinets from 20 to 30. and the associated power with that. again, as ms. gorum said, the actual cost would depend on how many cabinets the city used. based on the information

provided to us in our review of this agreement, we recommend approval. >> thank you, ms. campbell. at that time, we'll open up for public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion to move forward item number 16 without objection. thank you very much, ms. gorum. mr. clerk, could you please call item number 17. >> clerk: item 17. 180416 resolution approving an original contract agreement for long-term mental health services in a 24-hour locked facility between the department of public health and crestwood behavioral health in the amount not to exceed $77,280,000 for a total contract term of july 1, 2018, through june 30, 2023. >> thank you. we have ms. ruggle. >> i'm here with the department of public health to present on this item. thank you. this is a new contract. we just did a solicitation.

it's following the solicitation effective july 1st. this vendor, however, has been ongoing and currently contains dph clients. it says, along with the facilities that are emptyed by crestwood behavioral health are long-term care mental health facilities with varying licenses to meet the needs of our patient placement. the average term of a length of stay is between nine months to a year. so essentially to continue these services ongoing and to allow us the ability to place clients into facilities when they need this level of care. >> could you talk a little bit about -- so this is a new contract? who previously provided these services? >> it's the same vendor. they did it again. we did a soatilicitatiosolicita.

the same two vendors applied, and the -- they were selected. >> is the only contract the new care facility at st. marys? >> essentially. the crestwood operates facilities around the bay area. if, for example, we have a special need and they have a facility that will meet that patient's need, then the facility may be added into the list of facilities through modification to the contract. for this purpose, the primary change is the addition of the facility that's located at st. marys. >> the 32 new nursing beds. >> correct.

>> because i'm not completely aware of how this process works, if you're within our county jail system and it has been determined or you've been diagnosed with a need for mental health services, do you then get moved out of county to one of these facilities and these facilities have some type of locked, secure component? >> i'm going to ask our director of transitions to come up here. we created the new facility specifically to address the needs of people that are incarcerated but have to be maintained in a locked facility but not to remain in jail or sometimes people are placed at napa hospital. they complete their term, and then they're released, but they need a higher care before being released into the community. this is a place where they can

be treated and maintained in a locked facility. >> what michelle described is correct. it's a locked mental health rehabilitation center level of care. lps conserved, on a mental health conservatorship or misdemeanor incompetent to stand trial under penal code 1370. >> how many new beds will thereby as part of the new healing center at st. marys? >> 54 beds. san francisco has agreed to fund 40 of those beds. >> 40 of those beds. of those 40, 32 are in partnership with our county jail program? >> well, all of the beds are available for forensic placement, if necessary. we prioritize jail placements and then lps after that.

we usually take jail placement because it's limited in terms of how long somebody can be held in jail. >> i understand. so this is after an individual has served their time in county jail. then they're transferred to st. marys? >> they're determined incompetent to stand trial. their charges are pending because it's dermed they cannot -- determined they cannot participate meaningfully in their defense. so they're sent to a mental health rehab center for treatment to restore them to competency to actually participate with their public defender. >> so there's a new healing center. crestwood already provides these services to a center. i'm assuming some of these services are very individuals who require a secure, locked

component for -- >> there are facilities that crestwood operates for san francisco that are licend board and care facilities. so they're a step-down program that is an enhanced boarding care because they continue to provide rehabilitation level of services to help somebody sort of continue on their continuum of care. >> and because of st. marys, healing centers is a new one for the city. i believe we announced it in february or march as opening. how does it work to differentiate? my understanding, from what was state to the public, is it will take individuals off the street who not have interacted with the criminal justice system. how do you componen--

>> we still have to go through the lps process. >> i see. it's the same level of security? >> it's the same level of care. >> not the same level of care. i'm so sorry. it's about the locked security component, so it's the same for all 52 beds? >> so the san francisco healing center is the same program whether you're placed there on a forensic hold or whether you're placed there on a mental health lps hold. >> i see. how many of these beds are currently occupied? >> for san francisco, 33. we're still making referrals. the program has been ramping up. >> so out of the 52 available beds, 33 are currently occupied? >> of the 54 -- agreed. we agreed to place 40 clients.

we're 33 into the 40 clients. >> and the remaining 12 beds are under the disposition of st. marys' hospital. >> the remaining beds are under crestwood's disposition now. other counties are purchasing those beds. marine county has purchased beds. fresno is interested in purchasing. kiezer has been interested in contracting for some of those beds. >> and crestwood is already providing services in advance of this contract on those beds? >> yes. we've been in contact with crestwood since the '80 -- '70s or '80s. >> i see. so we provided them that contract. this is an extension of that. >> yes. >> what have been the challenges of filling these beds here in san francisco and st. marys? >> challenge in filling the beds? because this was a brand new

facility, there were a little bit of bumps along the road within -- with getting staffing, continuing to be able to do placement there. they made changes in terms of how they were receiving their medications and how they were doing the intake process. once they managed that system to be more streamlined and safer for our clients, we resumed making new referrals. we'll anticipate we'll be to our full census by the end of the month. >> okay. thank you very much. so at this time, we'll move on the the presentation by the budget analysis office. >> i think this process has been discussed. the contract is until june 2023.

there's one five-year extension through 2028. the annual cost for the contract is about $13.8 million. page 61, table one sort of summarizes the rate per day and expected census because the different facilities provide different care and have different rates for each bed. the total contract for the first five years is the not to exceed amount of 3.5 million. that includes a 12% contingency that's shown in table two, page 62 of our report. and we do recommend approval. >> thank you very much. so at this time, we'll open up for public comment on item no. 17. seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion to move forward item 17 and we can do that without objection mr. clerk, can you please call item 18.

>> clerk: agenda item 18. 180561 resolution approving a contract agreement with addiction, research and treatment inc., dba bay area addiction, research and treatment, inc., for methadone services in an amount not to exceed $35,952,000 for a contract term of four years from july 1, 2018, through june 30, 2022, with one six-year option to extend. >> thank you, mr. clerk. i know that michelle will also be presenting on this item, and dph has agreed to continue this item to the next committee because it was not submitted in time for budget analyst report. >> correct. >> so at this time, we'll open it up to public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. can we take a motion to move this to the call of the chair.