>> commissioner back on the record in open session and you still have a quorum. >> is there anything left other than adjournment. >> vote to elect when to discloe closed session. >> i have a motion. >> move.

>> is there a second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> the motion carried. >> can i have a motion to adjourn. >> yes. >> so moved. >> all in favor. aye.

>> we are in for a pretty speedy meeting today. i just wanted to welcome everyone. i am joined by supervisor catherine stefani, and committee member supervisor rafael mandelman. today jesse larson, we want to thank you from san francisco government television for broadcasting this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cars and jump documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk pick items acted upon will appear on the ferry 26 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. let's call item number 1, please. >> item number 1 is resolution approving amendment number 1 to

the agreement between worksite community mental health center and the department of public health for behavioral health services to include -- --dash increasing agreement amount by 17.9 million for an amount not to exclude 29.9 million. for a total agreement term of july first to december 31st. >> thank you very much. i believe we have the director of d.p.h. >> correct. thank you. i am representing the department of public health back before i get started to, we realized too late there is a clerical error and the short title. so i am just bringing that to your attention. we have already provided an amendment by the clerical error says the word fiscal intermediary, the long title and the body of the resolution and the report done by the budget and legislative analyst is all correct. i just wanted to point that out.

you do have a corrected version that removes that word. today, as was stated, this is a request to amend this contract to continue it after its one-year term period beginning june 30th, 2019 for three years and six months, the current contract has four programs, included in it, and this is a long-term community-based provider. therefore programs are an outpatient clinic, an outpatient crisis clinic, an intensive case management program that we refer to as assertive community treatment, and a child and adolescent outpatient program. at the outpatient and the crisis programs were both selected to a solicitation process, and our ongoing. one of the policy considerations

that was noted here by the board of supervisors was how is their performance one -- when the budget analyst does -- when they did this analysis, they took the scores of each of the unique programs to give an agency overall score, which is fine, but the way that we actually score as my program, so we do separate and unique program monitoring of each program, so it did average out that way to be less then meeting standards. when you look at the outpatient program and the urgent care, in all the years 14, 15, 15, 16, they met standards. in 16, 17 they exceeded standards. we don't have a performance concern about the continuation of this program with westside. the third program is there intensive case management

program. they inadvertently did not provide a submitted application for that solicitation. their past performance where they had an issue was around the deliverables and not meeting the deliverables. this is an intensive case management program where they have a set number of slots, with 139 slots. we are, at this point, continuing the program, but it has had a reduced rate, i mean a reduced number of clients. down from 139 to 80, so it reliance a number of clients that are assigned to their program with the capacity that they can historically provide. and then the fourth program is a children and youth program that is not continuing, at least how it is, it is not continuing right now after fiscal year 18 -- 18-19, it is not in the out

years of the contract. otherwise, we rely upon this program for meeting the target population that they serve, which is primarily african-american, and we work closely with the agency, and would recommend approval. >> okay. supervisor mandelman? >> thank you, chair if you are, again, i am new to this, and i'm just learning my way along, but looking a report like this, to me, it rings some alarm bells, and maybe on misunderstanding it, or misreading it, there is a listing -- i guess i would like to understand about how these scores are -- what we are measuring. what are these scores ranging

from? this is in the b.l.a. analysis. it doesn't sound like we have a minimum score, or do we? and when do you become concerned, when should we be concerned about performance under a contract, and then i recognized it may not be other providers that would do this work, and so in that circumstance, how do we address concerns if we do have concerns? >> right. the scores listed is a range of scores -- all the agencies that provide solicitation have to meet the minimum requirement, so that can screen out anyone at the beginning, if they don't have medi-cal certification, they don't have the required numbers of years of service, ability to document their services, both -- most behavioral health services are billed to the state to draw down medi-cal.

to the door agreed that there is documentation problems, if that's a problem, that is what something else we check in the solicitation process. we also, they have to have experience. there's minimum qualifications that will screen somebody out, and when we do the scoring, the scoring is divided into three categories, with the most points going to the evaluation of a written proposal, and then review of prior performances, and financial management capacity and fiscal integrity. those together is the scoring, we have an independent panel that reviews. this particular solicitation with many of our sins we have ongoing providers, and so we are meeting the requirements of going out to bid, and in some cases, people, vendors are not reissued contracts, but we also

have ongoing services, so we want our providers to be successful. we were not concerned about this score. they met all the requirements. their past performance for these two programs, they've met all the standards. in the last year, it is fully audited and they exceeded the standards. the urgent care is a critical program in our continuum of care. someone is in crisis and they need immediate medication, that is a place where they can go with a psychiatrist always on staff. so we don't have an ongoing concern for that, the other program, the outpatient children's program, their score was half of the points that you could get, but more than that, within the solicitation, there was missing pages, and there was

, it was not a robust solicitation that gave us comfort to continue the program as it currently is under that model, so it is not continuing in the prior years, forward years. at least in that program model structure. the intensive case management program, when i drilled down and looked at the actual scores within the agency, it could be one, two or three, where they had their problem was with meeting the deliverables, in that problem that they had, because they could not retain staff for what they were able to pay, and just not enough staff, which drives down the number of clients they can serve, that has been a consistent issue with the program, and so what we did is drop the number of clients from

139 to 80. the other thing is that contract, or that peace will go out to bid, but these are clients that have been with this program. this program is 15 years old. i don't know about each of the clients, but they are the highest risk, highest users of the system. so as much stability as we are able to provide, we want to provide, which is why we reduced down to the level that the agency can manage, but we are not putting all the other 80 people somewhere else because right now they are doing a system review and trying to change the model, are looking at changing the model of intensive case management so that there are tears of highest need to, and then you can drop down to a cheaper level, and lest -- less intense services. all of that is happening now, so we don't want to move any of those 80 clients that could then have a new case manager, and

then another case manager. that's why that program is continuing, and we are continuing with deliverables and productivity. it was just the one that is the level of their capacity. so we have adjusted the contract. we feel comfortable having them move forward. >> do we look at client outcomes as part of scoring? >> we do look at client outcomes. the deputy director of adult and older adult services can speak to that, but we do. >> good. >> good morning. >> morning. >> in terms of outcomes, we look at client satisfaction. each year, we take a look at, we ask our clients, are you better off because of the services we provide? so that is one area. we also have the adult needs and strengths assessment, which is a

comprehensive assessment that basically takes the time, at the point in time, and a second point in time and compares progress, so we look at risk factors such as emotional and behavioral symptoms, we look at other risk factors, we look at strengths, so this is done with a case manager and the client together, so it tells a story about whether or not they are able to improve. the other part is it also takes into consideration cultural factors, and so i think, for this particular program, when we look at it, it is predominantly african-american. there's been a shift in the population, it is hard to retain staff, but the story that clients are saying that basically, in terms of housing, it is one of the biggest

challenges, and we might be able to stabilize their psychiatric symptoms, keep them out of the hospital, but still, one of the main challenges for people moving on is stable housing, and it is not just stable housing for clients, but also for staff, so that is one of the challenges with retention, but in terms of outcomes, we are comfortable that clients are showing improvement and doing a good number of healthy relationships. >> we look at psychiatric hospitalizations, we look at incarcerations, we look at a lot of the clients, we look at their health as well. in terms of physical health, this is also a medically fragile population. a lot of them are high users of our medical emergency room, and they show up in other parts of

our system, whether it is in jail, or being homeless as well. yes, we look at all of those. >> thank you. >> all right. >> supervisor stefani? >> thank you. i have a few questions as well. the b.l.a. report indicates that westside has not consistently met their budgeted level of deliverables, and you are telling us you've dropped the expectation of 139 people served to a tee. is that what you are saying? >> they probably should have been another sentence on that sentence. the westside meeting does not meeting their deliverables applies to the one program, the mission program, and the mission act program is intensive case management, so they have a set caseload, and it was 139, and we

have dropped that down to 80. they are only expected to have 80 clients. that is how much staff they have to carry that number in the caseload. >> okay. so i just find a disconnect unit we are dropping our expectations of deliverables of people served from 139 to 80, yet we are increasing the contracts from 70 million to 23 million. i feel like there is a huge disconnect here, and i also don't understand, why are we giving awards to service providers that are not scoring highly on r.f.p.s, have not always met standards, and are not at their budgeted level of deliverables? makes no sense to me. >> okay, so even going into this solicitation, it is clearly stated, it is not just the top score, so we have a huge city, and we have a lot of different target populations, so we try to have providers that meet all the

needs of the different target populations. within this particular agency, there's four programs. two of the programs are outpatient and crisis. each year, in 14, 15, 15, 16, they have met all their standards, they have exceeded the standards in 16, 17, they have done extremely well. we have no concerns. the third program that is in here, they did not submit a bid, but we are continuing to program until we finish our system redesign so we can continue continuity of care for the clients that are in that program the fourth program is not continuing after fiscal year 18-19, because i did not score well enough to hit our comfort level for the solicitation. so the cost of the program is

not changing each year. that one program is coming out and reducing 400,000 each year, but the dollars are going up from 5 million, to cover the rest of the cost of the programs for years to, three, 4.5. they are not getting more money, they are just having, i mean, they are not getting more money on an annual basis, they're getting less because the children's program is coming out >> would you agree that there are steps that westside could take to improve its performance? on the one program that is indicated that they need to? >> the program that is indicated that they need to improve their performance, when you look at the actual breakdown of the categories of what the performance was, for program

performance, westside act in 1617 met their standards. for program for client satisfaction, they met standards. for compliance with meeting all the requirements, they met standards. for deliverables, they did not meet standards, and so between 17, 18, and 1819, 18-19 being the new year as the contract, we have reduced that contract, that program by $639,000, and we reduced the clients from 139 to 80. we believe that readjusting those values that they are paid, and the number of clients will allow them to have a sufficient level of staffing to meet the needs of the 80 clients. they were not able to staff that to accommodate 139 clients

consistently, so we reduced it. >> okay, but do we need to, based on what we need here in the city and county of san francisco, in terms of delivering service to those that need mental health services, do we need to be meeting that 139 instead of just 80, and how do we get to that 139, and what can we do to help westside get their? >> we have been consistently working with westside, with this was also their request. it is a consistent problem. we still had the money, and there were other vendors that applied that already provide intensive case management, so we moved the client accordingly. nobody stopped being served, so that is our number 1 goal in any solicitation or any transition, in any type of funding, or programming, is to ensure continuity of care of the clients that are already enrolled in the program his. so i feel like we work very closely with westside, and this was an agreement that we reached with westside.

>> i guess we can follow up with the budget and legislative analyst in terms of their statement about westside has not consistently met their budgeted level of deliverables, so i wait --dash i will wait to hear more from the b.l.a. on that. >> before we hear from the b.l.a., i want to comment that it is a little disturbing, quite frankly, about the scores, but also that on the b.l.a. report, page 3, he says according to jackie hale, d.b.h. of contract management, all responders to the r.f.p. were awarded contracts, and there was no minimum score required, so what measure do we hold people to? i think this is a really important service that westside provides, and especially, i'm especially alarmed because this is a place to get the service to mainly our african-american population. when we are not -- to say that

in these years, they met the standard, but this year --dash we hear also that they are struggling with some issues structurally within their organization. so what are we doing about it? i think of kicking back on what my colleague said, what are we doing about this? this is a much-needed programming in the community. the community has depended on this program for a long time from what i am hearing. and yet how her answer is we will eliminate the children's program. so i just want to know, this is a really -- this is a big need in the community, and this is one of the only community places that they can get this type of healthcare. i actually think it is imperative upon us to make them better and help them structurally with the infrastructure so they can serve the intended 139 people instead of the 80. i don't think it's enough to say, well, you know, they have

been good these years, and they have these issues, and so we'll just get rid of this program, every time we get rid of a program, we eliminate a program, that means we eliminate service and eliminating service for african-american communities. >> actually we just did a solicitation specifically for african-american services, and that is where the funding will go, because it is absolutely our interest to retain capacity to our target populations. so there was a specific solicitation that we just completed targeting african-americans, and improving their health and well-being in san francisco. >> okay, let's -- if my colleagues don't have any more comments, ms. miss campbell, our b.l.a. report, police. >> good morning. i'm from the budget analyst office. i wanted to speak a little bit

to the question of intensive case management that i think supervisor stefani raised, and has been discussed here. it is not specific to westside as much as to our audit finding from our behavioral health audit. the one area where we felt there was a need for more resources was intensive case management. we did not recommend a number of what was needed, by recommended the department of public health go back and look at their model in terms of increasing the number of case managers. it is also moving people through the system. i do want to speak a little bit to what she said, which i guess the department is looking at at least having tears of intensive case management and case management that might address some of that. that is an area where it might be helpful for more follow up overall in terms of not specific to this contract, the specific to the concerns about intensive case management. >> rights. it is a part of a redesign for us looking at intensive case

management, and so typically our approach has been the community treatment model to do whatever it takes to provide for the most severe, mentally ill, acute population. one of the challenges was that when do you actually graduate and move someone on? you have to move someone on to create slots for another in need. and so what we've learned is that in terms of short-term case management and linkage, that we probably need to split our programs up into tears, and to focus on short-term, more acute, three to six months, and then really, with what the act program is, falls into our community support treatment team model where we will focus on working with clients for up to three years, but to create flow, in our outpatient system, we are

looking at community-based case management, so our outpatient clinics are actually becoming a bit more robust to do some of the outreach and supports that typically are active intensive care management provided. just by doing that, it will create more flow in the system, and i would think that with westside, you are seeing more about rightsizing of the program because there outpatient programs are going to actually pick up some -- are already have picked up some clients that they are actually providing some community-based case management for. so this redesign is something we've been working on for the past year and more to come.

so the wonderful thing about westside is when you think of the different levels i just described that their clients can live within their program, that is their home, so we are able to step them down for intensive case management, to outpatient. the crisis program is able to link a client to their outpatient or to their intensive case management program, so it just creates flow in a different way than how we have things set up before. it doesn't mean that we can't ramp up, but i think that the agreement was, let's focus on a population that is actually doable, and that is where we have settled on the number of 80 it doesn't mean they can't exceed the expectations to ramp up even more, but i think a staffing, what i mentioned before about staffing, that is the biggest challenge for them. this is a program that deals with the most acute and most severe, severely mentally ill, medically complex populations. in terms of being able to retain staff, it is a challenge, so it

is not just this particular community-based organization, but it is a challenge for our workforce. we are supporting them and hopefully this new direction will help address the flow issue. >> do you have anything to continue with? >> in terms of the contract itself, the board is being asked to approve the first amendment to the spot contract with westside from adult mental health services. the original contract was awarded in december of 2017, big but because of delays in being able to negotiate and get it to the board, department entered into a one-year contract for a $5.3 million. they are now asking for approval of the whole contract through 2022, to not exceed $23.3 million. in terms of our evaluation of the fiscal components of the

contract, we are recommending approval. >> thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment period are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, supervisor mandelman? >> i clearly -- many elements of this conversation are troubling to us. i think it sounds to me like the department probably did the right thing in that if the provider was not able to meet these higher expectations, i do think that freeing up that money that would go to case management being provided by some other entity is probably the right move. i think this challenge around the nonprofit partners being able -- unable to hire and retain the workers to do the work that we are asking these nonprofits to do is also embedded in this conversation. i am hearing that as well, so i

think that's a big conversation the board has been having, and needs to continue. anyway, i will be here yet just curious to hear what my colleagues have to say. >> would anyone like to make a motion on this item? supervisor stefani? >> yes, supervisor fewer, i still have a few questions in terms of -- we put down an r.f.p., and we have people reply to it, we have expectations in that r.f.p., and it sounds like to me that, and maybe just at first blush, i'm not reading this right. a sounds like they are not meeting what they would do in the r.f.p., so we are reducing the number from 139 to 80. >> the r.f.p. that is listed in here, that is detailed with all these points, they have done perfectly well, every single year. >> how do we get to the point then that we say they are not

meeting their deliverables? >> that is the third program. >> okay, but then the third program is not delineated in an r.f.p.? >> no, they didn't apply. >> and very confused at this point. >> there's four programs. >> excuse me one second. please respond when the supervisor has requested you to respond. is there a question from supervisor stefani that you have for her to address? >> thank you, supervisor fewer. i am just trying to understand, i feel like we are brushing over the fact, based on what i am seeing in the audit, that this nonprofit, for whatever reason, having trouble meeting deliverables, and i think it touches on a lot. the affordability, it touches on a lot in the city and county of san francisco. i am having trouble reconciling how we award this, knowing that

we have an audit that says they are not performing at a level that we expect them to. >> okay. for whatever reasons. >> for me, i don't know if we can continue it for a week for more information where we can sit down and have more in-depth meetings about not just this program, and how we are putting out the r.f.p., especially with mental health, is one of the main thing is that people are talking about in the city and county of san francisco. when i am looking at the contract in front of me, with this information, and to approve it at $23 million, i feel like i would like, if it is not going to delay services to anybody, i actually would like to continue it for one week and see if we can have more in-depth information and meetings about this one-on-one. >> okay. there is a motion to continue this item for one week.

can we take that without objection? >> excuse me, for clarification, the department cemented proposed amendments to this legislation. >> yes. there is a proposed amendment on the title change, i believe, can we take that without objection? great. as amended, let's continue this item until the next budget and finance meeting. thank you very much. madam clerk, thank you. please call hm his two, three, and four together. >> to his resolution declaring the intent of the city to reimburse an expenditure for proceeds of future bond dominance and authorizing the mayor touch office of housing and community development to submit an application for the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 160 million for 185 maryland street. item three is declaring the intent of the city to reimburse or expenditures of future bonds and authorizing the mayor touch office of housing and community development to submit an

application to commit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $40 million. item number 4 is a resolution declaring the intent of the city to reimburse an expenditure for proceeds of future bonds and authorizing the mayor touch office of housing and community development to submit an application to permit the issuance of residential mortgage bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 40 million. >> thank you very much. i believe we have omar cortez from the mayor touch office of housing and community development here today. hello. >> yes. good morning. community just good morning commit -- committee members. i am the senior project manager with the mayor touch office of housing and community development, and i'm here to present items two, three, and four. these items relate to resolutions for proposed bond issuances for three projects. 185 maryland street, ocean beach

apartments, and the south park scatter side projects. the purpose of a resolution before you is to approve the hearings that the city conducted on different dates in order to comply with the federal tax equity and financial responsibility act for the three projects, and to make -- to ratify and approve several other actions necessary to later make the bond possible. including the submittal of applications to the california debt limit allocation committee to secure an allocation of bonds i'm sorry. the proposed issuance will be conduit financing, which means that they will not require the city to pledge any of its funds to the repayment of the bonds. i will give a brief description

on each project. the 185 maryland apartments is located on parcel a two, on pier 70, and will be at 275 unit to mixed income, mixed use multifamily housing project. fifty-five units equaling 20% of the total residential units will be affordable to households earning less than 50% of the a.m.i., while the rest of the units will be rented to market rate, no residents will be displaced, because the site is currently undeveloped. the ocean beach apartments project entails the rehabilitation of an existing 85 unit mixed use affordable housing development located at 760 playa street. 100% of the apartments will be affordable to housing earning less than 60% of a.m.i., however

because the property has assistant payments, residents currently pay 30% of their income towards rent. and the south park project has three existing affordable single room occupancy buildings, located within a block of each other at 22102, and 106 south park street. the project his total 107 and 100% to households earning less than 60% of a.m.i. residents of both the ocean beach apartments will be temporarily relocated during the project's rehabilitation. they will be able to follow completion.

most of them were returned to bond issuance approvals for each project at different times later this year. here with me today is kelly pressler, representative from brookfield properties, the project sponsor for the 185 maryland street apartments, also here are representatives of the project sponsor for ocean beach apartments. and gail mcguire, a representative and mission house representative corporation is present for the south part scatter side projects. finally, my colleagues viviana and carolyn are here to answer any questions that you may have. before that, on behalf of mo c.d. and the project sponsors, we would like to thank you for your consideration here today, and look forward to your support for this project. >> thank you.

colleagues, any questions for mr cortes? i have a few. the first project is 20% affordable, and that is a 20% that will be affordable is 50% of a.m.i. is that correct? >> yes. >> why is it only 20% affordable units? the project is part of a d.d.a. and part of a larger development , for this specific project, it is 20%, but the overall affordability requirement will be met with 30%. >> thank you very much. i want to comment on item numbe. that is in my district. i have heard complaints, i was out there doing a workshop on emergency preparedness, almost all entirely russian speaking and low income, and i heard complaints of the elevators being broken, in them not being able to use it. many of them in walker's, a lot of them physically impaired, so

i am glad that is getting done. i am just wondering what will happen about the relocation. this is an entirely -- this building is almost entirely a russian speaking population, and as you know, in my neighborhood, they are very comfortable there because they are our russian speaking amenities there. i am wondering where you will relocate them. >> i will let the project sponsor speak a little bit to that, but there is a relocation plan as an introduction. it is expected that a relocation would last no more than two weeks for this specific project. >> two weeks for this project? >> yes. >> that would be great spirit who is that person? >> good morning, i am the project manager with bayside communities. relocation, we will work with a third party relocation consultant who is very familiar

with doing rehab projects, not only in the state of california, but with bayside communities. each unit should take no more than three weeks, typically a project this size we would tackle maybe five to eight units at a time. each of these units would be vacated for about two's three weeks, and we will work with each household to establish what their needs are. in some cases, some households will express their interest in staying with friends or family, it could be friends within the complex that they stay with during that time period, but as previously mentioned, we have an h.u.d. contract, and we absolutely don't want to do anything to jeopardize that contract. residents will never stay more than 30 days outside of their unit, like i said, it should take two, maybe three weeks to do their unit. >> okay. please take into consideration that this particular building

holds a lot of russian speakers, very limited english speaking, and most of them rely 100% on public transportation. when we are considering relocation, i think that those are some of the factors that i would like you to consider around this particular building. >> yes. it will be helpful to understand that our relocation consultant, when we get started, months before we actually start the rehab project, the relocation consultant and there team will meet with each individual in their households to understand what their family dynamics are, to understand what their needs are, and if translators are needed at that time, translators will be provided by's owners. again, 30 days prior to actually needing to vacate the unit to, again, we will touch base with those residents and their unit, or in the community room, wherever they feel most comfortable, with a translator if required to understand where they should be best placed.

>> thank you. i think a russian translator will be needed in that facility. thank you very much. colleagues, any other questions? seeing then, i think we do not have a b.l.a. report on this. let's open it up to public comment period are there any members of the public would like to comment on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. make a motion to move these three items to the board with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. please read item number 5. >> five as resolution authorizing the office of cannabis on behalf of the city to apply for state grant funding under california cannabis equity act of 2018. >> okay. thank you very much. i believe we have eugene hills men, the deputy director of the office of cannabis. >> good morning. i'm the deputy director of the office of cannabis. today we are seeking authorization to apply for state funding through the california cannabis equity act of 2018 to

support the san francisco cannabis equity program and equity program participants. the state has authorized the bureau of cannabis control, upon request by a local jurisdiction, in this case, san francisco, to provide technical assistance to a local program that helps local equity applicants. it would require the bcc to review and application, and to grant funding to an eligible local jurisdiction based on specified factors. the state will require an eligible local jurisdiction that receives grant bonds, pursuant to these provisions do use the grant funds to assist local equity licensees in that local jurisdiction to gain entry to and to successfully operate in the state touch are regulated cannabis marketplace. the bureau of cannabis control has had $10 million allocated to it for this grant program. the bcc could allocate this funding now, however, they have not yet. they have indicated they will issue the r.f.p. soon, and we

have a strong interest in seeing this funding allocated to verify equity applicants as quickly as possible. after the award of any grant funding, we shall return to the board of supervisors to seek approval by further resolution to formally accept -- accept and expand grant funds. i will be happy to take any questions. >> colleagues, any questions? seeing none, i don't think we have a b.l.a. presentation. let's open this up for public comment. would any members of the public like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. without objection? thank you very much. >> please call item number 6. >> resolution authorizing the city to submit applications for payment programs and related authorizations by the california department of resources, recycling, and recovery for the purpose of safely managing and reducing household hazardous waste and used motor oil, and providing opportunities or beverage containers recycling and litter cleanup.

>> okay. i think we have charles see and hear from the department of environment. >> thank you, chair if you are, thank you supervisors. and with the san francisco department of the environment. before you today is a basic apply for authorization resolution for two payment programs in the california department of resource and recovery, more commonly known as the cycle. it is used oil payment program, and the beverage container recycling payment program. the oil payment program helps to promote used oil and oil filter recycling to public education, and collection opportunities for those who change their own motor oil. we collected over the 43 gallons of used oil in 2017, in over 25,000 oil filters. were established 25 certified collection centres, representing all major san francisco neighborhoods. we submitted an application once a year, and through that we -- they pay cities like ours to for our efforts to support the collection and recycling of used

oil. for the payment program, the process is very similar. we submit an application once a year, and through that process, week they pay the city to support bottle and can recycling and redemption. the container recycling payment program has seven certified redemption centres in operation in san francisco, and over 100 beverage dealers who are paying their businesses. this apply for authorization is essentially a renewal, because the previous one had expired, i am happy to take any questions. >> okay. any questions? seeing none, we do also not have a b.l.a. report to. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. i can make a positive recommendation to the full board. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. please call item number 7. >> item seven as resolution retroactively authorizing the

police department to accept and expand a grant in the amount of $800,000 from the united states department of justice to help improve the collection, management, and analysis of crime gun evidence for the project -- projected period of october first, 2018, through september 20th, 2021. >> i believe we have patrick. he is here, a grants manager from the san francisco police department. >> good morning. i am the current chief financial officer for the san francisco police department. this morning, we are requesting 20 recommendation for the retroactive -- for a resolution retroactively authorizing police department to accept and expand grant in the amount of $800,000 from the u.s. department of justice, office of justice

programs, bureau of justice assistance to help with the collection, management, and analysis of crime gun evidence for the project period of october first, 2018, through september 30th, 2021. i do want to make a comment on the actual resolution. there is -- i noticed an error in the language. it does refer to the bureau of justice statistics where it should show the bureau of justice assistance. we will make that change. >> what line is that? >> line five, at least on my copy. >> so you are referring to the office of justice program, bureau of justice statistics class. >> that should say assistance. >> bureau of justice assistance? >> yes. it also repeats on line ten, 12, they -- basically anywhere where

it says bureau of justice statistics, it should say bureau of justice assistance. >> would you like to make those amendments now? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> are you through with your presentation? >> know, i'm trying to put in the slides. okay. thank you. bear with me. the san francisco police department, we submitted proposals for grant funding, and we received an award in the amount of $800,000. the grant period is from october 1st, 2018, to september 30th, 2021.

the reason that the resolution is retroactive is because of the grant start date. it is october 1st, 2018. we did not receive notice of the award until october 1st, so we are requesting a retroactive resolution because by the time this resolution gets adopted to, it will be after that date. we have not expended any funds with this grant. it is retroactive, mainly because of the actual start date for the grant. this grant program is a collaboration between the san francisco police department, the san francisco district attorney's office, the bureau of justice assistance, and the bureau of alcohol and tobacco, firearms and explosives.

it is a collaboration between local agencies and the a.t.f. to leverage resources to swiftly identify firearms used unlawfully, and their sources, and to effectively prosecute perpetrators engaged in violent crime. the crime gun investigation center in san francisco was originally a pilot project that we began planning and implementing back in 2007, and continued into 2008. this strategic model is -- has currently been implemented in 11 other cities throughout the united states. the cities include los angeles, detroit, and washington, d.c. the a.t.f. is administering federal agencies that are responsible for the betrays program.

it stands for national integrated ballistics information network. it is the system that is used for comparison analysis of recovered ballistic evidence. each race is a program that is used to provide information on a firearm origin from the manufacturer, to the first purchaser of a gun. just a little bit of information on what our shootings and -- shooting incidents in san francisco, from 2014, 22016, there was an increase in the number of shooting incidents, size increased from 30 in 2014, 22016, up to 40 hid