>> supervisor fewer: good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is june 5, 2019 regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer.

i am joined by supervisor raphael mandelman and mr. clerk, do you any announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. mr. clerk, will you please call item 1? [agenda item read].

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. we have michelle rugals from the d.p.h. business office. >> thank you. i am michelle rugals from the d.p.h. business office. this is an intensive case management program which has two component subgroups. one is general adult transition age youth, and there are 500 slots, and the forensic focus, and they have 150 slots. the forensic focus are individuals referred from drug court. they are clients with high needs, and that's how they get

placed into this very intensive case management wraparound program. so the request today is a proposal to increase the length of the term and add the corresponding funding to fund it for the additional years through december 31, 2022. >> supervisor fewe >> supervisor fewer: thank you. colleagues, any comments or questions? supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair fewer. thank you, miss rugals. i am a proponent of d.p.h. and the amazing work that they do. but again, we have this scoring and it's sort of in all the contracts that we look at in

d.p.h. >> do you mean solicitations? >> yeah. the scoring of the responses to the r.f.p.s, and i guess i'm trying to understand the point of this scoring because it seems -- well, i can't -- we don't really have any business for knowing the difference between the 221.67 and a 188.50, and i don't really have a sense of what -- how -- is there a number that would be so low that we should be worried about that provider or do these r.f.p. scores have any meaning in any real sense? >> yeah. they definitely help us to --

will the scoring will help us determine our requirements and their responsiveness. the scores comes from the reviewers, but it scores the results of the guidelines against which they're making assessments of the contract. for example, there's 30 points in there that's about fiscal stability and the agency's cash flow and information like that. how they've done previously is brought into the scoring, so the scoring is meaningful, but the department is so big, and we have so many neighborhoods and populations to reach that there's really no way that one vendor is going to cover all of that. and so it's very typical that we have more than one vendor selected in each category. and this one in particular -- this intensive case management, they're funded for slot.

so 400's a lot, but it's not that much. and then, there's 150 for the forensics, and they have the expertise. so i think if we have somebody -- we have not out -- awarded funding based on the r.f.p., and i don't have an example, but it's definitely -- >> supervisor mandelman: there has been a case where the score has been so low that d.p.h. said you know, we don't want to do that. >> there's been more than one case of that nature, and they haven't been funded. >> supervisor mandelman: uh-huh. >> so it -- okay. >> supervisor mandelman: how well does d.p.h. ensure -- part of this is the ensuring the services that are community provided is excellent or is meeting the needs of clients. so in addition -- i mean, how,

during the course of a contract, does d.p.h. ensure that any of our contractors is providing a good, high quality service? >> well, one way that establishes the baseline, which i think the budget analyst has done audited of us, controller's office has been audits of our monitoring process. we have an annual monitoring process so that's a baseline that happens all the time, once a year, and it measures the compliance with the contract deliverables, how they're doing. if they aren't doing up to the standard points for that, then, they have to do a corrective action plan. if it rises to a much larger level of concern, it's a very formal corrective action plan that goes up to the director,

and we pull in other city departments with a vendor that's shares. the controller initiated a program -- well, i forget the name, but the original name was fiscal and compliance monitoring. so they also take teams out, and they're closely looking at the fiscal monitoring. the public health department, because it's services, goes out and looks at charts to see the quality of the charts and are the treatment plans meeting medical necessity and is the client getting better. also, there's requirements that we measure each year, but it happens more than each year. the clients measure the vendor, but it's a ranking assessment. so there's different interventions going on during

the year, but there's always the annual monitoring, the results and the report. >> supervisor mandelman: and -- thank you. and my last question relates to hiring. with west side contracts, we saw that they were having trouble meeting their deliverables because they were having trouble hiring enough case managers and others to meet their requirements under the contract. are we having similar issues with citywide or -- >> i don't know if they're having similar issues and a lack -- a difficulty in hiring, but i do know they're full -- m >> supervisor mandelman: they're meeting all of their obligations -- >> they're meeting all of their obligations even though they might not be hiring. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. thank you.

>> chair fewer: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair fewer. i have a few questions in line with what supervisor mandelman was asking. in concern to these deliverables, are there -- i'm hard -- maybe i'm missing something here, but the number of case managers, ratios to patients, any type of results for the patients? how do you measure that this is an effective provider for these relief services that are central to our mental health system. >> so each contract has objectives that they have to meet, and so those are published on our website. but just, for example -- i'm

just looking at the citywide focus. well, one was the cans ansa, the assessment that is done to measure where a person is in terms of strength stability. that's repeated, and so we want the score to get higher, reflecting stability. other objectives are no more -- i'm just going to read one example. >> supervisor haney: this is from the contract? >> sorry? >> supervisor haney: this is from the contract itself? >> so in the contract, they are required to meet measurable objectives. and each year at the end of the year, we measure their effectiveness in reaching the outcomes in their contracts. so all of our contracts -- most of our contracts fall into standard objectives, like out comes, what are you trying to

achieve? inpatient psychiatric services. so there's different objectives that have been designed to go with that. that gets scored at the end of the year through -- we have a billing system, so all services are entered into the billing system. and from that, we're able to run reports to see how they did? the vendors also during the year and the managers during the year are also checking that to see if they're achieving the objectives. so i can read you some of them, which i have a monitoring report, but that's how we do it. so for outpatient -- do you want me to read it? >> supervisor haney: and we've had this contract -- this is a reup? >> uh-huh. >> supervisor haney: how long have we had this contract already for this services? >> this model, it's called an

assertive community treatment model, so we've had it since 1998. >> supervisor haney: so we've had it since then? >> uh-huh. there was three programs that did it. it was west side, our civil service clinic, mission mental health, and the u.c. contract. and so the idea was to find the highest users of the system that were costing the most money, allocated specific number of slots to each program with the idea that they would wraparound. so in this case, we actually pay a capitated amount each month that their clients need to be stable, so it's a wraparound intensive case management model, but yeah, it's been a long-standing and effective case management model. >> supervisor haney: and in

terms of it being effective, those different metrics that you look at regarding evaluation, in terms of whether people get into higher level of stability and ratios? and as someone who's going to get into all that, where do you find that? >> the objectives are all posted. i don't think we post individual results publicly, but that's available if you'd like to see. >> supervisor haney: is this sort of the main -- is this the primary, would you say, intensive form of case management that we have through our system? >> yes. >> supervisor haney: and so in terms of the regular evaluation of that, the -- i don't know, is there usually more information in front of us when we approve $50 million? >> supervisor fewer: supervisor haney, i actually think what you're asking is a question

about efficacy and impact. and quite frankly, we are not seeing actually that in this report about the efficacy and the impact of this almost $50 million. >> supervisor haney: and an increase of about 10. >> supervisor fewer: yeah. so today, we have another item that is requesting not to exceed almost $29 million. so we are actually seeing a lot of dollars going to these public services, and you're absolutely right. we get a briefing -- i mean, information on the r.f.p., the process of it, but we actually have not seen any numbers around efficacy and impact. >> i think that they do speak to the -- in the report that they check the monitoring and how they -- on page 3, in the end of the first paragraph, you see the report that was finished, it's a year after,

but the last, according to mr. mario, u.f.c. has met the reporting objectives in 2016 for the citywide program achieving an overall score of commendable or exceeds standards. so when the budget and legislative analyst is preparing these, we send them the whole report. it can be a lengthy -- it lists all out the objectives and how they did in each one, and it's rolled up into a score. so we can provide these with more detail or provide them in the report. but the budget and legislative analyst is looking at it and then reporting on it. >> supervisor fewer: so i think supervisor is you're asking if not if they have met the objectives that they set out, but really, what is the overall efficacy of these public

dollars that are being spent. so we get that there is a proposal, and they're supposed to meet these certain -- this criteria, and the b.l.a.s responsibility is to see whether they meet these things. but i think what supervisor haney is asking is about the efficacy, the overall treatment. how does it impact individuals on a daily basis, and are we transitioning people to out of services, those type of things. is that correct? correct me if i am wrong, supervisor. but also, i think supervisor mandelman has a comment. >> supervisor mandelman: i think it's hard -- i apologize. i saw this item as an opportunity to understand a little bit more of the r.f.p. process since i've been seeing these scores on the contracts. i think there is interest on

the board, given our singular interest in mental health abuse, substance disorder. i'm not sure if it's a budget committee hearing, but i think it would be useful for the board at some point over the next few months to have a hearing where we explore kind of how d.p.h. tracks the effectiveness of its nonprofit providers and improves quality and gathers data and all those things and where d.p.h. might be trying to improve that going forward, so we have a better understanding either have a budgetary perspective or more on the sort of oversight of d.p.h. to understand how that process works a little bit better. i do think, all that being said, that i did go out and visit with the citywide folks, and i think they do

extraordinary heroic work every day with extremely challenging populations. as much as this money is, i think it could be doubled or tripled or quadrupled, and we would find people that need these additional services. and i would expect that citywide, like all of our nonprofit providers, is having trouble hiring -- even if they are meeting the deliverables under this contract, the need is so much greater, and to be able to actually address the need i think would probably require us working with citywide and other folks to get the intensive case management done in the city. but i have no reason to doubt that citywide is performing excellently under this contract. in fact, you know, that is what we're being told here, and think that of course we should approve this. but going back to the conversation about west side, i

think this board is very eager to make sure that our nonprofits are being held to the highest standards. and i think some of the recommendation about wanting to see improved data collection and crunching of that data and d.p.h. is around wanting to make sure that our clients are -- the clients are actually getting well served and are improving over time. that's, i think, a conversation for another day, but clearly, i think there's a lot of interest here. but thank you for answer my question. >> supervisor fewer: sure. supervisor haney -- also, supervisor, since you are new to the committee, we also have the opportunity to continue the item if you would like more information. >> supervisor haney: thank you. one of my -- there was a performance audit done on

behavioral health services. and it seems like at least some of the issues that were raised -- before my time on the board -- had to do with case management. so i'm wondering before we approve this very large and increased contract around case management, it would be helpful -- maybe this is available somewhere and i haven't seen like, but basic things like, how many people serves, what are their objectives, what are their outcomes? what are they doing better to help us address all of these issues raised in the performance audit. as supervisor mandelman said, it's not in any way suggesting that they're doing a good job, but it helps us understand where the gaps are, which i think we all know there are gaps and where we can do a better job. for me, again, as supervisor

mandelman said, people with substance abuse or mental health needs is one of the biggest priorities for us. this is a mental health case management contract and i don't understand what they're doing for case management objectives and outcomes. so maybe that's provided in another place, but i don't see it in front of me. >> i think -- >> supervisor fewer: so actually, that is not in front of us. >> the whole -- unless -- the whole story of each of the clients is not in front of us, no. i think that the budget -- the performance audit, i believe, what their interest was -- or what they were highlighting and then it's something that the department is working on was you have intensive case -- well, one was how to make more intensive case management slots available, but also, how do you step people down? if somebody has become very

stable in a high intensive, expensive slot, and they're ready to step down to a lower level of care because they're stable, how do you do that and make that still work? so that is something that the department is working on. i'd also want to add that dr. colfax is super also interested in outcome measures and looking at the department, so i think that would be a very -- i don't know what the right word is -- suitable for another hearing. >> supervisor haney: i think that's for another hearing because having people step down into a lower level of services, it seems that would be a major goal or objective of this contract, right, for the case managers to be involved in that. >> supervisor mandelman: and i would guess is one of the metrics on which they're being evaluated. i would be surprised if it wasn't -- but we don't know.

>> supervisor fewer: but we don't know. okay. no more questions. let's pivot to the b.l.a., please. >> good morning, fewer achair and members of the board. severin campbell from the budget and legislative analyst's office. one of the things that we looked at was the need for more intensive case management services and also take intensive clients and see what the opportunities were to step down, so i'm glad to see that's something that the department is looking at. it's possible as we do the budget review that we'll be looking at as well. but today we're looking at approving the original contract increase to a contract amount

of $49 million. that includes a 12% contingency, and we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i'll open this up for public comment. good morning, mr. wright. >> good morning. my demonstration yesterday is one of the most powerful demonstrations that i did. all of my demonstrations are powerful, but it's demonstrating the mental health patients, and serviand servicet they need. i came in and demonstrating that a 1 -- demonstrated that a 144-unit apartment complex is being purchased for $56 million. i demonstrated how an 86-unit apartment complex is being

purchased for $44 million dl. i did the math, and you house approximately 2,000 people not only in the embarcadero where you want to built the navigation center, but in each of one of your supervisor's district where a proposal to make a navigation center is offered. you're offering treatment to people that's got mental disabilities that are homeless. you talk about case management, you can't manage them because they don't have a place to live and by the time you want to give them services, they're nowhere around and you can't find them because they don't have stable housing. that's part of the problem. how are you going to provide services that's in the millions of dollars and when it comes time to treat the patient, you can't find them because they're homeless? you're going about it tail end

ass backwards. you know where they are, that way, they get their homeless and psychological services for the same time. you've been doing this 21 years. you've got 8,000 homeless -- >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. brigwright, and that was a powerful presentation you gave to us yesterday. seeing no further public comment, public comment is closed. >> supervisor haney: may i -- >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> supervisor haney: so in terms of these additional questions, is it normal for ucsf or the person that's getting their contract to not be here? >> chair fewer: yes. >> supervisor haney: so in terms of getting our questions answered, this seems to be a

fairly large and long contract. what are the -- >> chair fewer: so we have the option to continue this hearing and have miss rugals bring the information to us or we can have a hearing on this to get down to the nitty-gritty, because in this committee, we also just deal with the finance of it. so if we wanted to go deeper, the efficacy, how many people do step down, how many people are enroled in these programs, i think that could be held at another committee hearing. is that -- supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i think as miss rugals suggested, a conversation about data measurement and outcomes and metrics and how the new director is thinking about approaching that with contracts across d.p.h.s portfolio makes a lot of sense. i would be uncomfortable

holding this particular contract hostage to that conversation. i think they do important work. there's no reason to doubt that there's a problem with this particular contract, and i think that we should move this forward and get it done, particularly as we are about to head into a month of nonstop budget meetings related to our actual budget, so i think that we should move this contract forward? but i'm happy to work with -- well, anybody who wants to can call for a hearing which would probably happen in july or after the break -- this is a big issue of, you know, how d.p.h. measures outcomes and thinks about measuring out comes, but i don't think this contract is particularly the right way to have that conversation. >> chair fewer: yeah. so i understand the level of being uncomfortable about this because it is such a large

contract also, but also, supervisor mandelman, it should be told, we don't know whether or not the efficacy which is what i think supervisor haney is trying to get at, the measurements get at. but also, i want to say, when departments come before us, we had not requested that information in advance. so miss rugals, if you're asking for a contract for almost $50 million, we would expect an attached proposal. that's difference than miss rugals, what is that -- that takes on previous sort of requests for funding if we wanted to attach this to it and ask the departments to attach efficacy information and impact

information, then that is our prerogative to do so in the future. but in the meantime, i think this warrants a hearing of some deeper discussion about this. >> supervisor haney: yeah. is there -- in terms of the timing of this, is this something that if we didn't approve it now -- because it seems like some of the questions that we have, some of the metrics, improvements, oversight, and all of that, there could be some value to having that conversation or that hearing before we approve a many-years contract that oversees basically all of our primary provider of case management? >> supervisor mandelman: i guess -- if i could jump in, i doubt it would be useful to have that before moving forward with this. this is a $10 million addition to the contract. it is not a huge amount by the standards of this committee, and i think -- so i think that on tuesday, one of us, somebody should request this hearing,

but i don't think it should be tied to this particular contract. >> chair fewer: i think that many times i ask for information at this committee, and then, i ask for departments to follow up, and then, i approve these large payments -- or make a motion to approve them is that the departments never get back to me with the information. so once the contract's approve, it's like i don't have to respond anymore. so just to let you know, supervisor haney, that this is sort of the ongoing culture, i think, is that once we do fund it, that we never hear a response. if we care so much to have a response, i would take the suggestion of supervisor manned will han that we can call a hearing on it where we -- hearing on it where we can dive deeper. and it's not just this

contract, it's other contracts, too, as d.p.h. is one of our larger departments that works by contract. >> supervisor mandelman: and i would look forward to working with you, supervisor haney. >> chair fewer: okay. well, let's -- >> supervisor haney: well, i appreciate that. and i do think we should call a hearing. if it's okay, i'm still not going to vote for this contract just because i'm uncomfortable, considering how important this is, and how little i feel like i know about what they're actually doing. >> chair fewer: sure. >> supervisor haney: but i respect the wishes of the committee on this, if we could take a vote on that and then call a hearing. >> supervisor mandelman: i'll move we forward it with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> chair fewer: okay. call the vote.

>> clerk: chair fewer, there are two ayes and one in the dissent. >> chair fewer: mr. clerk, can you please read item number 6. >> chair fewer: and miss

rugals, we have you back. >> yes. so michelle rugals from the d.p.h. office. so this is a contract that we've had for many years. it's a contract providing behavioral health services to extend the contract. we -- as you will notice, there are a lot of different programs that they do that are special which fell under groupings of different solicitations. the behavioral health section essentially has completed an enormous round of solicitations, some of which are joint with other city departments, such as the intensive services and early childhood mental health. so they provide a range of services with a strong focus on services to youth, but also adult outpatient. the services are listed on, well, table 1 on page 14 gives

you all the r.f.p.s, but it gives you all of the services, i'm going to invite allison who is the program services manager to come up, because i imagine you'll have service questions, and she can speak in great depth about the program utilization review and quality committee perk, which is one way that there is assessments and also the change in child and adolescent needs. turn it over to allison. >> hi. i'm with the child, youth, and family division. happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor mandelman: well, maybe the same question of, you know, how do we think about performance metrics under this contract? >> well, in children, youth,

and families, something called the cans, the child adolescent needs assessment is used, and it helps us identify what are the actual problem areas that we want to work on with child and family. and then, six months into that, we look at it again to see what kind of progress. and then, in a year, we look at it, as well, so we can monitor the progress. >> chair fewer: so actually, supervisor haney, i think this contract -- and as you see on page 14 of the b.l.a. report is that they serve a lot of -- in a lot of different areas, so this is also, i think, something -- that you may also

include that in the hearing that you would ask some of the same questions that you were asking in item number 1 around this, too. >> supervisor haney: and i imagine you heard that conversation. and i would ask my colleagues to -- again, that, you know, if we could fold that into a deeper conversation or a hearing, what the goals are, what the objectives are. maybe this is something that's collected another way, but it would help me understand on improving the needs of case management. >> okay. does this mean that you're going to adjourn the questions for this meeting or is there stuff you would like to ask me today? >> chair fewer: well, i think the supervisors are going to be calling for a hearing on this.

they may be asking for more information than you'll be able to provide today. as you've heard, the questions that they'll ask is questions around efficacy, the number of people that are served, the impact. and i know that this particular actually -- this contract actually covers a lot of different things that you're unable to answer today because it isn't your particular area of service. so supervisor haney, i think your question was should we continue this questioning until there's a hearing? >> supervisor haney: right. i mean, is there anything that you have to share on that now in terms of -- >> well, i can give you some description of the programs and how we evaluate them, if that's helpful for today or helpful to information how you want to go forward? so the -- in the program, there

is a number of family and childhood programs. there's intensive services, clinical supervision which is also in partnership with the department of child, youth, and family, and the juvenile probation department. there's something called sameas, and we continued that funding when the grant expired, and that's a program that specifically services unaccompanied minors who are brought here and provide what we call intensive wrap aroundcaaround case services, and there's another program that's called safe passages which helps to transport gang members from one

area of the city to another if they feel unsafe. in terms of evaluating those programs, i think michelle rugals spoke about our b.l.s. reports that came out, and what goes into that is the measuring of the cans. so when a child first comes in, there is a child assessment and needs assessment that is done. and then, six months later, it's looked at to see how much improvement, and a year later to see how much improvement. and as a monitor, you can go on-line and see the scores. now the one thing to keep in mind is everything is fluid. so while someone's cans scores may look like they're not getting better, there's a lot of external reasons for that. when a person comes in for treatment, you can see the scores go down because they're

dealing with traumas because the function does become inhabited by that. but then, you know, they would tend to go up after that. there's also so many socioeconomic factors that go into that. treatment is treatment, but i have to say i agree with my friend here. when you don't have housing and clothing and food, that's going to impact the treatment, as well. so we're happy to come back. that's basically the overview i can give you today. i don't have in front of me the numbers on that or the percentages how well they did? different things are measures in terms of how many hospitalizations came out of a program, how many kids needed to be seen in our crisis stablization unit. and also for the juvenile justice involved programs, what the recidivism rate was. >> chair fewer: can i ask you whether any of your figures

include client evaluation? you survey, and you actually include it as part of your personal measure? >> yeah. once, i think it's annually, there's a survey for clients to rate their care. >> chair fewer: so annually, you would have a client fill out a form of their level of -- i would say evaluate the program and the services that they've been getting. >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: so what about people that you've been working with less than a year? you don't do it -- what i'm hearing from you, and correct me if i am wrong, is you're doing an annual evaluation. so once a year, you're asking the clients how the services are actually serving you, is that correct? >> yet. >> chair fewer: and then, what about if you have clients that you're working for for six months or so? you don't get an evaluation from them or do you get an

evaluation from people exiting your program? >> some of programs do have exit interview? i couldn't give you that information right now. >> chair fewer: but you don't do an across the board survey of clients that are exiting, am i correct about that? >> i don't think we do. we have a griefance structure setup, where if someone has a grievance about their care, that there are a system setup to address that. >> chair fewer: supervisor haney, i think that's a question to ask, how many clients have complaints and how many submit grievances. >> supervisor haney: i think there are things that we'd like to hear about in terms of case management, and ratios and case

management, and all that would be something for me to apply to this contract. >> chair fewer: thank you. let's pivot to the b.l.a., please. >> the board is being asked to approve an extension of an existing contract through 2025. we summarized the programs that are covered under this project contract and how they were selected on page 14 of our report. the contract now is for two years, through 2020, for less than $10 million. it would be increasing by almost $19 million to close to $29 million under the approval process. and i think we also point out that not all of the programs that are currently covered by the program would continue by the 2025 contract term, and we do summarize that on page 17 of our report. this is a contract that's funded by federal, state, and local moneys, and we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: okay. let's open this up for public

comment. any members of the public? hello, mr. wright. >> okay. before i get started, i'm going to start off answering the question asked by the honorable co-worker stefani. she asked right here, tell us your wish list, as big as it is, tell us the supervisor -- >> clerk: mr. wright, please get on the mic so we can hear you. thank you. >> she asked, tell us, where do we go? what is -- where do we invest our dollars? how do we stop putting someone back into the streets? okay. now, my demonstration further is compounded by a professional

nurse practitioner who says it very clearly, study after study shows that programs that provide long-term stable housing with additional services pertaining to mental health and surprised services programming improves the customer's mentally ill homeless patients. now in order to do that, i demonstrated well over several times that you can get a public housing complex for $56 million, understand me, and it's a three-story building that houses 144 people. you can put the homeless people in these types of properties at a bargain rate that's cheaper than each and every developer that builds a unit in san francisco. this is a nine-story apartment complex. you built a 27-story apartment

complex, you take these homeless people off the street, you can perform the services that you're offering to provide for the people that you want to help. the people that got mental disabilities, drug addiction problems, and our senior citizens can be located on the floors closest to the ground in the event there's an emergency and is easy to access out of the building to emergency services. the remainder of the floors -- >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. so colleagues, should we make a motion on this? supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i would move that we forward this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair fewer: can we take this without objection? >> clerk: without objection? thank you very much.

>> chair fewer: so mr. clerk, can you please call items 2 and 3 together. [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: okay. colleagues, i will make a motion to table this item at

the call of the chair, and before that, i will call for public comment on items 2 and 3. any members of the public like to comment -- >> supervisor mandelman: continue to the call of the chair. >> chair fewer: continue to the call of the chair. thank you. oh, i'm sorry. i think i'm making a motion to table this. yeah, public comment. thank you very much. any members of the public like to comment on item 2 and 3? none? okay. public comment is now closed. i'll make a motion to table this item. >> clerk: so it's now to table -- >> chair fewer: table this item. have you very much. >> clerk: and you're taking it without objection? >> chair fewer: without objection? groovy. thank you very much. mr. clerk, can you call items 3 and 4 together. [agenda item read]

[agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, mr. clerk. and we have florence -- florence, is your last name pronounced quan?

[inaudible] >> chair fewer: great. florence quan from the office of contract administration. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is florence quan with the office of contract administration, and i'm going to be presenting the recommendation for the official and outreach advertising services. part of what i'm going to be presenting today is a little bit about the background, the minimum requirements prudent to administrative code 2.81 through 2.814, the official advertising bidding and recommendation and the advertising bid evaluation and recommendation. now, to give you -- some of you

may know about the background for the official and outreach advertising. in 1994, voters passed proposition j mandating the office of contract administration, o.c.a., to bid out contract services annually per the administrative code, thus making the city require to publicly post notices of government businesses in newspapers that are locally published and printed. every year, o.c.a. conduct does the bids and presents the award recommendations based on the administrative code mandated evaluation guidelines? o.c.a. processes the bidding and contracts on behalf of the clerk of the board. then, the board of supervisors makes the official awards by designating contracts for the official and outreach advertising. so the minimum requirements are actually all outlined in administrative code 2.81

through 2.814? for the official newspaper, the newspaper has to be printed in san francisco on three or more days in a calendar week and have a circulate of at least 50,000 copies per calendar week. for the outreach newspapers, the newspapers must be printed in san francisco on one or more days in a calendar week and circulate primarily in one of the follow communities. the lesbian gay, transgender, african american, or chinese. for the official advertising bid evaluation, we received two bids. one from the s.f. examiner, and one from the s.f. chronicle. so you can see that all of this is actually outlined in the administrative code at the points and how we evaluate the point system. historically, the s.f. chronicle has never made it to

our recommendations because historically, they have printed outside of san francisco. so for our recommendation, we are recommending san francisco examiner, and they have had the highest evaluation score along with being the lowest bid price and is the only responsive bidder meeting all qualifications set forth in the administrative code. o.c.a.s recommendation is based on the highest bidder who met all the recommendations set in the code, and for this fiscal year, 2019 through 2020, we are asking for $400,000 based on current usage. moving on to the outreach advertising bid evaluation, we received eight bids. all received on time this year, and so it's also outlined the evaluation in the

administrative code of the point system. the only newspaper we couldn't recommend at this time is sing tao, because again they're historically printed outside of san francisco, not meeting the minimum qualifications. so for o.c.a.s recommendation for the outreach advertising, we are recommending small business exchange, san francisco bayview, el reportero, bayview reporter, marina times, and the potrero view. for this contract, we are asking for fiscal year 2019 through 2020, for $40,000 based on current usage. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, and there is no b.l.a. report on this. >> no. >> chair fewer: no. so on item number 5, i'd like to make an amendment, actually, and you have the amendment in front of you to -- we need to

ensure the outreach to the chinese speaking community, so i'd like to amend to add sing tao and world journal in front of you. you already have your amendments in front of you. let's open this up for public comment. let's have members of the public comment on our print media. >> our newspapers is real important to me. as a person that has an unblinking eye on discriminatory practices, this is one of the materials i used for my presentations to demonstrate my opinion accordingly. this newspaper pertaining to mental health, it says right here very clearly that nearly $400,000 a year is spent on mental health services for people that have mental stress

disabilities on people in san francisco, and still, we're doing the same thing over and over and not making any progress. by the same progress, this article shows that existing beds for crisis people -- you've only got 183 for acute indigent bed. you've only got 132. for residential substance abuse, 94. for detox and appetite beds, you've got 174. this is why you've got to have housing in a location where they're paying 30% of their income for rent, and you can provide services for in-home care and the mental health and detox services that they have and to deal with the mental health disability that they have. it just goes