part on a through f. personally a big part why this isn't in the resolution is because we knew that would present -- we talked about hardships and difficulty. this is what some students wanted in the survey. we felt this would provide such a difficulty for teachers to figure out a and f. it makes it really difficult for teachers to manage it to move forward and to put that forward, to operate in that manner. i would say that amendment makes it quite difficult to move our grading system forward. >> i would just add, that it creates difficulty for any

university to interpret what the grades mean. if some students in the same course got a pass while others got a letter grade, that would be nearly impossible for them to decipher what that means. i suspect we would hear a lot of feedback from them. >> commissioner collins i want to recognize president solomon. >> thank you. i just want to make sure that things are accurate. i am speaking where it says teachers are encouraged not to give students lesser grades than they had. this is about contract language exact about what it says. it is not that teachers are

encouraged to do so, it says that students will not receive a lesser grade than the grade after march 13th as a result of engaging in distance learning. contract language will not mean this will not happen. teachers saying it is not going to happen. this is from the m.o.u. agreed to buy the district and the union. >> i want to be clear. i appreciate you clarifying. i want to make sure that i don't want to -- i am trying to i guess based on legal advice i wanted to make sure we weren't getting into trouble so i made it encouraged based on the m.o.u. and quoted it. i would love to incorporate your language exactly. i wanted to know from legal if

that is a problem for us to do. >> may i comment one more time before? at this moment i am not even entering the debate what teachers should do. if it is going to site the m.o.u., it has to be exact. anybody who reads this resolution will know that it is accurately reflecting what the m.o.u. says. and the m.o.u. doesn't say encourage. that is my point. >> is that okay to include that exact language? >> what i would recommend is that you simply say consistent with the m.o.u. instead of trying to characterize what it says. that is where you are hearing president solomon having concerns. consistent with the m.o.u. and there is no debate. >> we can make those changes in

the edit. getting back to the original question where student delegate sandoval. i did work with post-secondary access. the problem is colleges look at grades and know what schools inflate grades, which schools -- they know all of that stuff. in this situation what i am hearing this semester is called asterisk. grades are all over the place. grades need to measure something. if you have sent centimeters and inches. i think it creates more challenges for students than opportunities. ultimately, i agree with superintendent matthews. when you are a high

schoolteacher grading 160 kids, having multiple scales of grading, it is challenging. teachers keep moving have all acknowledged they are not eaching the same amount. that is something to acknowledge. with an a it is not the same amount of work as if you were in school. that is not your fault. it is challenging for teachers am i grading an a in will gee bra this year -- in algebra last year or remotely. it is confusing. that is why the staff made the recommendation to come up with a new scaling. it is clear this is a different scaling. also, i do want to recognize students that have received grades to the nine weeks maybe there is a way to get

recognition or letter won't appear on transcripts but a letter stating what grades would have been to recognize what they have earned on so far. as we have stated a great up to the nine week grading period doesn't recognize student achievement. that is valid up to that point. >> any other comments? >> thank you, student delegates for continuing our discussion. i just want to make sure we are clear about the new whereas and the language. are we going to vote on the entire thing? >> you have two motions on the floor, two proposed amendments.

be clear which amendment you are voting on commissioner collens or student delegates? >> well then lets vote on the student delegate amendment. >> i thought we accepted mine. >> by general consent. >> there is only one amendment on the floor. >> then we have to vote on the main motion. >> we vote on the whole resolution. >> speaking to the student delegates' amendment. commissioner norton. >> i want to say i am not in favor of the amendment, with regret. i thank the student delegates foreigfor their engagement and

representation of students. i think for the reasons that the superintendent so eloquently explained, we have to consider more than just the concerns of students at this point, and i think there could be a real backlash to students from, again, the two big public university systems csu and uc. we don't want problems for other students and additional confusion and issues for teachers trying to figure out how to grade during this pandemic. i am going to vote no on the amendment, with regret. >> any other comments? >> yes, can i have that read to me because my internet went out for a while. the amendment.

>> . >> the amendment was to take into account student input and change the grading policy to what we recommended at the beginning. >> which was in. >> which was pass or the optional a through f. >> not a pass or no pass, just a pass and a through f? >> option grades. >> i feel like we should be allowing for that as the fall back if you see csu change their thinking. at this point since they haven't, i think it would be unwise to do it. i think if we change it we should divert to that policy. i think people want that, and i

think people want a voice in it. if uc and c su change their policy then we should revert to your amendment language. >> president sanchez, i feel that sounds like another amendment. >> you are amending the amendment. >> the amendment would be should the csu and uc system allow for the policy to be a through f and pass policy that we will engage that knowing that that probably isn't going to happen. at least it would give us some wiggle room if it did happen. >> is there a timeline? >> and do we have a second?

>> i think it was already seconded. >> we are on to what mark is sharing. >> this is misrepresenting what president sanchez is saying. if the policy saying within the uc system we can bring it back for another vote, not to change the vote now? >> i could live with that. >> i would prefer. otherwise it is very, very unclear what does that mean? i would be open if they changed their policy i would be open to bring it back. >> then we don't need the

amendment. go ahead. commissioner cook. >> i appreciate the leadership of the student delegates for pressing the voice of all of the students. i want to make sure because i am not going to support the amendment. i do want to bring back the level of participation that you had on the discussion. do you know offhand. can you recall how many people were in the survey? >> yes, i can check. last time 5400. now it is 5816 currently. >> you came up with these proposals which you are asking

us to vote on? >> yes. >> cool. the 5800 students that weighed in on this discussion, for the sake of clarity for this semester i am going to support the amendment we have on the table and if you are upset about that you can blame me. i appreciate all of you weighing in. again, thank you for your leadership in engaging all of your peers in this discussion. >> if there are no more comments we can vote on the amendment. the student delegate amendment. >> thank you.

student delegate amendment. ms. collins. >> no. >> mr. cook. >> no. >> ms. lam. >> no. >> ms. lopez. >> no. >> mr. moliga. >> no. >> ms. norton. >> no. >> mr. sanchez. >> no. >> ms. sandaval. >> yes. >> that was a failed vote. >> thank you for your leadership. that is an amazing turnout. i would love if you could share it with us the survey language, that would be helpful. did we vote on commissioner collins' amendment? okay. now we are going to vote on the

resolution. roll call. >> the resolution was amended and accepted by general consent. this is just the resolution as amended. >> ms. collens. >> yes. >> mr. cook. >> yes. >> ms. lam. >> yes. >> ms. lopez. >> yes. >> mr. moliga. >> yes. >> nor to be. >> yes. >> sanchez. >> yes. >> that is a unanimous vote of the board. thank you. >> thank you. now, we are moving to another resolution that we are going to vote to suspend the rules for. we need a motion and second for

suspension of the rules for resolution 204-28a1 in support of utilizing school district property in conjunction with city-wide plan to establish safe sleeping sites for unsheltered people offered by me civil and commissioner lopez. >> moved. >> second. >> this is roll call on the suspension of the rules. >> thank you. >> ms. collins suspension of the rules. >> she stepped away. >> mr. cook. >> yes. >> ms. lam. >> yes. >> lopez. >> yes. >> sanchez. >> yes.

>> thank you. give me one second. >> we need the motion and second. >> i need a motion and second for the formal. >> moved. >> second. >> thank you. now i am going to read the resolution into the record. i will read this in si support f the safe sleeping for unsheltered people. the supervisors are considering

the following policy urging the city to establish safe sleeping sites for unsheltered people to encourage social distancing and slow the spread of covid-19. whereas the supervisor's resolution note that more than 8,000 people are without shelter in san francisco the majority are sleeping on the streets whereas the city's healthy street operation center refocused on keeping areas clean and sidewalks clear and asking people to stay one person per tent and tents 6 feet apart. encampments have grown including on the perimeter of school campuses without physical distancing and sanitation and hygiene posing a challenge to

covid-19 mitigation efforts. los angeles and phoenix are creating outdoor camping sites to slow the spread of covid-19. be it resolved the school district shall partner with city and council to identify one district property to be utilized to protect those experiencing homelessness from the spread of covid-19. further be it resolved property identified for such uttivelyization shall include outdoor areas and indoor facilities including restrooms and showers and shall conform with safety and sanitary standards consistent with the san francisco department of public health best practices surrounding covid-19. further that consistent with the proposal any district site determined to be used have a safety plan and be staffed 24/7

and include janitorial and such other servicesness and feasible to maintain health and safety of those at the site and surrounding neighborhood consistent with public health guidance and best practices. any and all district properties utilized shall be staffed resourced and maintained by city and county funding. shall return to district usage prior to the opening of school. that is the resolution. we are going to open up to public comment. supervisor mandelman is with us. >> hello, commissioners. for the record i am supervisor mandelman district 80 the board

of supervisors. i want to thank you for your work you continue to do for our schools and students. in particular, tonight i want be to thank president sanchez and vice president lopez for offering this resolution in support of using school district property in conjunction with the city-wide plan for safe sleeping sites for unsheltered people and i thank the administration for willingness to engage with the city and i thank the neighbors who called to share support for this meeting and earlier today the board unanimously approved the resolution to establish safe sleeping sites. both bodies are working together on this critical issue? response to covid-19. addressing the crisis will take action of every public agency

with initiative the san francisco unified school district is a leader. in the castro and other neighborhoods encampments are growing without access to hygiene or sanitation. creating a public health hazard. in these times i think we need to be open to new strategies for safe alternatives to unsheltered people with no bed available. we shall expect and demand such safe sleeping sites follow best practicing maintaining distancing and access to sanitation to food and water. i am eager to open the safe sleeping site meeting these criteria to serve the upper market and castro. this would add urgency to work

underway to achieve that goal as part of the broader site and i thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman for all you are doing. >> susan, would you like to speak on this item? >> i am a big advocate of the public school system. you are doing a great job. i need your help now. i hope you will support this. we live in the castro. i am 75 and scared to go out of the house. please help us. thank you.

>> thank you. >> we are very concerned. i want to support this resolution. it makes a bad situation worse. it is horrible situation. it could make it better. these are temporary times. i think the school district and public institutions should support the city. and to support the homeless people to find a safe environment for themselves and the neighborhoods they live in. every night we have disputes in the homeless camps and it is worry some to go outside.

you don't know what will occur. i am concerned about the safety of the homeless people and also about the safety of my family. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> supervisor matthews. >> i don't know if you have staff to make comments public to the public comment? >> no. if the board has any questions? >> thank you. >> caroline, are you there? >> i am. i am caroline thomas, san francisco voter living near the

high school. i want to acknowledge the historic partnership between the schools and the san francisco neighborhood. athere are beautiful magnolias. safe sleeping sites are better for tents than the sidewalks. besides sidewalks as places for safe passage and humanitarian. these redoe reduce risks. it is a struggle. existing utilities are not enough. they are difficult to monitor. providing sanitation facilities and meals is an incentive and easier to maintain.

whether or not school toilets are used. it reduces the need to travel to distribution sites. tents are now across the sidewalks. it puts san francisco at risk of not reopening in a timely manner. re-opening depends on a lower infection rate and ability for contract tracing. if there is an outbreak contract tracing is easier for who is in contact with human contain the spread of the infected individual. having approved the locations like the schoolyard or parking lot the homeless maintain appropriate distances with access to hygiene and less time traveling to obtain meals or services and reducing the risk of outbreak. we really want to return to life

before covid-19 for the sake of all san francisco. please approve the tempor tempoe of school sites. >> hello, virginia. >> thank you. i am a long time educator in san francisco and the alliance of the black school educators. we are very concerned. we feel no one should be homeless especially with african-american communities. however, as an educator and i am concerned about our homeless colleagues being on school grounds. i want to hear from staff how they plan to ensure that our

students are not exposed to needles and other things that will jeopardize their safety. i wonder why it is not an option to put them in a hotel. it is empty school property absolutely? if it is a school property where students will come back to school, i think the commission should really look at that option and tell us point-by-point what will be done to ensure that when students and staff arrive to school the next day their health is not jeopardized. thank you.

>> we will move to public comment. >> what item? what is the question? >> you are on the meeting now. we are doing the resolution regarding the unhoused population on district property. >> stewart are you there?

>> you have two minutes. >> i guess about two months ago in the morning outside my door there was an encampment in front of my building. i am in a two unit condo in the castro. three feet out of my door was the encampment as if they were entitled to stay there. it took a full day just by chance calling 311. neighbors calling 3 eleven no results. by chance a police officer came by and got them to move. but they moved a block away. my feeling this is not good for them or me. i think they should get into an encampment in the school yard. that is sensible.

it is good thing. a piece of land is created where they can put the encampment. i am totally supportive. it has to be done. i am sure you will find a way to clean the school yard so the students can come back. that is all i have to say. i am over having to pay high taxes in the city and have to deal with the homelessness literally in front of my house. thank you all. i appreciate it. stay safe. >> thank you. >> caller, are you there? >> yes, hello. i am william jake. i have lived in san francisco district 8 for 26 years. i do support the resolution to utilize the school properties to protect the homeless individuals and others who live here not

homeless from the spread of covid-19. we need action now and this is the best plan at this time. it is a good plan. we have to do it. thank you. >> fred, are you there? >> i am a resident of castro over 20 years and fully support this proposal that the supervisor has made. i understand that the school board should be considered -- should consider the benefit they can provide to the community at the same time that the city services are put in place to

ensure that when the children go back to school that the environment there is clean and suitable for the students. i will note, however, over the last three months before the epidemic around 16th street, around sanchez, there were a number of encampments with the burden of the covid in front of the students before they were restricted from attending school. this is one of the best solutions to the problem. in reference to the hotel rooms there are day-to-day more and more people added to the hotel rooms. the people we are talking about in tents encampments are on the lowest part of that height list. -- priority list. that gives the city another tool to deal with making a proper decision to let the people who are unfortunately in tents at least have a safe environment

with city services to help them. thank you. >> thank you. julia. >> i live between 16th. it is one of the places where the encampment was taking place. i am in support of this resolution and i want to thank you for finding a solution to find a safe place for people to

stay and have senior citizens to feel safe again and feel we are able to go and walk on our sidewalk. thank you for this solution and thank you for finding this solution. >> thank you. >> that concludes public comment. >> thank you very much. before commissioners have comments i want to clarify something. one, the resolution does address the cleaning issue. we would not open up any school site that we open up for this

purpose to be in a state that wasn't safe for students. i think don might be able to talk to that. i want to congratulate the board of supervisors for supporting this. i will say right now except i do want to mention and it hurts my heart to say it. over the weekend a woman experiencing homelessness passed away on the steps of everett middle school. nobody knows had we had some space open in our city like this proposal with staffing because the city will staff whether she

would have survived or not, but the tragedy underscores what we are talking about here. 200 to 300 homeless folks die in the city every year and it doesn't make the news. i think we should help them out. if there are any commissioners to comment? >> i have a question. do you have any idea which schools are most likely going to be used? >> supervisor mandelman has identified a school he would like to use because it is in his district and central to where a lot of the homelessness is taking place, which is everett middle school. in this process we will engage with the city if this passes and we will decide which site or site goes to use. it won't be mandated by the city

which site to use. i want to say that in the past we have one of the callers referenced the partnership was the city. in the past mission high school offered weekend showers for homeless folks. due to neighbors' complaints we suspended that program instead of expanding to other high schools. we have an opportunity to be part of the solution. other sites mentioned are caesar stayed d stadium. old transbay terminal. there are sites they are looking at and they would like one school to be part of the city-wide effort. >> thank you. i want to thank both you and vice president lopez for this

resolution. i think students would definitely support this resolution. it not only supports our community but also flattens the curve. i would like to ask if we could be added as co-authors to this resolution. >> absolutely. >> commissioner lam. >> thank you for putting this together and working with supervisor mandelman. i think absolutely i am in support of this resolution. i think, you know, it is an opportunity for us to be one san francisco. the lines just don't keep us separate because we are a school district versus the city and

county. clearly there is so much need how to support the unhoused communities. i am in support of this resolution. i am also a district 8 long-time resident. i also have been seeing the growing demand of tents and again homeless people in the district. we know that is exacerbated knowing people losing their jobs. thank you for leading this effort. i look forward for the district to continue deepening the partnership with the city. >> vice president lopez. >> i am in support of this. i think we have stepped up in a number of ways during this pandemic. this is no different. we also have great example of

how we are using the sites to support the very real issue in san francisco and i just want to speak quickly to arguments made as far as our role at schools and help with homelessness. it really is clear to me that as a city we all have to engage and participate in a way that helps diminish that and better the lives however we can of the residents in san francisco. it is incumbent on us to come up with ways to help with this issue. if we have the opportunity now to do it and to grow and develop and learn from it, get the resources for it, then i am all for that. >> commissioner cook. >> i want to thank everyone that

spoke. thank you, vice president lopez. i think they were groundbreaking finding ways to engage people. this is a problem. i think it is important to highlight the social workers and educators at the site that responded to the need. also, this is a crisis. this is appropriate for the time. this is not uncommon with the crisis for anyone with concerns for the neighborhood during katrina which was also an

emergency. people opened up schools so people can get out of the water. whatever resources we have available to save lives we should explore. i am sensitive to the safety of our students. i do have one question about implementation. maybe we are not there yet. i will be back to this item after it is worked through. do we have a sense at this time. the hours of operation or anything specific to that?

>> we will depend on the city for providing the services. we are providing the in kind space in the facility. >> assuming this passes there needs to be changes on our side who is a point of contact for us. i don't know if don wants to chime in on usage of the site t

ensure that it is properly? >> i don't know if don is still on the call. a joint use agreement we are able to go the with organizers and derm all of the things that need to be put in place per department of public health guidelines. similar to the way we work with the similar program with the horse map and testing sites. in the mission we do the dew the diligence to go to the board for approval. there is built into the system for checks and balances and follow the same process which we followed the last two joint use agreements. >> we also are starting right now organizing a site walk

through with department of public works and other folks who are involved in sponsoring the encampment and identifying our utilities and the ways that those utilities might need accessed. talking through security of the site. most of those conversations are best addressed through an on site eyes on the facility shared visit. we are working on scheduling that asap. my understanding right now is again and we will work with my former colleagues at department of public works and folks i worked within the past. our understanding there is in impact to the school building nor is there to be any obligations placed on our custodial services. >> again, like the program and

partnership. the right people will be involved. if anything comes up it will be addressed. it is 24 hours at the site. >> it is now. we modified the m.o.u. last month. >> again, it is to address concerns that i have every confidence that if something comes up they will address it and i look forward to hearing back once this is passed. >> thank you. commissioner moliga? >> i just want to say thank you to president sanchez and vice president lopez for introducing this resolution. i agree with all of the commissioners that it is our

part in terms what we need to do for our city during this pandemic. thank you both. >> commissioner collins. >> i want to reiterate again appreciation for president sanchez and vice president lopez in working with creating this resolution and thanks mandelman as well and the board of supervisors. for any folks. i want to note that the unhoused population is diverse. it including a wide range of folks. it also including families. i think there is a characterization of homeless folks. there are a lot of families that are either transitional or facing homelessness or maybe

homeless because of this crisis. i appreciate the leadership in working and being flexible to utilize our resources right now which are empty schools to support families and support unhoused population and recognize when they are on a schoolyard they are not on the street to help other families to access the street and access food and meals and things like that which i am hearing families are reticent to go outside because they are not able to socially distance in a safe way with encampments on the street. i appreciate this resolution and will vote yes. >> thank you very much. any last comments? thank you everybody. this is a joint effort with the city. i appreciate supervisor

mandelman's vole. a roll call. [roll call]. >> that is unanimous. thank you. >> the next item is another resolution we are going to need to suspend the rules for. i need a motion and second to hear 204-28a2 affirming support ab2016 california ethnic studies model curriculum draft in the san francisco unified school district.

>> so moved. >> second. >> roll call on the motion to suspend the rules. [roll call] that is seven ayes. >> now we need a motion and second for the formal introduction of the resolution. >> so moved. >> thank you. vice president lopez. would you read the resolution into the record. >> i got excited because i saw

matthews and moliga with sweaters. i got that. i was happy to see that was going on. >> curriculum draft in the san francisco unified school district whereas in 2014 is 2 school district institutionalized ethnic

studies. whereas students from a variety of mixture make up approximately 85:00 p.m. of the population whereas they have stated the values equity and social justice in the schools abcommitment to inclusion and whereas research indicates that ethnic studies in high schools has demonstrated an increase in gpa. high school graduation rates and college rates.

california and the united states. with particular emphasis on portraying the role in contemporary society. ethnic studies originated in the civil rights and third world struggle. that is evolution including many ethnic racial backgrounds from around the world including living with depression, racism and who are denied the right to live with dignity and freedom. california ab2016 curriculum is currently in process at the california department of education and whereas the current california 2016 draft has vast support from communities of color and intergenerational ethnic studies and leaders across california and beyond. whereas california has one of the largest and most diverse student populations in the noise

with 77% students of color. they affirm support of 2015 curriculum draft. be it further resolved they affirm support for pacific islander studies, west asian studies and their continued inclusion in the esmc. >> supportive of multiple users.

>> public comment. i. >> i want to thank you for this important resolution. i am excited to see this moving forward.

>> in the district that came about due to a protest, it is in san francisco that was orchestrated by the "black panthers" disability rights advocates. butterfly coalition through many cities. this intersection. >> we would love to see this amended to be more inclusive but appreciate this moving forward.

thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. we have two more actually. >> thank you. >> i want to commend the district for the resolution.

>> i am really, really happy about this resolution. i really appreciate that it specifically articulates that there will be firm support for some areas of study that are controversial at the state level, and that the state has been considering leaving out arabs and asian-american and central american. i want to really appreciate and echo julia about our disability community and our lgbtq and queer folks, and also the impact that the inclusion of the experiences of our kids with disabilities, and with 504s -- the difference that that really, really makes in terms of them being valued and seen among their peers and really encourage the inclusion of that and the resolution. thank you so much.

>> thank you for the public comment. commissioners -- >> if i could speak to that, i thank you for sharing your comments. i completely agree, and like was mentioned by michelle, this is our district's effort to support the statewide effort to address what is happening at the state level, regarding what is controversial or what has been an issue for them to implement. and so i would love to see how we can contribute that language and support that as well, considering ethnic studies is beyond racial and ethnic. it is talking about all of the experiences that affect us as human beings, and how we interact with each other and learn about each other during these times.

so i just wanted to point it out, that this was our effort to join the statewide initiative to combat the battles that we're having at the state level, but would love, also, to include that level, but would love, >> anybody else? all right. so if you want to -- vice president lopez, do you want to add language now? >> i do, if -- i just need a little bit of guidance and can write that up. go ahead. commissioner arden? >> i'm just wondering if -- and i support the idea of having this language. and i want to thanks all of the comments for bringing it up. and i wonder if there is a way of writing a

broadly-worded amendment to include all sorts of groups and, you know, people who identify in all different ways to this curriculum, so it is not just, you know, oh, but you forgot this group or you forgot that group. if we could craft something that is very, very broad, i wonder if that would be more inclusive? >> i think one of the things about this is that there has been discussion and debate over a long period of time about ethnics studies in terms of who is included. and these four groups were included at one point. and so this -- the coordination amongst districts and others and the board of education to support this legislation in it's current form is around that. so that's kind of my

concern about adding lgbtq and special needs because it's not really part -- it gives it, in a way, a legitimacy to adding everybody into ethnics studies, which everybody isn't (indescernable). which has been kind of the crux of the argument for quite a while. allison, did you want to add anything? >> i wanted to add on a certain level, i think the value of this is -- it is important to name things. because if you say it kind of becomes -- i know this isn't your intention, but it becomes all students can be about all lives. and the point of black lives matter is saying traditionally black folks, and with anti-blackness in the world, and so making

black life matters was a very specific thing. and ethnic studies specifically is targeting groups that have been both underrepresented and misrepresented, right? the fair act, which alita fisher was referring to, i think it doesn't address ethnicity, and i think that's why the fair act -- i think maybe if we could incorporate in the whereas section a reference to the fair acts, because i think it is important to acknowledge that the lgbtq community and the disability community are also groups. and the native-american community, which is also referenced in that act, are also groups that deserve recognition, in the way we talk about them in schools. but i wouldn't want to -- there is a specific fight that is going on that we aren't experiencing in san

francisco -- [audio is breaking up] >> but there are folks who are trying to -- basically it is like they're trying to insert themselves into the work that is going on at state level in order to basically make it not exist. it is like the mandarin groups -- [audio is breaking up] >> gabriel, are you okay with adding a "whereas" clause? >> yeah. >> maybe, allison, if you want to just shoot something off, we can add it in. >> i would want to reference -- i don't know -- can we agree on it, saying we want to add a statement, like referring to -- because there are clauses in the fair act, and i would have to look it up. >> i would be okay with having that discussion and expanding on it. >> in lieu of voting on

this now? >> yes. >> so you want to table this discussion? oh... >> if it is okay to say we're going to add language referring to the fair act. i would want to quote it. >> we've done that on occasion, where we have said we're adding a "whereas" clause, especially because it is a whereas, so i think that is really fine. >> all right. so with that in mind, and if there is no other comments or questions, we can go for the roll call. >> thank you. ms. collins? >> yes. >> mr. cooke? >> yes. >> ms. lam? >> yes. >> mr. lopez? >> yes. >> mr. eureka? >> yes. >> mr. sanchez? >> yes. [inaudible]

>> that's seven yeas. >> thank you. moving on to section "m," board members report, the following virtual meetings have taken place since the last regular board meeting. we had a special meeting committee, tuesday, april 21st, 3:00 p.m., and vice president lopez chaired. i don't know if you want to report out that it was on distance learning rollout update and food distribution update. >> right. it was shared that a variety of options have become available digitally and non-digitally. internet access is expanding, and there are many efforts to get this to be a city-wide access so our students can participate in distance learning. there is 2.4% of students who have not engaged at all within the school districts, and with that,

ways that teachers or reaching out, and schools are reaching out, getting in contact with these families who haven't yet been able to participate, with the learning kits distribution, it aligns with early education, and emphasize that when you receive the kits and fill them out, you have to return them to your teachers, for families (indescernable). we have a (indescernable). [audio is breaking up] >> this is for our families, who are special needs, and we have planted -- pa week ago to really have access throughout the city. and we love our student nutrition program.

[screeching noises] >> somebody's microphone has to be muted. okay, thanks. thank you, vice president lopez. student delegates, i think it is time for you to leave. >> oh! >> i think you're hungry. thank you. >> thank you so much. everybody stay safe. all right. the report from the delegates to membership organizations such as msfca, any report? i don't think anybody has been going anywhere. all other reports by board members. yes, commissioner collins. >> i have a question, because we're not having regular meetings, i was just wondering when we were going to get an update on the district's assessments for students that are ongoing.

because i just wanted to know if we have that, what's the plan on when we're going to find out about student assessments that we voted on last meeting. >> um...who can respond to that? >> i would suggest that we take that up... >> i was going to say pretty much i think we can put it off for the review -- >> because i was just wanting clarification on when are we going to get a report, based on our vote two weeks ago -- or no, last week, with the vote -- is that correct? or was it two weeks ago we voted -- >> on the assessment? >> the assessment, yeah. >> that was two weeks ago. >> so when were they supposed to report back? >> so there was a plan that was detailed, i think a week ago, that went out to the board and we just need to update the board on where we're at from

there. >> because it is my understanding -- i was assuming we were going to get a report today, based on that vote. maybe i was wrong, but i wanted clarification, is that behind -- is that a wrong assumption that i made? >> originally it was today, but in the report that we gave you, that we're behind, about a week behind. it was in the report that was sent out to the board. >> okay. i also appreciate that, but i think it is important for the community to also know that. so i'm glad that you're sending that information to us, but it is also important -- because the community also wants to know if we're doing needs assessment, and they're also eager to see the results of the report. that would be great if you could share that out publicly, when it will be available. >> okay. thank you for that. any other board member reports? all right. the calendar of committee meetings, so as we know,

the committees in general have been suspended, although budget is coming up, and we've had a curriculum, so the next budget meeting is wednesday, may 6th. we don't have a time yet. so i don't know if, commissioner lam, if you want to publicize a time for that? you have to unmute. >> we are awaiting confirmation from committee members. i don't know if that was affirmed. >> i let superintendent lee know that that time is fine for me. >> so can you confirm with me -- i know it has only be yesterday -- >> 3:00. >> okay, 3:00. >> 3:00? >> yes, 3:00. may 6th. and then we're going to have rules, policy legislation, monday may 11th at 3:00 p.m., if

that's okay. jenny did you offer you're chairing that, so 3:00 is okay? >> yes. and staff is confirming our capital advisors to be -- >> okay, great. that committee has a big agenda. it is piling up. thanks, danielle. so section "n," other informational items, a staff report on the acceptance of the monthly report for the month of march. section "o," there is none tonight's. at this time, we will take public comments, there will be a total of five minutes for public comment. >> i'm not seeing any. >> the board will now go into closed session, so i'm going to call a recess of the regular meeting. so we're going to hop off

>> good morning, everyone. the meeting with come to orthopedic. this is is the april 29, 2020, regular budget and finance committee. at this time, i will be calling the budget committee. i'm chair of the budget and finance committee and joined by supervisor raphael mandelman. (inaudible). >> welcome, president yee. i would like to thank sf gov tv and if other supervisors have joined us, supervisors, if i have not mentioned your name, please introduce yourself. >> this is catherine stephanie. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> any other supervisors that have joined us in.

>> this is supervisor aaron pesk nix. peskin. >> as supervisors join us, we will be introducing them for the meeting. and madam clerk, any announcements? >> yes, madam chair, due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public, the board of supervisors committee room is closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting. as if they were physically present. comment will be available under the anticipated. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunity to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling (888)204-5984, access

code 350-1008, is then press pound and press pound again. when you're connected, dial 1-0 to be added to the cue to speak. submit public comment by emailing me at lind

lindawong@sfgov.org. if you submit it via email, it will be included in the file as a part of the matter. comments may be sent via u.s. postal service to city hall. , room 234 and finally items acted upon today will be forwarded to the full board for consideration on may 5th, unless otherwise stated and also the supervisors currently participating in this remote meeting -- (inaudible). >> thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number one from the budget and appropriations committee. >> a review of the budget process admitting updates for 2020-2021 and 2021 and 2022 and the mayor's office of public policy and finance of adding a seaport.

members of the public who wish to provide comment should call the (888)204-5984, code 35101 -- 350-1008 and press one and then zero to line up to speak. >> thank you very much, madam clerk. >> so we have today with us kelly kirk patrick fropatrick fe mayor's office and mr. patrick? >> good morning. we have a presentation for you today. i will cover one slide and mark delrosa will provide information on reimbursement and spending in greater details. so let me screen share. can you all see this? is that visible?

wonderful. so here is an update for the information. as the response to the health crisis has withi been prolongedd department spending has decreased and this slide i've been showing you over the past couple of weeks is what we have expended or spent and the controller's office will review additional anticipated spending or encumbered expenses later in the presentation, but this is money that has gone out the door. so to date, we've spent $60 million, half of which is related to salary and benefit costs, varsity staff. and many of this is related to our manpower or people power and including efc and doc operations

but notably camp tim comp time f time and mark will work through the parameters. we've spent about $15 million on health-related staffing, including nurses, medical transportation and most notably safety and supplies. this has been an increase of almost $5 million that has been spent since last week and then we continue to spend on on degree gatcongregate shelter anl as other expenses related to it and eoc meetings. with that, i'm happy to advance slides for mark as we walks you through fema. >> thank you, kelly and good morning members of the committee. mark delarosa, the acting director of audits and the cost recovery lead as part of the city-wide effort to obtain our fema, public assistance grant,

reimbursements related to the covid-19 pandemic response and i just wanted to walk you through some of the basics on fema public assistance grants, some updated numbers that carrie has eluded to and any information that we can provide you on the gift to sf, as well as answer any questions that you have. this first slide is basically just to provide you with a very broad overview of the objectives that we have for cost recovery and it's to maximize as much as possible costs, reimbursements from fema in relation to the public assistance grant and it's really in our best interests to be proactive and timely in responding to the fema requirements, to make sure that we are maximizing, as much as possible, all of the reimbursables and we're leading the data collection and monitoring city-wide. so we're working with each of the departments that have so far

incurred covid-related response costs and that's something that we're definitely prioritizing as we are going into our cost recovery phase. and some quick background in public assistance grants from fema, it's trigger by the stafford act act and it's activated when there's a declaration of an emergency and disaster and it's to really respond quickly and also to help various jurisdictions recover from the impacts of the disaster. one point that i wanted to emphasize is fe ma emphasizes -- i don't want to duplicate public assistance provided by the other fellow agencies. so we want to make sure that we're not -- we as a city are not requesting for the same or for multiple reimbursements for the same costs and so that is why the documentation and

adherence to the guidelines is as important as possible, especially earlier on in the process. our next slide, please. so this basically just outlines the ten key cost buckets that are currently reimbursable per the fema public assistance grant, for the eligible costs. every time there's an emergency or disaster, fema and calowias are providing guidelines to the different jurisdictions and applicants on what is reimbursable and what is not. this pandemic per information we've gathered from the two representatives in points of context is unprecedented in a lot of ways, in terms of the type of incidents, via scope and

magnitude, given it's impacting every jurisdiction throughout the country and so they're trying to be as proactive and clear in terms of providing guidance, given something this ithis is notsomething that happ. these are the ones we'll be submitting as part of our public assistance grant application. the first being the management control and reduction and this is really what we would consider as kind of one of the main buckets, as part of our eoc costs, as part of our disinfecting of public facilities and locations and that's one cost category and medical sheltering is also one that is a huge part of our cost recovery and this is why th thenoncondegrenoncondegree nonce

under. purchase of equipment is another bucket of costs that is fema reimbursable. only costs related to measures are reimbursable and i wanted to emphasize, really, the cost shares that are involved. so given all of the ten buckets of reimbursable categories, fema will reimburse 75% of all of the reimbursable costs. the remaining is basically split

between the state, which is through the cal oes, office of emergency management and thi 75d the remaining is the local costs. there are different ways that we can focus on how we can even maximize further, how we cover those 6.25, the donated resources from labor to equipment can be a part of how we cab offset the 6.25% and that's why we're trying to be diligent in capturing all of the costs of the donations. and this next slide is basically giving you the process that we've.com through so far as a part of the fe ma public assistance and we have submitted our reimbursement requests for an expedited funding and the expedited funding is a way for fema to provide the

jurisdictions with an upfront money without having to train any documentation, so we had to develop a bunch of estimated costs, the first 60 days of the prical period of our response as parts of that expedited funding process. and we looked at what's been expended so far and projected out for the operational period. the different dates you see under the cost recovery processing is really just outlining some of the critical milestones that we have reached so far. so we had to initiate our request. we had to provide various information to cal oes and fema. april 6th is when we first submitted the funding request for the categories of emergency protective emergencies and then a week after that, on april 13th, was when we submitted our second expedited request regarding the

noncongregate sheltering. all three have been obligated, meaning they have approved it and they have transferred the portion that they're going to be reimbursing as a part of the expedited funding to the primary grandegrantee. in addition to the expedited finding, we will be submitting on an ongoing basis the actuals that we have expended as a city and that's part of our biweekly submittals to cal oes and fema with a back-up documentation. we're asking to document,

document, document, all of their labor costs, so that will be a part of that regular reimbursement process of the actual costs. next slide, please. this is a broad run-through of the numbers and a broad series under the covid-19 effort costs to date, those are personnel and non-personnel costs that have hit the covid-19 code in our financial system. this is as of april 28th, which is yesterday and as we all know, this week is a payroll processing week and so that number on the personnel cost of 5 3.9 million captures all of the costs to date that have been processed through our financial system. so the total is 190.9 and i know there's minor discrepancies between some of these numbers

and what kelly has provided and it's more of the timing of when we capture the information, but for the most part, they are aligned and basically are capturing the same trends of information. so under the personnel, we have both a category for those that we'll be submitting to fema as our personnel costs, which is the 32.1, and then there's also the fema nonreimbursable cost which is 21.8 million which is not covered under the tag grant program. the personnel is really 137.9, which is broken down by both actuals and un-com un-cumbered. it's the various supplies that we have expended so far and

grants that we've let and and expenditures. the 105.6, those are the placeholders for what we have let with public health and there's some for hsa, obviously. this is in our financial system, as such. the categories, number two, can i gcani go back, kelly? and i wanted to run you through numbers from fema and numbers that we are tracking. this is as of yesterday and we're definitely going to update this moving forward. so in terms of the fema eligible costs to date that we have submitted to fema so far, as of the last submittal, it amounts

to about $40.4 million and as part of our expedited funding request, which is basically a portion of the 75% of fema's cost share is going to be coming to us soon and. and this is15.1 million and i dd this on the previous slide of number one, number two, and number three which totals 15.2. and the obligations, all three have been obablie obligated to . this is as a part of the funding request that we have. this is another source of our funding that we will be getting moving forward.

the 153.8 you're seeing here is basically the first installation that we have seen so far and this relates to the various costs related to public health, hsa and there are other types of care's act funding the city will be getting including those related to aviation, that the airport will be getting, transportation that mta will be getting and we'll update this as we move forward. and in the last categories, basically, our gift to sf and if we can advance to the next slides, please. so another cost center that we're tracking is the gift to sf and this is one that was set up per the directive and i believe since the middle of march that this was started, we have received a total of about $9.5 million. those are from mailed in checks,

from online donations through wires and we're calling out the sf foundation because it's a separate -- they're doing a fundraising for the gift to sf and we're capturing separately for now but it rolls up to the 9.5 total for the gift of sf that has hit the city so far. in terms of the disbursements and how they're used, so far, there's been over $5 million that have been disbursed and approved -- actually approved as disbursement so far, mainly for a small business and worker support programs, for food security perhaps, for access to housing and those are the types of priorities that have been set fort aforth as part of the giftd this has been given to the departments to carry out those

three purposes. the next slide, please. and this is just to give you another high-level background on the administration committee, that this gift to sf is compromised of and per the mayoral declaration and it's the director of dem, mary anne carol and our controller benefi contrn rosenfield, the individuals sitting in the administration committee that are making decisions on the sources and uses. and then there's an oversight committee compromised of the various stakeholders throughout the city and that, basically, concludes my presentation. i would be happy to answer any questions you have and our know our controller, ben rosenfield is happy to answer questions. how about present y president y?

>> given me a second here. >> thank you, mr. de elarosa. >> i'm looking at slide six in the date personnel the reimbursable. are these additional costs or are these just, basically, costs in which we're doing our job? >> so one of the reasons why we're capturing in the system, basically, everything that is covid related is so that we have a sense of the level of efforts city-wide and a part of the personnel costs that are not categorized as reimbursables are those that are the costs of furloughing someone, for example, or putting someone on leave and i think that there's other categories that are hitting those personal costs

that are now reimbursable, as well, that are not specifically overtime and not specifically related to the response to the covid-19 pandemic. it could be another source to that's not fema reimbursable. >> thank you. >> thank you very much and any other questions or comments for mr. delarosa. i just have one question. under the non-personnel, does that include capture --

(inaudible). >> because that cost will probably go up. we know the demand is rapidly rising, quite frankly. anything that you would like to add in mr. patrick? i know that we have postponed our big report until the second week of may. is that correct? >> yes, i believe so and i think the hearing is slated for may 13th. and that's as well as covid spending. so lots of information in greater detail will be coming to everyone in about two weeks. >> great. i see that supervisor ronen is in the cue and do you have a question? >> yes, thank you, chair fewer.

quick question. on the slide that showed all of the reimbursements, i think -- could it be slide 7? yes. so i just want to make sure i'm understanding this correctly. so we had collectively spent $190 million, but we're getting reimbursed from fema, 40 plus 15 plus 153, plus 153? >> that is as of today. what is not captured here yet, as i mentioned, we're going to be -- moving forward every two weeks, we'll be submitting our actuals to fema, so basically the numbers that you're seeing, the 40, 15 and 15 are based on estimates we had to come up with a few weeks ago and so that we

can get theexpedited funding request. we'll be submitting of what we actually expended. a lot of the actuals i captured on the first bucket of covid-19 costs to date have not been submitted to fema yet for reimbursement. >> what we've been reimbursed is greater than what we've spent according to this chart. >> you're correct. >> so when it's all said and done, does that mean we'll get reimbursed for the vast majority of expenses that we make. >> for those that are eligible as fema public assistance, not everything is reimbursable. we've learned from previous experiences when we've done other initial aid deployment is that they really are very specific as to what can be reimbursed and those ten buckets that i previously mentioned are

the only ones they're cover skid it's best to maximize as much as we can, as well as other sources, including care's act funding which is separate from the fema public assistance grant. >> but fema won't reimburse something that the care's act reimbursed. >> exactly. >> with the two sources -- (inaudible). >> would you mind repeating the question? because there was some interference. >> sure, thank you. >> do you anticipate that between the care's act and the fema reimbursements that we will

be reimbursed with the vast majority if not completely the expenses that we incur for covid relief? >> supervisor ronen, i thought i would add a bit to your question. i think it's important to note on the slide we're looking at, this presenting what we have spent to date for contracts, for orders that we have encumbreber. there are other expenses that we don't yet have the contract and though will likely be considerable. this is what we're working on and we expect in our may projection report, which we hope to have completed, a full picture of all expenditures. and then underneath that, the kind of puzzle of all of these

funding spritzes and what we won't cover and what the net will look like at the bottom line. i don't know we have a complete picture of either of the expenses or all of these reimbursements but we're in the process of pulling together that puzzle so we can answer your very good question here very shortly. the ppe purchases have been reflected on this sheet, but we

know we have additional ordering over the coming months and the same goes for food and it's an incomplete picture at the moment. >> sure. but what i wasn't realizing is that the cares act is above and beyond the fema reimbursements and so that could cover the additional expenses that fema doesn't cover. and so it might be, we don't know yet, we'll find out in your next report, that it might be that we're getting federal -- enough federal reimbursement to cover all of the expenses, which doesn't account for the hole in the budget, of course, but it does account for what we're expending now. >> exactly. and two things that were there, number one, as you're pointing out, this doesn't show the revenue loss with the event. >> correct. and currently, the care's act funding for local governments is limited only to expenditures and

not the revenue loss. however, most u.s. cities are lobbying very heavily to be able to use that care's act money to offset revenue as well, and we'll se.that will provide muche flexibility as you put this budget act together. so that is a big kind of unknown out there. the order of operation, as well, is also unclear at this point. are we going to be required to spend the kidder's act money first prior to seeking fema reimbursement? or my view would be the intent of congress was the care's act was an additional support above and beyond fe measurema. but that question is unclear given fema guidance. >> thank you. >> this is kelly. i just wanted to note that, unfortunately, we're not

receiving $300 million in care act funding. it is just one allocation of 153.8. it's just a break-out on the sheets. >> so i hope everyone has a deeper understanding about the reimbursements and how often we're submitting reimbursemented and attempting to be reimbursed. so mr. delarosa we may acts for you task foryou to come bac. and we might want to know how

this affects our bottom line. any other members that would like to comment on item number one of the budget appropriation's committee? >> i was checking to see if there are any callers in the cue and please let us know if there are any callers that are ready. please press 1-0 to be added to the cue and for those on hold, wait until you're propertied to begin at the deep. >> i have one caller in the cue and i will cue them up. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> question: hi. my name is anasm is anna harrism

calling to discuss the need for better incentive's pay and protective equipment and on-site casting for staff and shelter-housed homeless family. >> ok, we are not hearing that item now. we will be hearing it very shortly and right now we're hearing item number one of the budget hospice and updates. and so would you mind -- >> i'm sorry. my cue question must have gotten confused. >> operator: you have one question remaining.

>> linda chapman and i have to access to the agendas in any secret form, so i apologize this might not be the point and i want to continue at the right time, the points that i was making yesterday, with regards to funding and acquiring the hotel rooms and how to do it in a rational manner and how to get back the money that was promised, kind of ridiculously, as if you were studying at the u.n. party or congress or something, instead of this situation. so if i can know when that is the correct time, i would like to comment. >> actually, that would be appropriate now as we are talking about the budget related to covid-19. >> ok, thank you. well, anyway, as i started to say, like, you know, the federal government manages things like this and city officials aren't usually confronted with this kind of thing and it's reasonable they may not think of

the best things. hotel rooms, for example, have been mentioned, like the government would acquire them, the federal government would acquire them at a low cost and we're talking about in this case, perhaps it was supervisor peskin, one pointed out they have a value right now. you would be renting them by the month, you know. you would be telling them what price and if they've already made agreements, such as i read in the newspaper, well, this committee, which includes the controller should be involved and should be telling them, gee, in this time of crisis, we just can't do that. we have to do a reverse here and roll that back. the same as has been happening with those loans, the federal loans that went to very wealthy corporations and so forth. when i was in sacramento for one

night in a lovely downtown motel, for $56 which included a hot breakfast and a rebridge rer a refrigerator. >> operator: you have zero people in the cue. you. >> i would like to make a motion for this. can i have a second? >> second. >> role call vote please. >> supervisor valtop. (role call).

>> there are five ayes. >> madam clerk, cap yo, can youl number one of the items' committee. >> authorizing to the department of public health to accept a grant in the amount of 87,000 from the california state resource's board participating in public beach safety grant's program for the period of july 1st, 2019 through june 30, 2020 and members who wish to provide public comment should call (888)204-5984, access code 351008. >> thank you, madam clerk. >> good morning. i'm a manager in environmental

health and i run the beach monitoring program and this item is for approval of a three-year grant that partially supports or staff that collects samples at the coastal and bay waters, bringing them to the puc lab and have the samples tested. and then we monitor the results and post the beaches appropriately. >> ok. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. there's to daily report on this. madam clerk, is there anyone in the cue on item number one? >> yes, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the cue. please let us know, are there any callers that are ready.

if you have not already done so, please press 1-0 to be added to the cue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until you're prompted at the beep. >> madam chair, allow me a moment to check the cue. >> absolutely. >> there are no callers wishing to speak. >> so the public comment is closed on item number an and i would move this with a positive recommendation. can i have a role call vote. (role call). >> there are three ayes. >> can you please call item number two in. >> approving a fifth amendment between the sheriff's office and the san francisco pretrial diverse intelligencdivergence p.

prinpair (inaudible). >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (888)204-5984, access code 350-1008 and press 1-0 to line up to speak. >> thank you very much, madam clerk. today we have with us mr. holland from the sheriff's department and the pretrial project. >> aud timtoday i'm requesting l

for a pretrial diversion project from under 10 million to 16 million and in my presentation, i wanted first just to go over the history of the sheriff's department's work with pretrial. we've been at this a long time and let me start on the presentation. 11964, before the sheriff's department got involved, the san francisco bar association established the unrecogny distance project through cash bail.

this was established by judges and the bar association and others, i believe, and the former sheriff was a part of that involvement and this was established to address individuals who are held pretrial on minor offences and it was already san francisco was thinking about ways not to overincarcerate and it was, again, important for the bar association that this be an independent nonprofit and it's been contracting with the sheriff's office since this time and it says work to divert -- at the time it was established to divert mis misdemeanor clients.

in 1994, the service and pretrial established supervised pretrial relief program which extended pretrial relief by providing the court with post random case management and supervision alternatives and then supervised pretrial relief is a case management. in layman's terms, this is saying that we are managing now people with higher level charges. and, perhaps, david could speak to that, too. and then in 2003, san francisco pretrial assumed the work that the project became one, merging into an independent agency and services for clients and clients with varying levels of acuity to divert them from pretrial custody and then if we go to the next page, we fastforward to 2016, when we implemented the

public safety known as the arnold foundation and it is used by pretrial. it is potentially a non-interview, risk assessment tool for the likelihood for failure to appear and noncriminal activity during pretrial release and that is to both keep the people out of custody while managing public safety. and so pretrial as been using that since 2016. we're here today in part because of these next two points. in 2018, the court repealed rules in a case that release conditions must consider the ability to pay as well as nonmonetary alternatives. and so this added pretrial clients who before would have been held in custody unable to

make bail. and this resulted in a significant increase in pretrials from fiscal '17-'18 to fiscal '18-'19. and this contract that i'm here asking for a one-year extension, as well as additional $6 million, this was a contract that began in fiscal '17-'18. and then finally, in 20/1, there was another court ruling, federal government ruling, button versus san francisco which prohibited the application of san francisco court and set deadlines and set the work which the pretrial had to do for the completion of the public safety assessments. it required 24/7 coverage and

for all of this, i tell you because button and humphrey put an increase on the pretrial caseload and even going for a one-year case extension or 33% increase in the term, we're adding about 60% addition in the value of the current contract. and this proposed resolution as you know it exercises the first of two one-year extensions and it increases the contract amount about by $6 million. so on to the next slide, it's just a graphic that shows the growth of pretrial workload and it shows the daily caseload for case management clients. and these are the clients that require the most work from pretrial. and a pretty good reference for pretrial's total workload and you can see that it has climbed

significantly over the term of this contract. in addition to simply the amount of work the pretrial is doing, pretrial works on performance measures so we look at appearance rates and safety rates. the safety rates is the percent of everyone active on pretrial caseload for the quarter who did not have a new file charged and similarly, appearance rate is everyone who was active on their caseload who appeared at all hearings that were required to in that quarter. pretrial and all stakeholders sit down and review this. there are clients when pretrial has been using the tool makes a

recommendation that maybe someone not be released. the courts may release them which simply makes the work the pretrial does that much more important because that increases the adie acuity of the client l. there are individuals and the courts in their wisdom released this into the pretrial's caselowed and pretrial had to

manage this and why else is this so important that we continue with this contract and with that, i'm done. >> thank you, mr. hollands. mr. moore, is there something you would like to add? >> kristen did a great job with the overview and giving the high points. since the humphrey decision, which was in 2018, that was the first big jump up until now with a bump in implementation which just happened this year and in addition to the caseload growing within our staff was grown from a little over 30 to 80 people and it has been significant and the partnership with the sheriff's office has been fantastic with their support, we continue to hit high benchmarks and the rays that chris has rats

demonstrated, when you look at the industry across the country, they definitely leave the industry to the pretrial program. so we're proud of the work we do in partnership with the sheriff and the courts and d.a. and public defender and everyone else, the bar association. >> through the chair, i have a few questions that i would like to pursue with mr. hollings. i wanted to say that in the past, working with nancy rubin, in support to make sure we're covering everything we need with pretrial services. as we have more people do the covid and we see an increase from the humphrey decision and the buck settlement, of course,

i think it's important that we have the appropriate amount of pretrial services in that case. so i saw this come up and i looked at the report and i see your questions came up, if i may. and i see that on page 5, on table 2, that the vast majority of the increase comes from an increase in the certification of management. it looks like 88% according to the vla report. and so these are, again, according to the vla report, individuals with serious or violent cases who need services like anger management, substance abuse and counseling and more intensive case management. (please stand by).

i ask because i notice in the original contract extension, it appears only $160,000 went to subcontract services. so it sounds like to me the case management is more on the weekly meetings and then the services are paid through, i guess, other people are covering those services like anger management. there is different ways that those services that are actually for pretrial are covered outside this contract. is that correct?

>> the case manager is the service that is provided by pretrial. so a lot of the increase that we're talking about is for the operational staff at pretrial. i believe it takes us from low 40s to low to mid 50s in terms of total ftes at pretrial to handle the additional increase. but then there are -- in terms of making them, 12 set requirements will be free to the client. >> that i know. thank you for that. may i follow up with a few more questions, chair fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes, please. >> how many of the clients are under electronic monitoring? >> i would have to get back to you on that. >> okay and then who handles the

electronic monitoring? >> we have separate contracts with sentinel, we get the equipment from sentinel, we follow up people with that, but we have deputies who are managing these individuals. with electronic monitoring. >> okay. i'm seeking clarity around that, whether sheriff deputies are monitoring pretrial clients in the community on e.c.m.? >> yes. if they violate the terms of their parole, the warranty goes out and the deputies look for them. >> and they're responsible to returning them to custody if they fail to comply, is that correct? >> yes. a >> and then on the performance metrics, another thing that stood out to me on page 6 of the

b.l.a. report, 90% of the report appears to be metrics derived from data. so what i'm concerned about in terms of metrics and how we're actually measuring how well we're doing with regard to pretrial, is whether or not we're doing it in a line like frame it pretrial or frame it to pleaing this out, if that's what they call it. pretrial or whatever being held on -- [inaudible] -- if we're only doing measurements based on -- for instance, and trial is like maybe -- why are we doing metrics based on rates rather than -- monitoring responses out

of custody trial and trying to manage that person? i'm confused on the metrics. >> well, i mean these metrics have been established really by a group of stakeholders, including the courts, the d.a., the sheriff, pretrial. and you know, in the process of continuous improvement we take a look at them and see how they're doing. if, indeed, we feel they're not measuring the right things, we're open to revising how we measure. >> okay. and to follow up on that, so if someone fails to appear in that time frame, do you start all over? or like from the failure to appear? do you then start new metrics? or is that counted in the entire duration that the person is being monitored before pretrial, before disposition of the case? >> i would have to get back to

you on that. >> okay and the same for whether or not someone enters a recovery program. is someone off the role of trial even if they're monitored. i'm trying to understand, if we lose people that are on pretrial, if they go into a recovery program, are we then still monitoring them or not looking at that metric anymore? and say they fail in the recovery program, they stop going, how is that monitored? it doesn't sound like you're going to have an answer for me right now, but if we can look at that on the failure to appear. and whether or not we can look at treatment programs, if they absolve them of monitoring that person, or if that person is still on the roles for metrics and studying whether or not we're being affected and what we're doing. >> okay, okay, i can get back to you on that. >> one more question with regards to domestic violence, because obviously we all know

that with regard to shelter-in-place -- i'm sorry? >> supervisor fewer: i just wanted to ask, concerning the last question, i'm wondering if david moira can answer any portion of your question? mr. moira? >> yes. hello, supervisor. so the metrics that we use are based on the industry standards and it's true, it can be confusing. they are measured in different ways. and we have, just so you know, all this information goes through a third party california policy lab. and there is an extensive amount of data that we look at that goes well beyond the safety and appearance rates. we dig in and look at specific populations and age groups and are able to tailor our services

and supports to address the needs where we we see there are gaps. so someone is on our case load until their case has ended. for example, someone doesn't attend, you know, a couple of anger management classes. we would do a progress report to the judge. and a judge may require that they extend from maybe six classes to eight classes or they repeat those classes. so we're monitoring people's progress. they don't fall off our case load until the case is disposed. or if they pick up a new charge, they may come on our case load as a new client. it is, you know, you're right, it's not straightforward and if you want to look at the numbers offline, there is more information and more substance that can help you understand what we're looking at.

it is ultimately public safety in a different context. we're also evaluated based on public safety in some ways just like the police department and the sheriff. and that's a really clear metric that we follow. and just to add a little more to what kristen was saying about the support. our case managers are doing one on one one tt /* meetings, 7 days a week we're accessible to clients. there is a lot of work we do with outside partnerships. is it a better geographic location for them to attend a treatment program? we're monitoring them when they're in those beds. our staff, do we do our own internal support groups? including, we have coupling, in-house. we do anger management, behavioral change and other groups that our staff facilit e

facilitate. and have extensive community partnerships. and all of that is based on whatever the judge determines this person -- whatever their requirements are passed down by the judge, our staff then develops a treatment plan for each individual client that is tracked and monitored until their case is ended. so it's a very specific process. and just as a note, we also onboarded a brand new partnership manager and that is another person that is going to be involved in developing those committee relationships around the city, so we can make sure we're meeting the needs of our clients, we have close relationships and we're able to manage compliance, which is very important. and then just keeping up with resources that are available across the city. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> supervisor stefani: chair fewer, thank you. thank you, david, for that

explanation. i would like to follow up with you to review the metrics. one more question, too, about domestic violence. i am very concerned about the uptick in domestic violence calls during the shelter-in-place. i understand that the court previously requested that we perform the ontario domestic assault risk assessment on clients. and i'm wondering whether that is being done and whether or not this can be done? >> supervisor fewer: i think the question is for david. >> supervisor stefani: who ever can answer that question? whether or not we're performing that -- it's a national standard. it's the ontario assessment. and i'm wondering if we're doing that? >> david, can you answer that

question? >> yes, yes, i wasn't sure if i should speak up. yes, we do not use that assessment tool, but it's open for discussion. in the courts -- it's something the courts could ask us to do. i know that -- i'm familiar with the tool and know it's available. again, that is something, kristen, we could speak to the sheriff's office and determine if we want to move forward. it would be a matter making sure staff were trained on using the tool. it has to be implemented properly to be successful, so it might not be instantaneous, but it's something we could certainly discuss. >> supervisor stefani: my last question, chair fewer, probably to mr. hollings about the board independent. i'm just wondering what does that mean? this is program funded through law enforcement, through the sheriff's office, and i think the emphasis on independence is good and i see the reasons for

wanting to do that. and i'm wondering if funded through the sheriff's office, what are the rules around independence? are they then okay to lobby with the public defenders office? if we're funded by a law enforcement agency and there are lobbying activities going on, i'm trying to understand what independent actually means this regard? >> well, i think, in this regard, the emphasis i put on it is would have been referenced to a movement that i handed to other city agencies. but in this case, yes, they do. they contract with the sheriff's office. they have contracted with the sheriff's office for decades, but they have quite a bit of independence. in the meantime, we are there in the background being part of the review team to take a look.

>> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer for accommodating my questions and thank you mr. hollings and david for your answers. i will follow up. >> we'll follow up with you as well on all of those. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i see supervisor mandelman in the queue? >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair fewer. can we put the 2018 slide that dealt with the release not recommended? i just want to understand what i'm looking at. so the pie -- and admittedly this data is two years old, but -- you were there. we lost it. >> i know. >> supervisor mandelman: anyway.

so it was the left side of the pie showed i guess aspects of the pretrial case load. >> yep. >> supervisor mandelman: and had a release not recommended. so pretrial itself recommended that these cases are not appropriate for release? >> yes. >> supervisor mandelman: and then you go over to the right and that smaller pie is breaking down what the underlying offenses are? >> what the charges were, yes. >> supervisor mandelman: what the charges are. so -- and so -- and this is, i guess, demonstrating the point that the judges don't have to listen. >> that's correct. >> supervisor mandelman: and that's a pretty significant chunk of the pie. and so does pretrial track outcomes for that group?

and how it relates to -- i mean, you know, are the judges right? or is pretrial right? do we have some way of keeping track of, hmm, you know, gosh, we are not meeting our performance metrics for that group at a significantly higher rate than with the other folks, and so maybe that's -- is that a thing that gets looked at? >> as -- david might know better than i do -- but i believe we take the performance measurements based on the groups they fall into. in this case, case management clients. i don't believe that we -- i'm sure we have the data. i'm sure that we can take a look at how this group performs versus others. >> supervisor mandelman: let me follow up. i assume everybody for whom release is not recommended, when they are released, then they go

into the assertive case management pile, all of them, right? >> yes. >> supervisor mandelman: almost all of it them. >> well, yes. >> supervisor mandelman: maybe we'll follow up with, i guess, with david, but i'm pretty interested in how that pie has changed over time, how that wedge, you know, if it's gotten larger or smaller and then how pretrial keeps track of, like, are they in fact making the right recommendations when they're overruled? does it turn out that was okay and just fine? does it turn out that is a bad outcome for public safety? so i would be curious about that. we'll follow up. >> yes, we can take a look at that data. the sheriff's office and pretrial together. we can talk to you about that data. we'd welcome that. >> supervisor mandelman: i would love to follow up with both of

you on that. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: okay. seeing nobody else in the queue, could we have a b.l.a. report, please? >> yes. good morning. members of the committee, severin campbell from the budget analyst office. i'll be brief in our report. the board of supervisors is asked to approve the fifth amendment to the existing agreement between the sheriff's department and pretrial diversions. the contract increases the amount from a little less than $10 million to $15.9 million and increase of $5.9 million. if you look at our table, on table 3, page 7, it shows the increase. the budget for fiscal year 2021 is approximately $1.5 million more than expected expenditures in 19-20. it has also been talked about and this is driven by the increase in case loads due largely to the humphrey ruling.

there is an increase in staffing in the contract. we looked in detail at the budgeted 20-21 and found them to be reasonable and we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for -- seeing no one else in the queue. let's open up for public comments. are there any members of the public that would like to comment? >> madame chair, operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. let us know. please press 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, continue to wait until you're prompted to begin to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> please allow me a moment to check the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> i do have one caller. let me queue them up right now. >> supervisor fewer: thank you.

>> you have one question remaining. >> hi, good morning, supervisors. this is beverly upton with the san francisco domestic violence, i want to thank the supervisors, especially supervisor stefani for her leadership on this issue. certainly the good work of the sheriff's department. as we're having these corporation conferences i want to -- conversations, i want to draw a distinguish between anger management and domestic violence classes. they're two very different treatments. supervisor stefani alluded to this. we want to ensure we have direct programs that really fit the needs of folks that are going through pretrial diversion. and domestic violence is one of

the dangerous crimes that we see going through even more now in the pretrial diversion. and we want to make sure we have the services that really are required. there is so much difference between anger management class and domestic violence intervention class. where you have a targeted victim that is the target of repeated abuse rather than -- and usually someone who is more vulnerable, rather than a random anger management crime that could happen, you know, on the road or at work. so we're happy to work with the city on trying to make sure there are services available. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> announcer: you have zero questions remaining. >> madame chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. so i have -- public comment is now closed on item number 2. i had a few questions.

this is probably for maybe both of you. so i understand that the staffing and case loads are increased, but even more as a result of the covid-19. can you share a bit about what the impact has been on the work you do and the increase in terms of case load? mr. moira, maybe? >> okay. i wasn't sure. yes. definitely be happy to respond. and just to also a quick note based on beverly upton's comments which are really accurate and relevant. we do refer clients to d.v. classes and not just anger management. it's something we definitely keep a close eye on. given we're so involved in the charges and making sure that

treatment plans are relevant to those charges, it's something we use. but we're also open to exploring more partnerships. i'd like to have our strategic partnerships manager reach out. if there are other opportunities, we'd love to take advantage of them. as it relates to the covid, we've been fully operational. we did just -- we're managing staff differently to increase social distancing in the office, but we've been fully operational in the courts and the jails and also in the community. our case load since the end of february has increased by about -- since the state of emergency was declared, about -- by about 25%. a lot of that is in the a.c.m., the highest level of case management. so we're definitely working hard to make sure that we maintain contact with clients throughout the process. we have -- we're making phone calls. we've also implemented and

extended our text messaging capacity. clients are still dropping in at the office. we're still meeting clients as they're released from the jail and developing treatment plans to make sure that we have a program that meets their needs. and we're working with outside partner agencies referring to treatment beds as needed. we are using s.r.o. housing to make sure that homeless clients have a place to be. we also have got a really great -- a great opportunity from the adult probation for some additional housing which we're very grateful. so you know, it's really business as usual for us, except that, you know, people just can't drop into the office as frequently as they used to, even though they still do. we are definitely keeping on an eye on when the shelter-in-place is lifted to have programs to

meet the needs of the expanded case load. it's definitely something we'll be relying heavily on community partnerships in addition to our existing staff. if there is one thing about this contract extension, it does meet the needs of buffing which was increased staffing to meet the 24-7 requirement. and we're also looking to see how we can expand our capacity to meet the increased case load. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. and thank you for responding to ms. upton's concerns about the training -- i mean, the case management. and making the difference between domestic violence and also anger management. i was going to follow up on that, so thank you much. one other question. incarceration is a public health issue. we know a significant number of those in the jail have been identified with serious mental illness. what is the clinical capacity

and what is your -- serve the population? >> i could say there is definitely a need. we have a part-time staff psychiatrist that has a limited case load. then we also have a partnership through the sheriff and bureau of justice assistance funding, partnership with ucf city-wide, and we have a clinician that is housed in s.f. pretrial and our case management team does -- the really important part of that, that clinician is then able to access the database to look at the service history and make sure we're looking at where they've been successful and programs accessed to the past. i think it would be beneficial to enhance that relationship with d.p.h. i cannot say enough about the value of the partnership with

jail health and dr. pratt, we work with them extensively to make sure needs are identified and people are released into the community, we're following up to provide the adequate treatment and support. there is no doubt the jail is not a place to treat mental illness. so we really work closely with all the partners to make sure people are getting the treatment they need outside the jail, in the community, with again supervisor stefani's comments, just like any other public agency, that is our benchmark. even though we look at public safety, we don't carry guns, don't have badges, we do it from a place of big hearts, a lot of support and mandated treatment plan. that is always the main requirement we're looking at. how can we make sure our clients

have the support they need so we're protecting public safety and they're coming back to court? again, it's -- one of the things i've always been clear on, we really value partnerships and it's more important for us to build relationships with agencies that have clinical expertise versus necessarily doing it all ourselves. and again, the partnership with the sheriff's department has helped us realize that and it's something we're always working on. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. we've had public comment. heard from the b.l.a. no other comments from colleagues. i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. >> on that motion, supervisor walton aye. supervisor mandelman aye. chair fewer aye. your ayes are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. madame clerk, can you call item number 3?

>> yes. item number 3, authorizing the department of emergency management on behalf of the city, urban areas, initiative, to accept and expand -- increase the grant in the amount of $606,000 for $427 million. to the u.s. department of homeland security and the office of emergency services for the period of september 1, 2019 through may 31, 2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the 88 numbered on then press one and zero to line up to speak. >> supervisor fewer: we have the department of emergency management. >> good morning, supervisors. mary landers with the department

of emergency management. the proposed resolution in front of you provide for an increase in fiscal year -- federal fiscal year 2019, urban area initiative grant fund in the amount of 602,500 providing a total award for the bay area of $24.7 million. the additional fund provided by california office of emergency services will be used for a statewide risk management project. and i'm happy to try to answer any questions you might have. >> supervisor fewer: i think one is, what is the statewide risk management project? >> sure. so in at least since 2011, there are -- currently there are six urban areas in the state of california. and since 2011, the san diego urban area has managed this program.

and it's using a contractor, they have -- they create databases. they identify critical infrastructure. the contractor has provided consulting services to help them draft their stakeholder preparedness report, also known as s.p.r. and the threat hazard identification and risk assessment, also called thira. and they help the six urban areas. there are two currently unfunded urban areas that are also assisted as well providing services to the state of california. >> supervisor fewer: in this, i'm looking at -- so this is against the threat of terrorism? >> yes, these are terrorism prevention grants, so yes but by the same token, they serve dual

purposes. should there be an event, we have the city -- san francisco bay area as well as all the other urban areas, should there be some kind of explosion, earthquake, anything that would cause the same damage to a building, to a structure, it also serves that -- what they call dual purpose. >> supervisor fewer: and this additional $600,000 is not just for san francisco, but for the entire bay area, is that correct? >> it's for the entire state, supervisor. >> supervisor fewer: yes. so the total grant award is over $24 million, almost $25 million, is that correct? >> correct. so what happened was the -- when the department submitted its budget, they use the previous

year's award to insert into the budget. apparently there was discussion, because the funds don't coincide, our fiscal year is different than the government fiscal year, they had received information or knowledge that san diego was not going to continue managing this program. and so tristan r revardo, in orr to manage this statewide program, the funding turned out to be an additional $602,000 from what we had estimated. few so that's why we're coming before you today. >> supervisor fewer: okay. and i just want to point out, nobody from your office actually reached out in advance -- we could have answered these

questions probably before this hearing, but no one reached out to us about this item. there is no -- i see no people in the queue. let's open it up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 3? >> madame chair, operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. if you have not already done so, press 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait until you're prompted to begin at the beep. >> madame chair, allow me a moment to check the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> there are no callers wishing to speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. having heard that, public comment is now closed. colleagues, any comments or questions for ms. landers? seeing -- yes? i see president yee.

>> president yee: yes, thank you. so can you -- if this needs saying grant we received in the bay area which was administered by alameda county? >> i think it was urban shield, president. >> president yee: is this the same source of funding? >> president yee, yes, you're correct. this is the same source of funding, but we no longer have the urban shield program and that training and exercise program is now administered through the city and county of san francisco with a consultant and utilizing some city employees staff to handle the administrative aspects of it.

they have regional meetings and are reporting back to us. but you're correct, the urban area security initiative program is the program that to which you refer. >> president yee: so is this -- so san francisco has taken over the bay area contract, i guess -- >> it's a new contract, yes. >> president yee: so is this additional responsibility in terms of being the fiscal agent? or is this just the bay area? it's not california, right? >> it is for the whole state, president yee. >> president yee: are there two contracts we're talking about, or is the same thing? because there was a smaller contract for the bay area in which i think we took over. is this a different one?

we're going to be fiscal sponsor? >> yes, president yee. this is a different contract. completely different contract. >> president yee: so we're administering a statewide one and a bay area-wide one? >> you are correct. >> president yee: okay. just want to be clear about that. are we using the same mechanism or the same sort of system to administer the state one this month, according to what we're looking at, as we are with the bay area fiscal sponsor? yes. >> yes. we will have follow the city's

purchasing requirements, put out an r.f.p., manage that contract, it will be a separate contract and then we'll report through the same mechanism that we use currently -- if i'm understanding your question -- we'll answer -- we'll provide the contracts and that contract will as funds are expended, we will then submit reimbursements requests, these are all reimbursement grants. if that's what your question is. >> president yee: yeah, okay. the other question i have, in this state contract with the department of homeland security, through that contract does it have any similar activity like urban? >> no, absolutely not. >> president yee: okay. thank you very much.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you, president yee. i think we're all kind of wondering that. so, no people on the queue. i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. could i have a roll call vote, please? >> on that motion, supervisor walton? supervisor walton? supervisor mandelman aye. chair fewer aye. supervisor walton, are you there? >> aye, sorry. >> that is three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. can you call item number 4? >> item number 4, resolution authorizing that the properties exercise lease amendments for leases ov

leases. for services at k.l.w. investment and to expire on june 30, 2025 for monthly base with increasing 3% a year. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this should call the number on the screen, enter the code and then press 0 and 1 to speak. >> supervisor fewer: i see that also item number 5. let's call item number 5 with item number 4. >> item number 5, authorizing the properties exercise an option to extend a lease of property located at 2 wall street for office space for a five-year term commencing on

july 1, 2020 and expiring on june 30, 2025 at the monthly base rent of $61,000 for annual base rent of $734,000, with base rent increasing at 3% per year. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (888) 204-5984. access code, 3501008 and then press one and then zero to speak. >> supervisor fewer: today we have our director of real estate and h.s.a. >> good morning, chair fewer. president yee, supervisors. director of real estate. i'm here before you this morning seeking your positive recommendation on three leases, two are under item number 4 and one under item number 5. i'll go through each one.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> sorry, i'm having a little technical difficulty in changing the slide. with regards to item number 4, this is a renewal of two existing leases, one at 3119 street, 3119 mission street and 3120 mission street. we have 11,000 square feet at 3119. we have 39,000 square feet at 3120 mission. both of these locations are used by h.s.a. they provide child welfare services, public benefit to families and there is a training workforce development center and hiring call on site. the initial term for both of these leases was five years. we're now before you with the five-year extension which would

start july 1, 2020 and run through 2025. the grant will be -- $48.45 per square foot per year. through appraisal we determined this is at or below 95% of fair market value. there is 3% escalator in the lease year over year. these costs approximate $3.58 per square foot at a blended rate for both buildings. that is my presentation for item number 4. if i may, i'll go to item number 5? >> supervisor fewer: please. >> item number 5 is again the renewal of an existing lease at 2 gough street. we have approximately 14,000 square feet. this location is also used by

h.s.a. they provide -- they house the department of disabilities and aging services. they service older adults, adults with disabilities and veterans. they provide benefits and a resource hub in this location often includes a public drop-in center. again, the initial term was five years. the renewal term is five years starting july 1, 2020 through 2025. the appraisal determined that $52.75 is at or below fair market value. this lease has a 3% escalator year over year. also the city is responsible for utilities, custodial and operating expenses. those expenses are currently running $9-10 per square foot per year. i'd like to thank the mayor for

her sponsorship of both these items and thank the b.l.a. for their work and we accept their recommendations on all three of these leases. i, and robert walsh from h.s.a., are available to answer any questions that you may have. that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i'm hearing echo. okay. the b.l.a. report, please? >> chair fewer, members of the committee, the item number 4 is approving a lease between h.s.a. and investments for 3119 and 3120 mission street. these are actually -- this is the first -- these are five-year extension of three options. it would increase the rent to

approximately $48.45 per square foot. this was deemed to be within fair market rent. if you look at the table on page 12 of the report, the total lease amount over the five-year term would be $14 million. we gave consideration to these to be reasonable and are recommending approval. and then item number 5 is a lease extension, five years through 2025, between the department of disability and aging services and for 2 gough street. this is for programs at that site extended to 2025. it would increase the rent to approximately 51. -- $52.70 per square foot which is within the estimate by colliers international over the term of the agreement, the total leasing cost would be $4.5 million.

we show this on page 15 of the report. we consider these terms to be reasonable and we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. i see no colleagues on the queue. any members of the public like to comment on item number 4 or 5? >> madame chair, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if there are callers that are ready, if you have not already done so, press 1 and 0 to be added to the queue. those who are on hold, continue to wait. >> madame chair, allow me a moment to check the queue. >> supervisor fewer: yes, thank you. >> madame chair, there are no callers wishing to the speak. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. public comment for items 4 and 5 are closed. i just have a question.

can you explain why we're finalizing this lease extension now for five years, while commercial rent market may be changing significantly in the next coming months? >> thank you, chair fewer. that is an excellent question. i'll try to address it without being too long winded. you're absolutely right. all indications are that the economy is heading for a downturn, but it's driven by a health crisis and not a natural market cycle. what this means for the market in san francisco over the long term is unknowable at this time. in my opinion, it's going to take 6-12 months for the markets to stabilize. so the real question that you pose is, should we be exercising a five-year option or should we

be looking at holding over for 6-12 months, let the market stabilize and see where we are? obviously there are risks on both sides. if the market goes up, we may find ourselves in worse condition than we are now. as you know, holdover comes at a cost. it has to be agreed to by the landlord and that price is negotiated, while in the lease option, is by contract and by right. on the other hand, if the market goes down significantly during that holdover period, we might be able to see savings. however, we might have to move locations in order to capture those savings if the landlord isn't willing to lease long-term at the lower rate. so those move costs could also eat up savings. i guess the real answer i would give you is that i believe we

should make leasing decisions based upon short-term market changes. we should look to the long-term, look to see whether or not over the five years, this lease at this location at this rate makes sense for the city. in the future, if there are discounted rents, the city will be able to take advantage of those rents as we're negotiating new leases. i hope that answers your question. >> supervisor fewer: yeah. i know that it is difficult to -- i mean we've had recessions before and we have seen a downturn in the market frankly. and this lease is at the highest peak of the market that we've seen actually. so this is why i have concern. i see supervisor mandelman in the queue. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm kind of wondering what the

timing constraints on this are, if we have to -- if there is a reason we would need to forward this today? i'm also wondering if the assessments of fair market rent, whether this is fair market value predate whether there has been any sort of analysis of market changes or whether all the analysis is from before covid? >> i'm sorry, chair fewer. would you like me to respond? >> supervisor fewer: yes, please. >> the appraisals are before the shelter-in-place, if that's what you mean by before covid-19. there haven't yet been analysis in the marketplace. we're still a little too soon. if you look at it, it's only

been two months since the coronavirus has really affected the bay area markets starting with our shelters in place. that will come. with regard to timing, the current lease expires june 30, so our only options are to exercise our five-year extension, or as i indicated earlier to hold over. >> supervisor mandelman: what are appraisers who have to appraise property now? how are they -- are they factoring in? what are they saying in their appraisal? >> in large part, they're doing comparison appraisals and they're basing it on the information that is current in the market. there is no way for the appraiser to know today whether or not or how much the market is going to go down.

they can't appraise value based upon future speculative transactions. they appraise on what has happened in the past. so appraisals by their very nature are somewhat backward-looking. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor mandelman, are you finished or do you have more questions? >> supervisor mandelman: i'm good for now. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair. i want to thank you for line of questioning and appraisals are fundamentally a backward-looking science, but given the

uncertainty at this time -- and i'm getting terrible rverb, i would respectfully suggest we wait and see what the market conditions come. at this point i would take the gamble on the holdover. for what it's worth. i'm not a member of this committee. >> supervisor fewer: we realize that. hmm. so, it's up in june, that is correct? >> that's correct. >> supervisor fewer: so we have a little time on this, is that correct? >> yes, we do, assuming that we can get agreement on holdover. my only concern is that we have basically the month of may and the month of june. with this late date we're

somewhat over a barrel because at the end of june, it would be to pay what the landlord demands or move. so our bargaining position is a little -- not as strong as i would like it to be under normal circumstances and that's in part because we've gone down a path of extension lease renewal and not a holdover. typically, when you have a holdover situation, it's because you've already planned your exit. and because of other factors, that exit can't be exercised in a timely way. so you hold over for some short period of time and you're willing to pay a premium for the holdover knowing you have a new home to go to. so short-term pain for long-term gain. here, we don't have that

planning in place, so i would hesitant not knowing what our options look like. >> supervisor fewer: a gamble here. these sites have been well established over the years and to move it suddenly in the middle of a disaster, it would be difficult for h.s.a. and for our clients to weather that. so just a note.

>> supervisor fewer: sure. we also just received a briefing on the financial affairs. as you know, we're going into -- i mean continually, our recession, and huge budget deficits coming in the next year or two. so this $14 million, we could get a better contract, it would -- we're in it for the long game. i'm wondering, if we were to continue this item for a week, would that -- upon more discussion, do you think that would in any way harm your ability to do this deal? >> no, madame chair fewer. what i can take back to the landlord is your comments that they are looking for a more favorable lease rate, if that's what i'm hearing. >> supervisor fewer: right. >> and use that as a bargaining

chip to have a further discussion with the landlord. with the idea that if those negotiations do not bear fruit, we could revisit the lease extension. >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> or explore other alternatives. >> supervisor fewer: sure. i think that would be great. if you would do that, i think it would be -- i think it would be beneficial to the city and county of san francisco. there is no harm in trying. i would assume that the landlord will be -- san francisco of great need. so if you would do that, i think that would be great. i will make a motion to continue this item until the budget and finance meeting of next week. i'd like to make a motion to move items 5 and 6, continue them to -- i'm sorry --

>> 4 and 5. >> supervisor fewer: 4 and 5. yes. if we could continue items 4 and 5 and make a motion to continue items 4 and 5 until the next budget and finance meeting and we're going to see if he can speak to the landlord and landowner and see if he might be willing to accommodate maybe less. roll call vote? on the motion, walton aye. mandelman aye. fewer aye. there ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. can you call item number 6? >> item 6, resolution urging city partners to authorize additional funds and support to their contracted nonprofit homeless service providers including guaranteed free

testing through increased contract amounts and flexible contract spending. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number on your screen, access code, and then press 1 and 0 to speak. >> supervisor fewer: we have supervisor matt haney, and the department of homelessness and supportive housing. supervisor? >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair it fewer. and thank you to the committee and especially also to your staff at chelsea for working with my office and with the bla to get a policy. i want to thank the bla for their detailed report and also h.s.h., gigi and emily and their team for being proactive and leaning to get more funds and for being here to answer our

questions and explore how we can do more. the covid-19 crisis has underscored our reliance on frontline service staff and contracted services to our most vulnerable residents. it requires us to think hard about the sustainability and coordination of the frontline response. when the shelter in place order was placed, one of the first things we heard it was people were afraid to come to work, especially those making close to minimum wage. for some, they were worried about transmitting the virus to their family which they felt was too great, choosing sick leave as an option. of course, the question of sustainability of our contracted frontline services is not unique to covid, and there are much larger structural issues at play, but i wanted to make sure that we as a board during this

time consider these questions and figure out how to address a chronic underfunding of service contracts during this crisis. the same providers have incurred unanticipated covid costs, providing more meals to their clients and staff on site, subsidizing transportation due to cuts in public transit, buying masks and cleaning supplies and to my knowledge, the extent of those costs is not known. the resolution today is not only about incentive pay, it's about how we support our frontline workers and services for the most vulnerable san franciscans, which includes widespread testing in our shelters and congregate housing to keep our vulnerable populations and workers safe. and ultimately to keep our whole city safe. my hope is that we can learn more about the decisions behind the additional funds already added to h.s.h. contracts, identify where gaps exist and opportunities to continue to

augment those service contracts by using the general fund savings for the department of homelessness and support housing. thank you again, chair fewer. and the committee for hearing the item. i believe we have emily and gigi here from h.s.h. as well as b.l.a. >> supervisor fewer: emily? >> good morning, chair fewer -- afternoon now. other members of the board, emily cohen from the department of homelessness and supportive housing. i have a brief presentation i'll share with you and gigi whitley, our deputy director of admin and finance is available to answer questions. let me share my screen here. we can get going. as supervisor haney mentioned,

the homeless response system is on the front line of the covid response for some of our most vulnerable residents. and our nonprofit partners who run the city-funded programs are hero heroes. they're every day putting themselves on the front line in danger and doing it because this is part of their organization's mission and calling as it is ours at the department of homelessness. and we really value the partnership with the non-profits. there is no way to maintain our existing services and expand them to hotels without strong partnerships. what i want to talk about today, some of the steps h.s.h. has taken to support our partners through the crisis, but i also want to frame this constitutidin a way that recognizes this is a

city-wide thing. this is not just one department's work. there are many others on the front line of the response. so just keeping that in mind as we think about the whole city's response to the covid-19 crisis. we have done four big areas of support for our non-profit partners, including contract augmentation to help maintain essential services, child care, testing, which is now expanded more broadly across the city, but we began this sort of early on. and then hotels. so h.s.h. is providing $500,000 a month in flexible funding during the shelter-in-place order to support our providers in performing essential

services. this funding is intended to support the lowest wage employees within our non-profit organizations with multiple goals, to keep these essential programs open and operating. when i say essential programs, i want to be clear we're talking about shelters, we're talking about drop-in centers. we're talking about outreach. we're talking about the things that are really critical to providing services. housing navigation. et cetera. and the goal -- the way we structured this contract augmentation, the goal was to allow the non-profits the flexibility they need to address their staffing needs. we wanted to make sure while the focus of the funding augmentation was on the lowest paid most frontline employees, people who cannot do their work from home, but we also wanted to give each non-profit flexibility to address because we know everyone's situations are a little bit different.

we've also made current year contract savings available to help. in addition to new funding, we are allowing our non-profit partners or working with them to use contract savings more flexably. child care, we've been working closely with the city's child care program to ensure that our front line workers have access to this resource as well. so far, 63 staff have taken advantage of that service. testing, so the city did launch its first project and we made it immediately available to -- and when it was available to contractors, we started working with our non-profits to utilize this. we know having easy access to testing is essential for our workforce. and not only does that help

reduce the spread of virus and keep us all safe, but keeps our workforce moving. so as folks know, this city is available to all san francisco residents who are symptomatic. so we want to make sure as soon as our workforce is demonstrating symptoms, they're available to access testing. alternative housing, as you all are well aware, because of all the work we're doing on hotels, a portion of those hotels are for front line staff or first responders. and we have made that resource available as well. not only for homeless response system staff who might be under investigation for covid or have tested positive for covid, but also for those who are sort of unable and unlikely to be able to show up to work consistently without additional housing support. so for folks who are commuting really long distances, et cetera, which we know is the

reality and especially with the changes to public transportation, this has become a more pressing need for our staff. additionally, we've increased janitorial services to our non-profit partners, increased meals, increased cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment for essential staff. it's rolling out as we speak. supervisor haney, your office asked me to cover a little bit about the state and federal funding that is coming in to help support a lot of the work that we're doing. we certainly know -- there certainly is some state and federal support, although it's -- the picture is still very unclear about whether -- what this will cover and we do not believe this will fully cover the extent of the need in our community. we have brought in over $6 million in state resources to

support sort of non-fema reimbursable expenses and then $5.5 million in emergency solutions grants at the federal level to support additional shelter and outreach costs. that is the conclusion of my presentation. gigi and i are both happy to answer any questions that the committee might have. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, supervisor fewer and i just want to chime in and just say that this revolution is important and it is -- resolution is important and it is to support our frontline non-profit workers and making sure they're safe and adequately compensated for the services they provide during this crisis. as you know and a lot of our community knows, we rely on these workers and cannot continue to provide these essential services without them.

and just to emily's point, we actually did receive an update in our early budget meeting session in terms of what costs would be reimbursed by the federal government and the state. and so i am more confident that making sure that we provide the report that this resolution calls for is important, but also that we can actually cover the costs within supporting this resolution. so i just wanted to make sure that we put that on record, because i think the services they provide are important. and we need to make sure that everyone is taken care of while they're working to keep our communities whole. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. president yee? >> president yee: thank you, chair fewer. so clarification for me, the

earlier -- earlier in the discussions about how we're responding to the pandemic several weeks ago, i forgot who actually mentioned it, at the time a supervisor mentioned that the non-profit contracts that we have is working with the homeless in the shelters. they were willing to volunteer at these hotels or willing to move the whole operation over, and i mean, is that still true that they're willing? is it more they're willing only if we get additional pay? the second -- other question is then if we're to approve this --

maybe the b.l.a. will give us the answer, but what would the cost to the city? one is for clarification and the other is to know the real cost. >> supervisor fewer: if i may respond to just that. president yee, this is an urging resolution, so there is fiscal or financial analysis of this. i believe also that the legislation also mentioned peoples who are not city contracted don't have city contracts with us. so that leaves a whole bunch of contract also. i don't think it's in the purview for the committee to send this out with a positive recommendation, because we're not recommending any fiscal or financial decision. and that is what the budget committee is supposed to be doing. it is appropriate, though, for

us to vote on this at the full board meeting as an urgent resolution. if you'd like, i can -- i see supervisor haney in the queue. would you mind waiting on your comment until we hear from the b.l.a.? >> supervisor haney: of course. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. so president yee, would you -- i answered part of the question. i don't think the first part of your question was answered. >> president yee: yeah. again, the first part of the question, or the first question was really for clarification. i want to know what the lay of the land is. and who is the dumb president of the board who assigned this item to the budget? >> supervisor fewer: [laughter] i don't know. so, could we have the b.l.a. report, please? >> good afternoon, chair fewer.

this is the budget and legislative analyst office. i do have some slides prepared to present summary of our report. would you like me to present that? >> supervisor fewer: please. >> okay. >> you can see my slides now? >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> so the request -- so the report was on extended pay for non-profit essential service providers during the covid-19 health crisis. the report was put together in response to a request from supervisor fewer's office that we review department practices for adjusting pay to non-profit contracts delivering essential services during the shelter-in-place order. our analysis folk focused on a

subset for those economically disadvantaged, and those most vulnerable. we contacted four departments, including homelessness and supportive housing. the department of children, youth and their families and human services agency to help determine what covid-19-related adjustment, if any, have been made to contracts for service providers related to salary. we investigated if any city department for incented pay for workers providing essential services and the criteria for providing such pay. so in the process of putting this report together, it came to our attention that there has been city-wide guidance put out by the controller's office that was put out in march an updated on april 4 to address the

continuity of payment to non-profit suppliers and among other things, allow non-profit suppliers the flexibility to adjust contract budgets to accommodate new needs and adaptations to service models, including existing costs such as salaries. also recommended budget flexibility within current contract amounts, but does not establish specific criteria for allocations to non-profit providers, although it did recommend that departments establish burdensome procedures and review of budget assessment. in our review we found that all the departments we contacted are operating with this guidance. high level summary of the findings. to date the majority of covid-19-related contract adjustments we have found and made by homelessness and supportive housing and the human service agency, we found that

city departments offering services stated they're providing funding for intended -- were not providing incentive pay. they told us they're allowing for budget flexibility for changes in need and service delivery models, including items like salaries. and all the departments contacted are allowing for that flexibility consistent with controller's recommendations. the department of homelessness and supportive housing, as you heard from a few moments ago is providing much of this funding. the department told us they're providing $511,000 per month in additional flexible funding for contractor providers on a month by month basis. the source of the funding for

this is approximately $2 million in projected general fund savings from the controller's six-month report that came out in february. and funding is being provided by the department in part because -- the department of homelessness and supportive housing grant terms and conditions do not require contractors to serve as "emergency workers". this contrasts with department of public health contractors who have a clause in their contract that require them -- their workers to act as emergency workers in a declared public health emergency. so department of homelessness and supportive housing staff determined that workers providing the services typically earned $24 an hour or less. h.s.h. staff reviewed each contract to determine the department's portion of the salary cost for each fte, direct

service position making that amount or less and then multiplying that by 120%. so basically increasing those wages by 20% for the public health crisis. h.s.h. staff used this amount to determine an overall monthly increase and set $1,000 as a minimum a provider would receive per month. on this slide, you'll see table one from the report that summarizes the funding adjustments and the number of ftes. that's providing $500,000 in monthly payments. that's based on 817ftes that make $24 an hour or less. we included the service providers and programs receiving additional funding with the monthly amounts noted for each

in an apen dix to the report. h.s.h. staff noted that they have not made any -- h.s.a., the other department with the bulk of the changes noted they have not made formal adjustments to their contracts that include incentive pay, but they're adjusting pay with hotel and service workers. but h.s.a. staff they're not categorized as incentive pay. h.s.a. is providing -- recruiting non-profit and staff who are providing less essential work to serve as site monitors. as part of that work, they're offering to pay the difference

between an employee's current wages and the standard $24 an hour to monitor the site jobs which aligns with the h.s.h. amount. about 40-50 interested staff for the hotel monitor position. the number of hours, staff and wages are still determined by h.s.a. staff. staff estimated that the cost per employee would be at most approximately $3,000 between now and the end of the fiscal year. h.s.a. staff are projecting the need for about a little over 500 staff, many of whom they said would be city employees who are serving disastrous service workers and h.s.a. staff report that the portion of the staffing is just one piece of a larger recruitment effort. h.s.a. is also increasing funding for the providers of the h.s.h. program, to support them

in providing continuity of care for ihss clients and to provide care to those who may have had their arrangement interrupted. they say this increase will cost approximately $200,000 per month on -- actually $200,000 total april through june of this year. and they do -- the department does anticipate receiving some federal and state reimbursement as this $2 an hour bump in pay is in alignment with guidance from the department of state and social services. d.p.h. staff stated they're continuing to follow the controller's guidance, specifically d.p.h. staff are continuing continuity of payments to providers regardless of deliverable or allowing for

contractor flexibility to reallocate dollars within existing contract amounts. d.p.h. staff is aware of one contractor so far that at their -- at the contractor's own discretion that used existing savings to provide additional payments to direct service workers. staff stated they're also following the controller's guidance and it's their policy to augment and cover additional pay for staff working in the field, providing essential services through the end of june. food distribution and material distribution.

>> we did include one policy option for the committee and i guess the board of supervisors to consider. that is that the board could consider requesting the controller's office or our office to report periodically on the department's procedures or additional costs of providing flexibility including incentive pay to non-profit direct service providers to meet essential needs due to covid-19 public health crisis. that concludes my presentation. and i'm available for questions if there are any. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you for that presentation. i have a couple of questions for h.s.h. and i guess these will be directed to emily. i noted as part of the needs assessment, the decision was

made to provide support to a certain programs and certain types of staff. and i wonder if you could talk a bit more about how the decisions were made. i've heard, for example, that c.h.b. has two programs that are receiving additional support, housing partnership. they have supportive housing sites in district 6 alone. we've heard from them they have 100 direct staff, but the augmentation covering approximately 25 staff. how are these decisions made about who to cover and which programs? >> through the chair, i'm actually going to invite my colleague gigi wittily to respond to this question, but we did look at the specific time of work identified as being sort of on the front line.

but i will defer to gigi to go through the further explanation. >> i was on mute. forgive me. gigi whitley, department of homelessness and supportive housing. i'm the deputy director of finance. supervisor haney, what we did was we took all of our data that we have from our approved contract budget, quickly tried to get that into a database format and ran analysis to try to figure out really what the breakdown throughout the h.s.h. workforce was and direct service

workers. what we were hearing early on from providers, where they were most concerned about frontline workers who couldn't work remotely and were asked to come into work, run shelters, transitional housing sites, food sites throughout the portfolio. that was the problem statement we were trying to address. there was a clear delineation in the data between folks making $24 an hour and under. and then salaried non-profit staff, management staff, administrative staff, more of the professional staff worker. most of the frontline workers, if not all of them, fell under that $24 per hour sort of framing in the data. we then made sure that we captured all sorts of job

classes, from cook to case manager to desk clerk, et cetera. and then allocated 120% by contract by that workforce. and as the b.l.a. report shows, you know that is over 800 direct front-line workers that are benefitting from this. we let our programs know if they had salary savings, they had concerns that management staff was going above and beyond the call of duty and they wanted to reward them in some way, we would be flexible. we said finally, that if we missed anyone in our analysis to let us know. your example from one of the providers, we said, please let us know, did we fail to capture anything? one of the things we heard back, you captured everyone on the contracts, but we have other

workers working throughout the agency that you're not paying for and that is really a policy call for both the mayor and the board to decide if they're going to provide additional pay for workers that aren't performing on city funded contracts and sending funded services. so i'm happy to answer additional questions. that's a brief overview. >> that answers my questions. i appreciate that. i did want to flag the issue of staff not on city-funded contracts. and i think that the -- the requirement -- or the input we give or the policy consideration that we have for as a board is important there. i'm wondering if a city contractor is not -- if someone is funded but it's not majority from the city, are they mandated

to follow the kind of requirements or the formulas that are being put forward as a part of this augmented funding? >> so, through the chair, i'm not sure, supervisor, if i understand your question. this was how we based the allocation, but it's up to the individual organization to use that, plus any salary savings or other savings in their contract to make those determinations how they're going to allocate resources. if they're bring in other staff that work on programs, they have that flexibility. i think the other thing to consider, too, you mentioned in the beginning of your remarks, that our non-profit contractors are incurring costs for additional supplies, meals, janitorial. other things to support the client. we are funding that in and above

this additional augmentation. so we also made that clear to providers, this isn't something they need to absorb because we're hoping those costs will be reimbursable. >> supervisor haney: with the unallocated costs -- unaccounted for costs, additional costs, when you say we're going over and above that, are we tracking those additional costs that they're being made responsible for now? and how do we know what we're providing for them with these augmentations is more than the additional costs they're taking on? >> so, we are tracking it. we've set up additional employees and instructions. we do need to know what they're spending on covid-related costs. and so all they need to do is call their contract analyst or e-mail them, let them know what

is going on, their agency. and just provide the documentation and let us know. i mean, i think we've tried -- we did an -- a shower expansion, hand-washing. we don't want the agencies to absorb the costs. we want to know the costs and get reimbursed for them through our various funding sources. if folks are confused, they can reach out to me or their analyst. >> supervisor haney: great. thank you. appreciate it. chair fewer, i also believe that the recommendation from the b.l.a. would be really important to include in the ongoing reporting around the assessment of what additional financial

support is being made available i think makes a lot of sense. i know there may be other public comment, but that's the end of my questioning, thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other questions from colleagues? let's open this up for public comment. any members comment on item 6? >> we're having technical difficulty with the public comment line. can we please hear the next item and come back to that item and allow our staff time to fix the issue. >> yes, please call item number 7. ordinance appropriating $17 million for hotel rooms for covid-19 self-isolation units. asking the controller to reduce appropriation and return funds to the general reserve.

members who wish to provide public comment on the item should call the number on the screen, enter access code and then press 1 and 0 to speak. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair fewer. and thank you for your willingness to schedule this item. i want to thank president yee for waiving the 30-day rule. and i want to start by saying that i realize that the magnitude of the impending budget crisis is not lost on this supervisor or the chair of the budget committee and i completely understand chair fewer's admonition that we do our best to not spend money out of the general fund reserves and

emergency funds. the magnitude of cuts that will be forth coming to the months and years ahead. i felt that this issue rises to the level and let me say a little bit about it. i think every member of the board of supervisors is painfully aware of one of the thankfully few areas of friction during the covid-19 crisis between the legislative and executive branches of government and the board of supervisors has with regard to the issue around obtaining significant numbers of vacant hotel rooms in san francisco for individuals experiencing covid-19, individuals who are vulnerable to covid-19 from congregate sites, including s.r.o.s and

homeless shelters, as well as individuals who on the streets of san francisco and the board has been very clear about that and of course as we all know, the pace of those acquisitions has not been. for a number of reasons and i'm happy to admit the complexity of them, but we are still woefully short of the mayor's goal of 7,000 rooms and the board of supervisors' unanimous goal of 8250 rooms. we'll hear from the budget analyst. average room rate of $237 which includes meals and staffing that would be 1200 rooms for two

months. another expression of that, if you use the same financial metrics of 8250 rooms for a month. that is about $60 million a month. and as you heard in your earliest presentation at the budget and finance committee, given the fema and state reimbursement rates for most of the populations that we're seeking to house, you can see the $17.8 million as a local match for 8250 rooms. that would be for a five-month period as a rate of approximately $3.67 million a month. but the other reason i wanted to have this exercise and i've been very clear with chair fewer that in addition to addressing the policy that the board has

repeatedly voted for, is that i think it's -- i say this as a supervisor who went through the 2008 recession -- very important for everything to be put on the table. members of the budget committee and all the members of the individuals. rather than seeking funds from the general fund reserve, i would like to ultimately make amendments. i will not do that today. that is really based on a number of policy considerations. in the face of our impending downturn and the downturn that we've already seen and the budget cuts that we are inevitably going to have to make, what are the priorities?

what things were put on reserve by the budget committee or the full board of supervisors that have not been released from reserves? what new programs that were in the current fiscal year budget have not yet been implemented or have been delayed or have been cancelled? for instance, if you look through -- i know this is not possible for my colleagues. across not only the individual supervisors, but the city wide, you will see there is money, funds for specific events that have been cancelled. collectively we need to undertake that exercise in making appropriate cuts and understanding what the tradeoffs are.

reminding reminding -- i'm going to throw this out to the committee as food for thought. but if we look at the excess eraf spending plan for the current fiscal year, there -- i think we should all look down that list. it is a large list that is a quarter of a billion dollars plus another $52 million so over a quarter of a billion dollars as it relates to the special educator reserves. so i think all of these are going to be tough ones, but i

don't know, for instance, -- and we need to delve into the level of detail as the budget folks call it, but let's look at whether or not we need the entire amount of money for free city college given their current financial situation. it is our high level analysis that there may be $2 million there that does not jeopardize the program. there are additional things that are on committee reserve, for instance, $4.4 million that were put on committee reserve for furniture, fixtures and equipment. there is $7 million for the acquisition of new child care facilities. those are all discretionary funds. i wanted to throw that out to the committee at a high level. happy to have those discussions

now and in the future. and just if you look at projects with reserves in the current year budget, that constitutes an additional $40 million whether it's real estate capital improvements, o.e.w.d. projects, some furniture or fixtures or equipment for fire station 5, the housing trust fund, and the other $4.4 million in furniture, fixtures and equipment that i previously referenced. i don't want to do these cuts arbitrarily. i think we should do them pursuant to a set of policy rationales, but i think we should all have that conversation. of course, the other information that we heard earlier today is based on the fema and cal oes

reimbur reimbursements, that are clearly other sources of funds and that was heartening news. madame chair, i turn it back over to you and the budget and legislative analysis and i want to thank you for allowing this to be scheduled today. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> members of the committee, the ordinance appropriates $17 million from the general reserve. as supervisor peskin pointed out, we based on our estimate on $237 per day per room. we took this from existing hotel contracts that human services agency has and some other existing expenditures they have. the actual cost per room will vary as the city enters into more contracts and refines their existing services. but based on $237 per day, with eestimated that -- we estimated

that amount of money could fund 1200 hotel rooms for two months. approval is a matter for the board of supervisors. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. madame clerk, how are we doing on the public comment line? >> yes, madame chair. we're still working on fixing the technical issue. public members interested in commenting, please do call back at this time. and madame chair, could we recess the meeting for perhaps 5-10 minutes to allow our staff to fix the issue? >> supervisor fewer: absolutely. so i'd like to recess this meeting. it is now 12:45. i'd like to recess until 12:55. thank you very much. re are any

callers that are ready? >> yes, madame, chair. i have callers in the queue. i'll queue the first caller. >> supervisor fewer: do they know we're taking public comment on item number 7 now? >> i do not know. we can see what the caller is speaking on. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> you have three questions remaining. hello. hi, we're taking public comment on item number 7 now.

>> caller, can you hear us? hello, sir? can you hear us? >> yes. >> you may begin your public comment, sir. >> i'm sorry. i'm for 6. i'm not sure how to get out of the queue. >> if you just press one and 0 to exit the queue, this is public comment for item number 7 first. >> okay, thanks. sorry, chair fewer. >> supervisor fewer: oh, no, thank you. >> i will queue the next caller. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> announcer: you have two questions remaining. >> hello, caller we're taking public comment on item number 7.

>> announcer: you have two questions remaining. >> hi, i'm sorry. i'm waiting for item number 6. i wasn't heard then. >> supervisor fewer: okay. madame clerk, may i take public comment for item number 6 and 7 at this time? >> yes, madame chair. callers who are interested in commenting on items number 6 and 7, please do call (888) 204-5 4 (888) 204-5984, access code, and press 1 and then 0 to speak. >> supervisor fewer: caller, please comment on item number 6. our apologies for the glitches.

>> is it me? should i go on? >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> thank you, supervisor. thank you, supervisor fewer and the committee. my name is connie board and i happen to be -- i was the o.p.e.i. with you secretary treasurer. i am still a member and i'm urging you in terms of number 6 to provide on site covid testing for all the workers and residents as they work in these shelters, homeless centers, et cetera, and are feeling unprotected. they also deserve non-profit incentive pay. these are people -- these are people who are front-line workers in a very difficult situation, are very low paid,

are mostly people of color. i used to call them and i still consider them the heart and soul of opeiu. these are people, a lot of them who have formerly been homeless and worked themselves up. and then read the paper and see what was in msc south, which was horrible and disgusting. and they had to shut that down. they all want to be tested. and each of them who are working today deserves an incentive pay. i can't urge you enough to make this a consideration, front-line workers are front-line workers and these people need the front-line workers support as much if not more than the rest of the workers. thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> you have seven questions remaining.

>> hello, speaker. >> hi. i'm co-chair of the housing providers network and codirector at fish, the supportive housing. thank you for hearing this item. and to you and the controller and the budget director, and the rest of the city family for your work in this crazy time. supportive housing providers network as you may know include the non-profits and all of the city's supportive housing. so we stand in full support of this resolution. we certainly agree that supportive housing and homeless services staff is essential and necessary. in order to keep supportive housing safe, clean and thriving, we've had to temporarily increase pay for site staff. that incentive pay has kept some staff going and brought much other needed staff back to the

workplace. for many of the essential staff, they have unexpected new expens expenses. the money allocated so far covers less than 25% of the cost of incentive pay and often far less. without incentive pay we would not be able to keep the doors open. without the city funding based on actual need, actual expenditures, we will not be able to continue to deliver the services that the city has mandated as essential during shelter in place. we're grateful for supervisor haney and his off, supervisors walton and ronen and every supervisor joining this in this need. >> announcer: you have six questions remaining. >> thank you, chair fewer and

members of the committee. i'm political organizer for the local 20. i'm here to speak in favor of this resolution. 10 to 1 members are on the front lines of this pandemic. thousands of our members work for the city and thousands working with the city's most vulnerable populations that provide supportive housing, drug treatment, other critical and essential services. since this extraordinary period began, our non-profit members have been working day in and day out in some of the whoa!s challenging -- most challenging environments in san francisco. they're doing their part. these non-profit workers would greatly benefit from incentive pay in these challenging times. this will require a careful review and update of the policies and programs in place to ensure that our members continue to receive incentive

pay. they require pooip personal protective equipment and we hope they can be prioritized. we appreciate the resolution and hope it leads to more concrete steps in protecting our members in san francisco's most vulnerable populations. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker. >> madame chair, we're having some technical difficulties again. hold on one second, please.

>> we do apologize. it looks like there were six people in the queue and the system went down again. if we could call for another recess, we'll try to bring the system back up again. >> supervisor peskin: madame chair? unfortunately, i'm late for my 12:30 and my 1:00. i just want to make these following comments insofar as i've asked thetime to be continued -- the item to be continued one week. there are also savings on the hotel side. as we've seen in the daily reports relative to the hotels

we've already required, there is a very, very large vacancy rate on our first responder hotels. they've been occupied at about a 10% rate of approximately 1,000 rooms, so about 100 out of a thousand that we've acquired. we're actually spending $40,000 a day on vacant hotel rooms for first responders. and i had -- i've had several conversations with trent rhorer from h.s.a. and they are working to terminate those contracts, but meanwhile, we're bleeding significant amount of money every day on unused first responder hotels as opposed to covid-19 hotels or hotels for vulnerable populations. so there is also cost savings to be had. we can quantify that next week, but i have to bounce off and

would ask for a continuance and thank you for your indulgence, madame chair. >> supervisor fewer: okay, thanks good to see you. okay. >> supervisor peskin: i'm sorry. >> supervisor fewer: let's take a 10-minute recess on this so we can get public comment back. it's really a shame, so let's see, it's 1:07 now. why don't we say 1:15? >> i want to mention that supervisor walton is in the queue. >> supervisor fewer: my apologies. >> supervisor walton: no worry. thank you, madame clerk and madame chair. actually, i can hold my comments until after public comment. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. questions remaining. >> supervisor fewer: hello, caller. thank you for your patience.

>> it appears that caller hung up. i will queue the next caller. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. oh. >> announcer: you have two questions remaining. >> hi, this is san francisco human services network. we are asking you to support this resolution, including additional funding for incentive pay and other expenses that are straining non-profit budgets. our non-profits are on the front lines providing essential services for those most vulnerable to the epidemic. on shelter, congregate settings, seniors, people with pre-existing health conditions. in doing that, our workers face exposure on a daily basis facing their own health risks. this has exacerbated the crisis

that was dire. staff shortages are the primary barrier for the provision of services to protect our homeless residents. essential pay is crucial to maintain these essential services for the duration of the crisis. we need our policymakers to implement a city-wide needs-based approach for all departments to provide augmented funding and flexibility. this is a necessity for any organization whose workers are in direct contact with clients in our shelters, navigation centers, on streets, in supportive house, residential treatment centers and other delivery locations. and that funding must include the flexibility to extend essential pay to those not paid through general fund contracts like janitors, desk clerks and other support staff necessary to maintain the services. finally, many of these costs

will continue into the foreseeable future. we need to ensure that this augmented pay extends into the next fiscal year, including to a cost of doing business increase for non-profit contracts. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker? >> you have three questions remaining. >> hi, supervisors. my name is mary kate, i'm policy director and co-care of the homeless emergency service providers association. our member agencies appreciate the city's efforts to secure contract augmentation funding. we understand there are constraints. but it is clear that somewhere between the federal and state funding allocations that are being made available and the city's needs, there is a failure

to prioritize our essential service system and the workers operating it every day are putting themselves and their families at risk. sufficient funding is absolutely essential for the continued operation for the essential services. and i think that the b.l.a. report, it's a good start but it leafs critical questions unanswered. what are the uncovered costs on the janitorial and other costs, that non-profits have had to take on? what would it take to address the equity disparity? which is extremely relevant from a public health perspective especially now. i think the equity point is really important. national estimates say that government contracts for human services pay 70 cents on the dollar. there is a direct tie between

what personnel get paid and our system's ability to continue operating. going into this crisis, 1 in 5 bay area residents did not have $400 saved. and the people operating essential services are those people. so the partnership -- i think partnership is really important with non-profits and any partnering with non-profits to answer these questions, what are the costs -- >> announcer: you have two questions remaining. >> thank you, chair fewer. i'm the policy planning manager at tndc. i'm here on behalf of experiences. i've heard from residents and staff who work in the tenderloin community. there is a great need for testing in the tenderloin due to

the high population. the concentration of s.r.o.s, the homeless population, and because of the health disparities that were present prior to covid-19. we are in desperate need of intervention and support and a testing site that residents can access on foot without having to walk too far can alleviate some of the hardship our community is experiencing during this crisis. i want to emphasize the needed access for testing for our tenants and employees working in permanent supportive housing and not only for those with symptoms. particularly in housing where we know there have been confirmed cases of the virus. if we can meet this need, it will benefit our entire community. thank you so much, chair fewer and supervisors on the committee to give me time for input. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much.

>> announcer: you have one question remaining. >> hi, madame chair. and members of the board. i'm the c.e.o. of community partnership here, and wie're on the front lines every day. we have 170 staff who are showing up partnership with our partners, most of them are union members doing the work that is already described. just briefly focus on the gap that currently exists in funding. so 170 people who show up every day as essential workers on front line as desk clerks, janitors, maintenance folks, we are providing $60,000 a month of incentive pay. it's just $100 a day of extra.

it's not significant for somebody earning $44,000 a year. but the formula that have determined how much will be provided and what our actual costs are as others mentioned, are huge. we spend 60,000 a months and ensure that we'll show up every day. the residents before you are providing 7,000 a month. that's a huge gap. that's barely 10% of the actual cost. the problem is that many of our janitors, many of our desk clerks happen to be technically paid out of the -- rather than on a city contract. how do i explain to my staff that we're at -- incentive pay increase because of anomaly of

it's -- city contract that pays the salary? [inaudible] in doing the same work -- [inaudible] 10 cents of the cost. >> announcer: you have zero questions remaining. >> madame chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. so public comment is closed. supervisor walton, you were in the queue. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much. i am going to be very brief. just wanted to thank that we have legislation that was unanimously approved by the board of supervisors to provide hotels for front-line health workers and our vulnerable homeless population and this appropriation will provide necessary resources needed to implement the components of the

legislation and to secure rooms and also take into account the fact that federal and state funds may be available to support the services mandated by this legislation. supervisor peskin did a good job of touching on all the major points why this appropriation is important. and i just wanted to share my voice in support of this appropriation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other comments from supervisors? supervisor peskin has made a motion to continue this item and i will make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair as we are in close communication with him and his staff. so i'd like to make a motion to continue item number 7 to the call of the chair. could i have a roll call vote, please? >> on that motion.

walton aye. mandelman aye. fewer aye. there are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. now let's vote on item number 6. we heard public comment on that. and so i'd to make a motion. i mentioned in the beginning, the budget committee did not have a financial deliberation on this or there wasn't a judgment that we could actually vote on because this is an urging resolution, so there is not a fiscal act for this particular item. so i think that we should -- supervisor haney, i think that really you should follow up with the b.l.a. with what you mentioned and i think it's a good suggestion, but i, you know -- while i appreciate this,

the goal -- and i did want to also say, yeah, our first line workers are getting us through this. it is tremendous. it is unselfish. it is generous. it is a gift the work they do. however, because of the emerging resolution, i want to caution them also, we're going to be discussing difficult budget decisions that will impact the board's priorities and it's not responsible extendi funding for services while major cuts are for others. having said that, there is urging resolution. but i do want to get this out of committee so the full board has an opportunity to vote for it. i'd like to make a recommendation to move this out

of committee to the full board with no recommendations. could i have a roll call vote? >> on the motion. walton -- >> can you repeat the exact motion? >> supervisor fewer: i'd like to make a motion to move this out of committee without recommendation to the full board? >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. your ayes are three ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, i want to thank you for your patience today. and also want to thank our listening public for the patience and the glitches. we apologize, we're trying to get better at this and we will continue to try. i want to thank i.t. staff and our clerk and sfgovtv for being so accommodating also. madame clerk, any other business before us today? >> there is no further business. >> supervisor fewer: we're

adjourned. thank you, everyone.