but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco >> the meeting will come to order. this is a regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am supervisor sandra lee if you are, chair of the committee. i am joined by catherine stefani , and welcome to supervisor walton. i would like to thank helena and tom from s.f. because -- s.f.

government t.v. for broadcasting this meeting. are there any announcements clocked. >> please silence all cell phones and documents to be submitted as part of the file should be given to the clerk. items acted upon today it will appear on the genuine 29th agenda unless otherwise stated. >> can you please call item number 1. >> resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to expend a grant increase of $147,000 for a total amount of $554,000 from the california department of public health to participate in a program for a period of july first 2018 to june 30th 2019. >> thank you very much. this item was sponsored by supervisor stefani. supervisor, do you have any words, okay, that's great. i believe we have dr susan phillips here to present from the san francisco department of public health peer good morning.

>> good morning and thank you very much. either direct i am the director further department of public health disease center. we would like to ask you for approval to accept and expand $147,000 from the california department of public health. this came as a result of funds that were allocated by the california legislature to recognize and address the in fortunately unfortunately rising rates of stds throughout california, and this includes kept san francisco. we propose to use these funds to augment an existing plan to project to engage young women of color who are disproportionately impacted by s.t.d.s. they will be part of a leadership group learning about leadership and sexual health, in these funds would be used to have them be the primary gliders of a social marketing campaigns that would be appealing and attractive to youth to emphasize sexual health and ways in which we can reduce rates of chlamydia , particularly in san francisco. >> thank you very much.

are there any questions? i have one question. are you working closely with the san francisco unified school district? >> yes, we are working closely with them, and they will be part of the projects that we are envisioning, and we anticipate we will be sharing and learning from them and their approaches as well, so yes, we are. >> thank you very much. and there was no report on this. let's open up to public comment. arthur meant -- any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion on this item? >> thank you, chair chair fewer. i move this to the full board with positive recommendations. >> thank you very much. i think we can take that without objections. thank you very much. we move this to the full board without -- with a positive recommendation. can you please call item number 2? >> resolution retroactively approving a service agreement between the city and the company for services to clean power s.f. for a term of ten years are

generally first through december 31st, in a total amount not to exceed $20 million. >> thank you. i think we have the director of clean power s.f. from the p.u.c. that will present on this item. hello. >> good morning, supervisors, supervisors and welcome supervisor walton. i have prepared remarks here for you this morning on this item. you have before you today a resolution that would retroactively approve the clean power s.f. community choice aggregation service agreement between the san francisco p.u.c. and the civic gas and electric company. the period -- of the agreement is for an agreement of ten years commencing january 1st of this year, through december 31st, 2028. s.f. p.u.c. authorized execution of the agreement on november 13 th and has been operating under the agreement since january 1st. clean power s.f. is our

community choice aggregation program in san francisco authorized by assembly bill 117, and adopted by the board of supervisors and the mayor. under the statute enabling c.c.a., the local jurisdiction becomes the default supplier of electricity in this area in partnership with the local investor-owned utility, which continues to provide various services including billing, transmission, and district fusion -- and distribution to c.c.a. customers. by allowing us to determine the source of the energy supply, and direct more of its electric customers' dollars towards renewable and clean sources of supply, clean power s.f. is a key strategy to meeting the city 's goal to eliminate greenhouse gases from its electric energy supply by 2030. under california public utilities commission regulations , implementing the c.c.a. statute, clean power s.f. is required to have a c.c.a. service agreement in place with

pg and e. as a condition of offering c.c.a. service. as required by state law, implemented through the service agreement, they were required to give metre readings and billing services to customers and remits customer payments to the city. the service agreement requires each party to comply with the terms of the c.c.a. tariffs set by the california public utilities commission. the service agreement itself does not identify specific costs of services to be provided by pg and e. those costs are detailed in pg and d.'s california p.u.c. approved tariffs. the s.f. p.u.c. staff has estimated the cost of the services provided under the tariffs to be 1.5-$2 million per year for a total not to exceed an amount under this agreement of $20 million over a ten year term. the cost associated with the

services provided under the tariffs are paid exclusively from clean power s.f. revenues. pg and e. offers a standard c.c.a. service agreement for use in its service area. most operating c.c.a. his and pg nde service areas have executed the agreement without modification. these agreements feature an indefinite term. that agreements terminate if the local jurisdiction were to terminate the c.c.a. program, or if one of the parties is in default under the agreement. when the city and county of san francisco started taking steps to initiate c.c.a. service in 2010, the city negotiated favourable modifications to the pg and e. form agreement including explicit references to applicable laws and tariffs, any provision that requires them to pay interest on late payments. that agreement was executed in may of 2010 and then extended in may, 2012 for an additional six and a half years through

december 31st, 2018. clean power s.f. began serving customers under the service agreement in may of 2016. that previous agreement expired december 31st of last year. staff negotiated a new agreement containing the same terms and conditions of the initial agreement with pg and e. the s.f. p.u.c. authorized execution of the new agreement on november 13th, as i mentioned earlier. we are seeking your approval for a ten year term to provide important stability to the c.c.a. program. as long as that clean power s.f. program operates, and pg and d. offers a retail distribution service to clean power s.f. customers in san francisco, the agreement is required. all other operating c.c.a.s have executed agreements pg and d. with indefinite terms. as indicated earlier, the s.f. p.u.c. is seeking retroactive approval of the agreement. they did not initially believed board approval was required as

it was a new agreement, not an extension of an existing agreement. further, the agreement itself does not specify costs for services rendered, instead the cost of c.c.a. service fees are set forward in a separate tariffs that i mentioned earlier after consultation with the city attorney's office, we determined the agreement should be brought to the board for approval as after full citywide enrolment in april 2019, the total anticipated costs to be incurred as a result of the agreement would exceed $10 million. in addition, the new agreement extends the terms and conditions of the previous agreement entered in 2010. that agreement which was extended from 2012 through 2018 was eight and a half years in total duration, so any extension to that agreement with the term over one year would result in a cumulative term of more than ten years. has board approval. unfortunately this determination was made in a point in time that did not allow the s.f. p.u.c. to

allow to receive board approval prior to the expiration of the prior agreements. in order to ensure no disruption to the program, the s.f. p.u.c. executed the agreement in late december prior to the expiration of the previous agreement agreements. that concludes my remarks and i'm happy to take any questions you might have. >> thank you very much. colleague scott do you have any questions or would you like to hear from the b.l.a. first? if we could, thank you very much >> good morning chair viewer and members of the committee. i am with the budget and legislative analyst office. item two is a proposed resolution to retroactively approve a service agreement between the public utilities commission and pg and e.e. for ten years from january 1st, 2019 through december 31st, 2028. the resolution would also authorize the p.u.c. general manager to make amendments to the agreement as needed.

they do not materially increase the lively -- obligations or liabilities of the city. under the service agreement, pg nt provides metre reading, billing services to clean power s.f. customers and remits customer payments to clean power s.f. the service agreement requires each party to comply with the terms of the community choice aggregation tariffs and includes provisions for audits, dispute resolution, events of default, indemnity, and billing to community choice aggregation customers and remitting payments to clean power s.f. the city retains the ability to audit pg and eat's records. of the $20 million not to exceed the amount of this agreement, clean power s.f. estimates it will pay pg nt $19 million for community choice aggregation services over the next ten years based on tariffs that by the california -- set by the california utilities commission. the remaining 966,000, $849

represents 5% to cover costs if customers enrolment in clean power s.f. is higher than estimated, and the customer enrolment estimates are included in table two on page 4 of our report. it says table one at the bottom, but it is the table -- of the second table in the report is table two. clean power s.f. expects charges of over $18 million over ten years for p.g. and e billing and administrative fees under the cpuc approved community aggregation choice tariffs as shown in the second table on page 4. the p.u.c. estimates that $385,000 -- initial users will be active after accounting for opt outs. the total number of customers being served by clean power s.f. is expected to increase over time, as construction and development introduces

additional electricity counts within clean power s.f.'s service territory. the cost associated with the services provided under the service agreement are paid for from the clean power s.f. revenues. these costs are included in the approved clean power s.f. budget , which were 2018 was $157 million, and for 19 and 20 was $212.9 million. we recommend that the committee amend the proposed resolution to correctly state that the service agreement end ends date is december 31st 2028, and to approve the proposed resolution as amended. >> thank you very much. questions are anything? >> thank you. i have a few questions. on tuesday we had a great report from barbara hale about how the recent announcements from p.g. and e and any encrypts the applications and everything, and

i am wondering how the recent bankruptcy announcement could affect this agreement and clean power s.f. i know it is a huge question, but as we are looking at this we need to know what we are looking at. >> what i can tell you is we have received assurances from p.g. and e staff that it will continue to operate. it will be businesses usual as the bankruptcy process gets initiated and proceeds. we are also under -- we have the understanding that p.g. and e will be filing a motion requesting the bankruptcy court to authorize continued uninterrupted payments to the city and to all other programs given that those are the revenues of the c.c.a. does that answer your question? >> yes. that is helpful. >> okay. >> a few more questions. in the b.l.a. report, in table

one of the report, is that in the contract, or is it an assumption, it is on page 4 of the report. >> the table. >> i am wondering if the per metre fee that is displayed in table one is actually in the contract or is it an assumption? >> the agreement itself does not specify any of the costs or fees in this detail, it refers to the services provided pursuant to the california p.u.c. tariffs, and to these fees are identified in the cpuc tariffs. the first year one at rate is the current rate for these fees, for the services. we have applied an escalator of 3% per year to those fees, it is

a standard assumption that we use in our budgetary and long-term planning for the program. but that fees are subject to periodic adjustments by the california p.u.c. through a public process. that we would participate in. >> okay. does a number of metres in table one actually includes the expansion to all san francisco residential customers? >> yes, it does. >> okay. i have no further questions. >> supervisor walton? >> just a couple of questions. the first one, i understand that the city formed its own municipal utility agreement. >> in that circumstance, the city would be taking over the responsibility for all electric

services within the city and county of san francisco. as a public utility. as a result of that, the clean power s.f. business that the p.u.c. operates, in an orderly fashion would be subsumed within that public utility. it is important to point out that the c.c.a. model the clean power s.f. program represents in the city is only authorized under state law. under a public utility, the government already operates the full system. >> i had a series of questions. some of my questions dealt with like the question that was just asked. and we exit the service agreement particularly if p.g. and e is in default and under bankruptcy, and there are a

couple of other things, has this language been added into the service agreement? >> the service agreement has language regarding termination, and it covers the circumstances you just referred to. the first provision for termination of the agreement is that the local government, the local jurisdiction is no longer providing a c.c.a. program, and in the case of the city becoming fully integrated public utility at san francisco, that is exactly what would happen. the city would, in an orderly manner, go through a process that would be likely overseen by the california public utilities commission to end the c.c.a. program as the city took over the full utility services. that circumstances is default under the agreement. to the extent that p.g. and e is in default of terms in the

agreement, which require requiring remittance of payment to the program, that's a potential situation where the agreements could be terminated. >> as that language in a contract? >> it is. the language is termination for default under the agreement. >> and my last question, knowing all the issues and concerns surrounding p.g. and e and instability, why does this service agreement, why does this happen -- have to happen today? >> it has to happen today because it is a requirement for the city to require to operate a c.c.a. program under california p.u.c. regulations that it have an effective service agreement with the investor-owned utility. bylaw, the c.c.a. model is a partnership, it does specify that p.g. and e or potentially a successor investor-owned utility is providing the distribution service, the metering service,

the billing service, so this agreement is what memorializes that partnership. >> for january 1st is a retroactive start, and we have not started the service agreement yet. why is today the day that this has to be approved? >> we are seeking retroactive approval because the p.u.c. did execute the agreement prior to the termination of the previous agreement in order to ensure continuity of service. we did not want to take the chance that the c.c.a. service could be suspended or harmed in any other way. just to be clear, as i said in my remarks, we are operating under the agreement. >> yes, catherine stefani? >> even if we weren't -- if we did not approve it today for

some reason, or if we wanted more information, you would still go on and carry out the agreements, since it is retroactive anyway, he would not stop supporting -- performing your part of the contract, or our part of the agreement, correct? >> certainly not. we would not stop reforming our part of the agreement. the agreements does govern that relationship which includes things like remittance of payment to the program and to the city to continue operation, so it is a critical agreement. i do want to highlight that. i will turn it over to the a.g.m. >> thank you. i just wanted to emphasize that under the city's rules, we need your approval to be a fully executed and recognized is recognized as an agreement. we are -- where p.g. and e to file for bankruptcy, we want to be one of the c.c.a. set has a fully executed service agreement

that requires them to remit payment to us. i feel a sense of urgency, specific to your question, supervisor walton, about whether action should happen today. fpg nt does file as stated that they intend to as early as the 29th, we want to be one of the c.c.a. his before the court with a fully executed actionable service agreement that says pg and es e. as required to remit payment to us. >> okay. i have questions, also, is that do you think that we need protection regarding their billing service as if they file for chapter 11 bankruptcy? if these funds are frozen during the process, how long do we anticipate that could take? >> we have a series of questions like that for bankruptcy council and for the city attorney's office.

looking at historically at the last p.g. and e bankruptcy, because we do have experience having gone through this before, not with a c.c.a. program, per se, but with funds that the city is anticipating an pg and he is obligated. i think i've been told that our experience in the past has been process took around five months. to release the funds. as he mentioned, p.g. and e is assuring us and all the other c.c.a.s that they intend to remit the funds and to begin the bankruptcy proceeding with that statement to the bankruptcy judge. we have, as i mentioned in our earlier hearing this week, we

have identified some steps we would take to make sure that we have sufficient cash flow to continue to operate the program uninterrupted in the event p.g. and e does withhold our funds. we have been working with the controller's office, we have been working with our counterparty to our letter of credit where we have $50 million in available credit facility to draw upon. we feel comfortable that we could withstand that sort of bankruptcy-disrupted flow of funds. >> thank you. in light of what's going on with p.g. and e, and i know this was put on the agenda before that, i think that we all, on this committee, we all have additional questions.

we understand you have had a conversation with p.g. and e, p.g. and e has assured you, quite frankly i am not so confident about the word of p.g. and e to us. i think that our legal representation is going to be very important here. >> absolutely. >> everyone, when p.g. and e filed bankruptcy, everyone is going to be at the trough, and be worried about the same thing. so i actually think we have been operating in this way for a while back i don't see a one-week continuance actually being a hindrance, so as a sketch move --dash moved along, and we have questions answered to. i would like to make a motion to accept the b.l.a. amendment which is to correctly state the date of the contract to december 31st, 2028, and continue this

item to the next meeting of the budget committee. >> i'm sorry, would you like to have public comments first? >> sorry. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we take that without objection? >> thank you very much. please call item number 3. >> item number 3 is a resolution to retroactively approve a grant agreement between the city through the department of homelessness and supportive housing and tenderloin housing clinic for supportive housing services for formerly homeless adults for a term of july first, 21st -- july 1st, 2014 -- not to exceed 3.4 million. >> i believe this is a retroactive item also. we have the department of homelessness and supportive housing here to present on the site and. welcome.

>> good morning, members of the committee. i am the deputy director for administration and finance for the department of homelessness and supportive housing. the resolution before you is a grant agreement not to exceed $170 million between the department and tenderloin housing clinic for master lease s.r.o.s that served formerly homeless adults, it includes supportive housing services, as well as other support services and money management at 16 sites in the city for a total of data hundred and 66 units -- for a total of 1,566 units. it is first to reprove -- approve retroactively the agreement between the human services agency and the grantee, tenderloin housing clinic, in the amount of 74,342 --

$74,342,402, executed in july first, 2014, through june 30th , 2018. the second action is to ask for your approval to retroactively approve the first amendment to the same agreement between our department and the grantee, that included annual cost of doing business increases, as well as add box from the board, and enhancement money for a permanent supportive housing. that occurred in january 2016. the final approval is a proposed second amendment to the original grant agreement for the fiscal year this year to extent they agreement for two years through june 30th, 20202 a not to exceed amount of $117 million. the funding is annually appropriated and included in our annual budget process.

about 40% of the annual cost come from the general fund. sixty% of the annual costs are funded from a work order between the human services agency and our department for the care not to cash a revenue. it used to be called the care fund, and the board approves not only our budget, but the specific care not to cash expenditures basis. that clients served in these units include up recipients, we partner quite closely with the human services agency and we now have administration of the contract. just a brief overview of what permanent supportive housing is, and what services are delivered on site, the goal of permanent supportive housing is to provide the most unstructured, but safe and stable environment for our formerly homeless residents, these units are formerly

homeless adults. the main initial goal is for housing stabilization to ensure that folks are in their units, stabilized, and learning the life skills to keep them housed. we also provide, through our grantee case management services , referrals, in-house and roving referrals to employment, mental health, and substance abuse counselling and services. the grant includes funding for modified payments so the rent payments are collected and made on time to support the building. benefits assistance, not only limits but other county benefits , conflict resolution for many of our residents, this is the first time they have been housing many years, and the building requires a level of tenant support, group counselling, tenant activities as well. tenants in these buildings are very low income. they pay about a third of their rent -- a third of their income

to rent, but the client rent is really about $300 a month. the city's general fund in the care not cash fund picks up the balance. i want to address head on what we have done in the department to make sure we never are before you again with a retroactive grant approval of this magnitude as you know, the board under the charger is required to approve and authorize any agreement that departments enter into that are above ten years in duration, or $10 million. this agreement certainly, from its origination, fell into that threshold. since the new department was formed in august, we have been slowly building in our internal capacity, but there's two main things we change to prevent this from happening again. the first is people, the second is new processes. we have an entirely new staff, a

fully staffed contract group of new staff that have been fully trained, not only internally, but by oca and other city departments. we have a seasoned contract manager who has come in and set up new checklists, new processes , new internal controls to ensure that the system now prevents any administrative oversight or any approval, not only by the board, by the city attorney and our internal leadership, so those are not missed. we have a new deputy city attorney working with us, as well as we have worked with the deputy city attorney and our staff there, and the staff to implement a new checklist that requires that anything above a certain threshold gets flagged, it is included in the packet that goes to the city attorney, but there is a number of redundancies internally between -- from our contracts analyst, our contracts manager, our

finance manager, to the deputy director, our deputy city attorney, and our director to prevent this from happening again, including flags that go up in our excel spreadsheets, and a proactive approach so that now we've gone through all of our legacy historical information about the contracts and grants we have inherited, we have done all of our research, we have set up a new filing system, and we are looking at all of our contracts that are $7 million or over, so even if they are nearing the threshold or over the threshold, we are working on those well in advance because we are well aware that to amend contracts like these, and get them through the board can take several months. i'm happy to answer any other questions. thank you to the board's budget analyst. we are in agreement, and i ask for your approval. >> thank you very much. supervisor walton? >> thank you. just a quick question, not necessarily budgetary, but what

is the average duration stay for a tenant? >> i will look over to emily cohen, the mayor's senior homelessness advisor to help me answer that question. in general what i would say is that the goal of permanent supportive housing is to stabilize someone who has been chronically homeless in housing, in permanent supportive housing, and permanent affordable housing so there are many clients that are able to eventually move on to more independent housing. we have a moving on initiative that we started under the new department where we are actively talking to those residents that are ready for independent living , and providing them with the subsidized voucher so they can live in scattered site housing, but the goal is to keep people in their unit to, and as we implement coordinated entry, and we are matching our most expensive resource, which is permanent supportive housing to

the client, we are seeing that more and more people will be there very long, maybe through the end of their life, so i don't have a good statistic to share with you, but i am happy to follow up with our policy and program staff and give you a better answer, unless emily has more guidance than i provided. okay. >> good morning. emily cohen from the mayor's office. we estimate that people stay approximately ten years in permanent supportive housing. that is a rough estimate. we have about a 12% turnover per year in permanent supportive housing, and only 2% of that is for eviction. 2% of the folks that leave permanent supportive housing has a net does have a negative exit, either folks either move up into affordable but not affordable housing, they may move into the community, they may move with

family, and many people pass away and permanent supportive housing. the population we are serving as elderly, highly vulnerable, and as gg mentioned, as we implement coordinated entry in our -- and are serving the most vulnerable folks in the community, folks are going to be staying longer, and time limited housing, transitional housing has been proven relatively ineffective at ending homelessness, h.u.d. has defunded the model as the city and county of san francisco has also stepped away from this model for homeless adults. it is not cost-effective, it is not efficient in ending homelessness. permanent supportive housing is our most evidence-based practice for ending homelessness for chronically homeless folks, both adults and families. >> thank you. supervisor stefani? >> thank you, supervisor viewer,

and thank you for going through how you will prevent this in the future. are there also automated -- you said something about an excel spreadsheet with flags coming up , there are automated cues so this won't happen again, and we are not retroactively approving something that has been in use for four years now. >> thank you for the question. i also got that question from your staff and i did have an opportunity to research it. even with the new financial system, we don't have automated systems that would prevent the department with city attorney approval from going through the board. there's nothing that goes to the clerk's office and requires approval. so it is really based, as all of our financial and contract controls are based, on internal controls, processes, people, and redundancies. that is a system we put in place , but in talking to the controller before the hearing,

i'm not aware of anything in the new financial system that does anything more than an automated notification. >> thanks. >> good morning, supervisors, supervisors. i am the controller. this issue is on our radar screen to take a look at, and we have been in early discussions this week with the department, but with the office of contract administration, and the city attorney to review the control environment questions that you are discussing here today. i don't have a definitive answer for you yet on whether this can or should be automated, our former financial system did not attempt to automate this control , nor does our new one. in my early read is that to do so would be unnecessarily burdensome. there are improvements of -- to the people and processes that was described earlier, not only at hs h. but in central agencies as well that can better prevent these things from happening without having to build out a new positive automation to our

new central tool. i can report back to the board as i get deeper into that conversation. >> thank you. >> i have a few more questions. on the contract itself, since we are being asked to approve over $117 million for the services, i am wondering if there is any audits or follow-ups to make certain that the scope of services we are paying for our be delivered in a manner that are acceptable in terms of what is in the contract, and whether or not we have the capacity to perform these audits. >> thank you for the question. through the chair, the department conducts annual programmatic monitoring, as well as partners with the controller 's office as part of the nonprofit monitoring group. as we have started the new department though we have -- it has become evident to the leadership, as well as our contracts and programs team that that is adequate for a competitor his compliance lens,

but not necessarily adequate for a public accountability lends, and so as we are implementing our new system, our client navigation and program system, we are also starting to build out those performance measures, not just for individual contracts and grantees, before the whole system. system of those maybe measures such as their vacancy rate, how long does it take the provider to turn over the unit, how do they address client complaints, what is the response time, those things where we are assuring ourselves as department leaders, as well as the board, and more importantly, the public, that services are being provided in an efficient and effective manner. once we have those performance measures in place, the logical next step is lining that with the budget, and so standardizing

across our permanent supportive housing portfolio, what does it cost to provide this level of service want to be have equity across our contracts and providers, or surgeon providers under resourced, why other providers have been more successful in resourcing, so i understand that it may not be a specific response as you would likely would be expecting, but we are relatively new, it is a focus of the new department, and we are actively working on it as we go out for r.f.p. with our renewal, and our new grant agreement. >> it is something obviously we will continue to stay in contact about because it is very important -- if we will say we will audit, it is in the contract that we have to have the capacity to do so. like you said, it is a public accountability thing. another thing on the purpose of the contract, it i and looking in appendix a., assess the goals of the services are to empower tenants to become self-sufficient and retain their housing or move to other

appropriate housing, and i am wondering, when it says other appropriate housing, are we talking about independent living , what might that mean? >> sure. it maybe independent living, but most likely, it is moving -- it is a client moving from a wraparound and highly subsidized unit, to an affordable housing unit, either within the city or elsewhere, and so one of the initiatives that the department started, as i mentioned earlier, trying to create a pipeline in our permanent supportive housing where possible, identifying those clients who are ready for independent living, want to move out of s.r.o. units, and supportive housing units, and move into affordable subsidized housing with some initial

stabilization help so that they are successful and stabilizing, and that -- in that units. given the income levels that we see, the number of clients on benefits and s.s.i., and given the cost of housing, i don't know if clients moving into san francisco market rate housing, our moving on initiative, rapid rehousing eventually, and other options is something that is promoted, but i don't want to lose sight of emily cohen's, points, which is the goal is to stabilize and help people who have never been stable in a living environment, a stable living environment, an environment where they have to pay their rent, and get food, and go to a job. those are life skills that often take years to stabilize.

>> and with regard to support services for those living in these units, it says the grantee will publicize tenants and invite them to access services as needed and grantee shall provide services based on tenant his request and as required by the contract, and tenants are not required to participate in support services. i am wondering if case management is therefore elective in these units. >> i would need to get back to you, supervisor. i'm not the expert on how the programmatic case management works. i would be happy to follow-up with your office this week. >> okay. i am wondering too, when we do the intake, and our goal is to empower tenants, and our goal is to help them to either get the independent living or be able to sustain themselves. a lot of times those people that

we are helping are suffering from the disease of addiction, and my concern is that we have this opportunity, and we are helping people with the disease of addiction, what are we doing at that moment in time to actually help them move forward? here it says support groups, social events, and organized activities are offered, are they offered in the community rooms of these s.r.o. his, and what is being offered quality we have twelve-step programs that are free? what are we offering them? is that something that we, as a city when we are handing over $117 million or asking them to do because we want to empower the tenants, we want to help them get well, so what are we doing at that point in time, if it is elective, if they don't have to participate, what can we be doing at that point in time to help those people who are suffering from a disease most likely get well. what are we doing? >> thank you for the question. i would say for this particular contract that it predominantly serves our clients, which we

have seen so far our lower acuity than if a contract was before you from some of the contracts or grant agreements we inherited from the department of public health where we have clients in those units that have active mental health, substance abuse, and other physical disabilities. i would like the opportunity for our department to get to give you a more expansive answer, which i don't think i can provide that adequately right now, but i will take the questions back. >> okay. and another question i have on page 5, still in appendix a, assess support services staff will contact every tenant at least three times during the first 60 days following placement and housing to engage the tenant in services xo what are we doing as a city, again, what are we doing to make sure that is happening.

do we have methods to make sure that is actually happening? that they are checking on the tenants as they say they are going to. >> yes, we need to provide you more information, not just on wellness checks, but how are we engaging tenant services and making sure our roving teams, are referrals to public health and other community services are being met in these buildings, if i hear the question correctly. >> one more thing with that. it also says the grantee will conduct an annual tenant satisfaction survey which will be posed by an offer to all tenants. is at that something that is also publicized to the city and county of san francisco? is it public on our website, or as a just public for the tenants living there? >> that is it -- that is a great point. we do collect that and monitor that as part of our program monitoring, but we have been talking about how we can get some of this information that we collect on our providers on our website, and more accessible to the public so that there is

collective accountability. >> okay. i would like to know, i would actually like to see those reports when you get them eric so we can see how the tenants are being treated, and whether or not they are satisfied with the services they are being provided. i think that is all i have right now. >> thank you very much. let's hear from the budget legislative analyst. >> supervisors, item three is a proposed resolution that would retroactively approve a grant agreement and first agreements in the grant agreement between the department of homelessness and supportive housing, and the nonprofit tenderloin housing clinic to provide housing and supportive services to 16 master lease hotels. the resolution also approves a proposed second amendment extending the grant agreement term by two years for a total term of six years from july 1st , 2014 through june 30th, 2020, and increasing the grant amount by $35 million.

from $170 million. in 2014, the human services agency entered into a grant agreement with the tenderloin housing clinic --dash clinic following a notice of funding availability to provide affordable housing units to formulate homeless adults. under the housing first program, the department of homelessness and supportive housing subsidizes the rents of s.r.o. hotel residents in the general fund, and the human homelessness and supportive housing fund. s.r.o. hotel residents pay a portion of their rent based on their income as was described. in january 2017, the department of homelessness and supportive housing entered into the first amendment to the grant agreement with tenderloin housing clinic to increase a the grant amount by $7 million.

to provide for a cost of doing business adjustment and increases in master lease rent and operating expenses. according to homelessness and supportive housing staff, the human service agency did not provide -- did not obtain board of supervisors approval for the original agreement with tenderloin housing in 2014 due to an administrative oversight in staff turnover. when management of the grant agreement was transferred from the h.s.a. to the department of homelessness and supportive housing in august of 2016, information on the status of the board of supervisors approval of the grant agreement was not conveyed to the department. subsequently, the department of homeless and supportive housing entered into a first agreement in 2017 without obtaining board of supervisors approval. the department did not submit the first amendment to the agreement to the board of supervisors due to an administrative oversight and unclear records on the grant approval history. the proposed second amendment to the grant agreement effective

july 1st, 2018 was delayed due to a significant number of vacant positions in the department department's contracts team, and delays while staff reconciled information from the prior department records and prior years' financial information. they have not executed the second agreement pending board of supervisors approval. the grant agreement amounts are outlined in table two on page 9 of the report. there are no changes to the scope of services. the additional funds account for cost of doing business adjustment, additional contract years, and one-time funds added by the board of supervisors. the actual annual expenditures in the proposed annual budget are detailed on table three of page 10 of the report. as part of the fiscal year 2018 through the two your budget process, they approved a two and a half% cost of doing business increase for nonprofit contracts in fiscal year 2018-19. the fiscal year budget in the proposed second amendment includes a two and a half%

increase. as noted in the report, the department of homelessness and supportive housing did not submit the first agreement to the grant agreement with tenderloin housing clinic as required by the charter, according to the department, it has put in place better controls as was detailed. to better track contract spending thresholds and ensure that contracts and contract amendments will be submitted to the board for approval before the contract or contract amendment goes into effect. we recommend the board approves -- amends the proposed resolution to reduce the grant agreement amount by a $407,000 from 170 million, which is the amount in the proposed resolution, to 117 million, and we recommend approval as amended >> thank you very much. let's open this up to public comment. is there any members of the

public who wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is close. any other questions or discussion? for me, i think my question was basically how we are going to prevent this from happening again. i understand that this is retroactive, but there is a lot of cleanup here. it seems that we have put some systems into place so we should never see this retroactive request coming at this level of magnitude again because of these things that were put into place and we hope this is taking care of, and also with working closely with the controller. i would like to make a motion to accept the amendment of the p.l.a. and two pasties -- pass this to the full board with a positive recommendation. we can take that. madam clerk, are there any other items before us today? >> there are no further items before us today. >> thank you very much, this meeting is adjourned.

shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services within our neighborhoods, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> my name is ray behr. i am the owner of chief plus. it's a destination specialty foods store, and it's also a corner grocery store, as well. we call it cheese plus because there's a lot of additions in addition to cheese here. from fresh flowers, to wine, past a, chocolate, our dining area and espresso bar. you can have a casual meeting if you want to. it's a real community gathering

place. what makes little polk unique, i think, first of all, it's a great pedestrian street. there's people out and about all day, meeting this neighbor and coming out and supporting the businesses. the businesses here are almost all exclusively independent owned small businesses. it harkens back to supporting local. polk street doesn't look like anywhere u.s.a. it has its own businesses and personality. we have clothing stores to gallerys, to personal service stores, where you can get your hsus repaired, luggage repaired. there's a music studio across the street. it's raily a diverse and unique offering on this really great street. i think san franciscans should shop local as much as they can because they can discover things that they may not be familiar

with. again, the marketplace is changing, and, you know, you look at a screen, and you click a mouse, and you order something, and it shows up, but to have a tangible experience, to be able to come in to taste things, to see things, to smell things, all those things, it's very important that you do so. >> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the

club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique

tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower

program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www. zhou. e-l-l-e-n -- >> the friday before a long weekend, so we'll start with the roll call. [roll call] >> okay. commissioner lee is under the weather and unable to join us today. agenda item number two, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the