tv BOS Budget and Finance Committee SFGTV April 14, 2021 10:30am-12:17pm PDT
4. >> clerk: item 4, resolution approving amendment number one to the agreement between central city hospitality house and the department of public health for behavioral health services, to increase the agreement by $6.2 million not to exceed $15 million, and to extend the term by one and a half years, for a total agreement of july 1st, 2018, through december 31st, 2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1876709592, then ##. if you have not already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. >> chairman: thank you. we have ms. ruggles from the department of public health to present on this item. >> thank you. good morning, supervisors.
so i've noted d.p.h. is requesting an approval of the first amendment of this contract, to extend it to december 31st, 2022, with the additional funding to support those years. there is no change in the programming. the central city hospitality house provide low threshold services to individuals who are homeless, and they do this primarily through two self-help centers, one in the tenderloin and one on sixth street, with the goal of providing and helping to meet basic needs and also to develop a comfort level where individuals will access and be linked to services and treatment. so, again, we're just asking for permission to amendment this contract and extend it. the vendor contractor has
been successfully doing this work. their monitoring reports show that they have been successfully serving the clients that are in their contract, doing the services that they set out to do. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. and i have a colleague on the line as well with more program knowledge. >> chairman: thank you, colleagues. any questions? is there a b. l.a. report on this item. >> yes. the proposed resolution approves the existing contract between d.p.a. and central hospitalities for services to homeless and formerly homeless individuals. it increases the amount by 6.3 million to $15.1 million. this contract is funded
about 70% by general funds, and the balance of about 30% by the mental health services act. and we recommend approval. >> chairman: any questions or comments? seeing none, can we open public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, please press star tar to be added to the queue. please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. ms. pena, are there any callers in the queue for item 4? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> chairman: thank you. public comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes, on that
motion -- >> i'm sorry. i was trying to raise my hand. i wasn't able to use my -- >> chairman: supervisor safai. >> before the vote, can i make some comments, and i do have some questions for d.p.h. was trying to let public comment and b.l.a. speak first. chair, i know you have a lot of experience and conversations about this particular topic. i know a number of these programs are in your district. and, you know, when i first came into office, one of my biggest pushes was to audit the department of public health's mental health services. that took the b.l.a. and the controller to complete that work. we spent a specific amount of money on mental health services for our unhoused population and those in need. a lot of that was a performance-based audit for mental health services.
so the question that i have today, and the comments that i have today, is i recognize central city hospitality house has been around for nearly 55 years, and that organization interfaces with hundreds of individuals annually through community events and outreach and through the efforts hospitality house has been able to refer hundreds of individuals to mental health services and peer-based harm reduction programs. but my concern in general about these types of programs is in all of our annually-funded behavioral health programs is whether the performance measures that they're using over time -- is this essentially just a drop-in opportunity that turns around to refer to other agencies? and what is d.p.h. doing in terms of measuring the success of the programs? i understand that other non-profit agencies in the city need to provide a greater degree of that of sharing software with them, in order for them to
properly share their information or their programs. i also understand that hipa makes it difficult to share information, but i think we need to be focusing on alloting some money for there to be some investments in technology so there could be better data share, and how we can begin to really transform this process. i've heard nothing but good things about hospitality house, and a number of these other programs, but as we're looking at how we move forward with these types of programs, i really think we need to raise the bar on how we're measuring success. and then another thing that we -- you know, that i think is important, is we need to be creating better data sharing and tracking of individuals over time. we need to look at how we're drawing down on medi-cal funding for
reimbursements whenever we can. this program receives 70% of its funds from the general fund. and is there opportunities for there to be additional funding and support from the state and federal level? so my office spoke with d.p.h., spoke with michelle, ms. ruggles, and with kimberly grenadi, and my office will be continuing this conversation on how we can incorporate better performance metrics. and, chair haney, i know that is something you care a lot about. i know a lot of what mental health s.f. was about was about getting better outcomes for the money we're spending on mental health services. but i want to give d.p.h. the opportunity to speak for a moment about that and really try to understand how this -- how they and how you all
measure success. >> i think that's a bigger question probably than me in this moment to explain -- or to have the knowledge and background to explain. but i think we did a number of -- well, each contract has an assigned performance objective, which we measure annually. there are also performance objectives that are monitored all throughout the year. and it varies depending on -- al health services act also has their objectives that they measure. so there is quite a bit of measurement. one of the challenges with this level of service is that it is low threshold, with the goal of attracting people into services. and they get into the more formal direct treatment, which is funded by medi-cal, where they open
up a client chart, then we are able to draw down medi-cal. but there are a number of objectives that are used. and i think i would maybe suggest that we come back with a hearing -- i don't know if that is the right venue, but that is specific to how and what we're measuring, so that you have a bigger picture of the whole system and how people are entering maybe here and then maybe moving through the system into more direct treatment, which gets built into our avatar building system. >> chairman: right. >> where you can more easily access the services. >> so are any of these tenderloin self-help center, sixth street self-help center, homeless -- af them on the avatar system?
are any of these clients incorporated into the overall? and are we tracking them and ensuring there is not a duplication of services? we did an audit. that was the basis of -- and i think it laid a lot of the foundation for mental health s.f. because we were looking for what are we getting for what we're spending on mental health services citywide? this is millions and millions of dollars, and i'm not saying that these programs are not helpful. but i just wonder, are we putting money into programs that then we're not exactly sure how the clients are then followed through with and tracked and how we measure success. it might be a bigger question than you're prepared to answer today. we did -- you know, we did spend a lot of time on the mental health audit, and i don't know if chair haney
wants to say anything about mental health s.f., and how this incorporates into that, and i know a lot of these programs are in his district. but i would just say it just concerns me if we're not able to measure in that manner. but if this is -- or these are just drop-in programs, low barrier, that are then referred, how are we watching how we're tracking the referrals, and how do we know this is actually a successful program? >> yeah. each of them has a different way that they get measured. and then when the staff go out, the teams go out to measure, they'll look into that. i think this one, at the lowest level, lowest threshold services, is the biggest challenge for measuring and measuring the linkages. certainly once the individual is in the direct treatment, they're
receiving, like, a needs assessment, and then we're tracking system-wide and then on an individual basis, if they're going up the scale, meaning better stability and achieving the objectives that are part of that assessment for that individual person. so i think there is a lot -- a lot that is being measured. i think mental health s.f. has -- they have literally teams working on different pieces of that and measuring. and i know from the audit that we are moving towards looking at more outcome objectives versus process objectives. that was one of the recommendations. i think two things that are helpful, leading in that direction, is mental health s.f. has a lot of focus on this. the pandemic is winding down -- knock on wood -- which has really zapped
everybody's attention. and we recently have had our new behavioral health services director begin. >> and who is that -- i'm sorry, who is the new behavioral health director? >> her name is hillary kunins. so she literally started within weeks. so i think all of these pieces and the efforts and the focus, and now actually more time, is going to lead towards changing the objectives where we can. and so i think that will be helpful. but i do think there is quite a lot that is measured. but it is particularly more conducive to measurement when the services are entered into avatar. and that goes with the direct treatment. and these services, they're not opening client charts, that i'm aware of, and they're not drawing
down medi-cal because they're low threshold that aren't medi-cal reimbursable. >> they're not medi-cal reimbursable? >> they are not. >> hi. this is jessica brown. i'm the director of the mental health services act. we fund hospitality house. and i just wanted to add in a little bit to this, too. we have a variety of state mandates, as far as how we evaluate these programs. this program would be considered, for us, an early prevention -- prevention early intervention program. so the way we measure would be a little different than a traditional model of mental health services. because they're focusing on prevention and linkage to mental health, particularly for our population focused program. this would be considered one of our population focused programs because it focuses on people who are at risk for homelessness.
we continue the regulations that the state is asking for because for what we call p.e.i., and we have different performance objectives that we have to collect. i believe, you know, what we would oftentimes have challenges with is, you know, how to adhere to what the state wants, and how to adhere to what our clients want to see as far as the measurements of success. so i just wanted to add a little bit of that background in there, too. >> no, i get it. i hear what you're saying, ms. brown. maybe through the chair, back to you, i would say so then if this is low barrier point of contact, what is the significance? how does this -- what's the importance of this type of program versus getting people immediately into direct services and beginning to not just have a low barrier? and i'm only asking that from a step back, looking at the audit, looking at
some of the money that has gone into this overtime. are we putting money into the program that this is an important piece of the puzzle, are is there something more aggressive we can be doing differently? or is this money better spent aggressively to fully implementing mental health s.f.? >> we try to meet the clients where they're at. we do whatever it takes to provide wrap-around services approach, to helping clients get engaged, and also retain them into care. so our lower threshold programs are extremely significant in how we connect people into our system. i mean, we have programs now -- for example, we have a wellness in the streets program that is just starting that literally goes out on to the streets to interact and engage with clients that are unhoused and build relationships with them in order to connect
around how tracking and sharing data. and evaluating and the various programs. i do appreciate you raising that issue. absolutely, the challenge that mental health s.f. is intended to solve in large part -- at some point we'll have the new behavioral health director from the board or committee sharing the progress on that. >> yeah, maybe, mr. chair, maybe it's time to get an update on the progress of mental health s.f. and maybe we can ask them to come present maybe at our committee where you think, i know, that initiatives near and dear to you. it's also important to me having done the audit which started the conversation in a different way. it would be good to get a full
update on this topic, because we spend a lot of money in a lot of different areas. and thank you, ms. brown, and ms. ruggels for your explanations. i think, of course, so many -- we certainly want to remove stigma. we want to make access to services easier. we want to have it be population-focused based on being culturally competent. my only point was, if we're talking about people living on the streets and they're getting them in, they're just kind of coming in, dropping in, leaving, dropping in, leaving and not getting the referral and then follow-up. kind of a housing-first model, getting them housed to it's effective stabilizing their life. again, this is work you do. you're much more expert than i am, but i feel like it would be
a right opportunity to get an update from mental health s.f. in terms of funding. maybe we can talk about that more, chair haney, about coming in and getting an update. >> chair: sounds great. 100%. i make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair: aye. there are three ayes. >> chair: great, thank you, to the full board with a positive recommendation and thank you, everyone, for your time and work. madame clerk, can you call item 5. >> item 5, resolution retroactive authorizing the department of homelessness and supportive housing to accept an in-kind gift for a strategic and operational housing consultant services related to the city's
shelter in place hotel rehousing proposal in a value not to exceed $125,000, from tipping point community, for the grant period of december 21, 2020 through december 31, 2021. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, call 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d., 187 670 9592. then press pound twice. if you have not done so, dial star 3 to speak. system prompt will indicate you raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you've been up muted and you -- unmuted and you you can begin your comments. i believe we have ms. is a nider. >> yes, i'm happy to be here today. my name is dylan schneider, member of policy and legislative affairs for the department of homelessness. i use she, her pronouns.
i will give you an overview of the legislation before you today. then i'm available to take any follow-up questions. so the legislation before you today is a resolution that would retroactive authorize h.s.h. to accept an in-kind gift for strategic and housing operational services related to the emergency rehousing efforts in a value not to exceed $125,000 from tipping point community. these strategic and operational housing services provided through this in-kind gift will continue to support the city's commitment to ensure people in hotels are offered stable exit from this pandemic shelter system. with a focus on placing guests in the rehousing cohort into housing. these services were generously offered by tipping point community in december of 2020
and we're determined to be essential and timely, given the unprecedented rehousing efforts that the city was making, specifically with guests in hotels. and with the release of prop c funds in december that allocated additional funding toward new rehousing resources such as flexible housing subsidy pool and rapid rehousing, we felt these services were incredibly timely and we needed to act on them quickly. given that, h.s.h. accepted the services in 2020, while simultaneously beginning to work on this legislation, to bring to the board of supervisors with h.s.h.'s commitment to transparent and timely with all legislations. i want to provide a few highlights of the work that happened in december, again, noting the critical nature of the services. the housing consultant in-kind services has assisted h.s.h. in
developing a scope of work and finalizing contracts for housing location and case management services for some of those new resources. i mentioned the flexible housing subsidy pool and rapid rehousing. and providing guidance on how to accelerate the rate of referrals to newly funded resources and the portfolio through various strategies that i know we have talked about many times before. but, again, really supporting the city's effort and commitment to rehousing in a timely and efficient manner. i just want to, again, thank you all of you for your consideration of this legislation and thank tipping point community for their continued partnership and support of these critical issues. happy to take any questions. >> chair: thank you, ms. schneider. and so just to be clear, so this is already -- this is already happening right now? this, this support and the
consultant services. and maybe you could clarify what has happened thus far and what is sort of still needs to be done in terms of the services that we're accepting here? >> sure, chair haney. so, yes, we did accept these services retroactive. the term of the in-kind services december 2020 through december 2021. as i mentioned, the reason for the retroactivetivity of the contract was noting that we needed these services to come in, in december to help the rehousing efforts. some of the work that has happened since december is this strategic planning, looking at, you know, these new resources and contract and scope of work. also supporting the rehousing team that is working under the c.c.c. and really solely focused on rehousing efforts. and i think, you know, the services will continue to play a guidance in expertise role in both rehousing and looking at
the acquisition of potential new resources as we move forward with the efforts. >> chair: got it. okay. thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> no, chair haney, no report. >> chair: great. open up to public comment. >> we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press staff 3. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you're unmuted. are there callers in the queue? >> we have one caller in queue. >> please unmute the caller. welcome, caller. >> hello, thank you. my name is andrea. i'm with tipping point community initiative. we want to thank the committee
for considering retroactive acceptance of this inkind gift and i would like tipping point's motivation for the gift. we're in support of housing consultant services during this time of considerably increased demand on the department of homelessness and supportive housing and other city departments with our neighbors experiencing homelessness. for four years, tipping point that partnered with the city with our shared goal of reducing homelessness. the additional funding from prop c do present san francisco with a transformative opportunity to reduce the pain and suffering of thousands of san franciscans. but we cannot expect a considerable scaling up of efforts without corresponding additional human resources. the engagement of mr. trotz has been one step to add expertise
to the system. it was important to bring mr. trotz on quickly, as we have the effort was already under way and we have limited time to help guests find homes. and successful housing effort is essential for the city to move from emergency response to recovery. as you've heard, mr. trotz's deep expertise in housing in san francisco has had significant impact on the simply housing effort and we believe his continuing contributions will be essential. tipping point is privileged to be able to provide the support and grateful for your consideration today. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. are there other callers in the queue? >> we have no more callers in queue. >> thank you. >> chair: okay. public comment is now closed. seeing no questions or comments
from my colleagues, i want to make a motion to move this to the full board with positive recommendation. a roll call vote, please. >> on that motion, vice chair safai? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair: aye. great. thank you so much. and thank you to tipping point for your support on this really critically important priority for the city. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. please call item 6. >> item 6, resolution retroactive authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $8.5 million from the california department of parks and recreation, a statewide park and community revitalization program to support the 900 innes boatyard park expansion project and
approving the grant account which requires the department to maintain the project for the duration of the contract performance period from july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2048. members of the public, who wish to provide public comment on the item, should call 1-415-655-0001, 187 670 9592. then press pound twice. if you haven't done so, press star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you raised your hand. >> chair: great. thank you. rec and park to present on the item. >> yes, good morning, supervisors. chair haney, supervisor safai and supervisor mar. i'm here to present legislation for the statewide park grant for 900 innes boatyard park. the legislation was amended on line section -- excuse me --
line 8 was amended to add language that there is a contract amendment number 1, which i will discuss a little later in my presentation. but for now, we're basically requesting -- i'm here to request that the board of supervisors authorize the recreation and park department to accept and expend the california state parks department statewide park grant in the amount of $8.5 million for the 900 innes boatyard park expansion project. the legislation also is asking the board of supervisors to authorize us to enter into an agreement for the maintenance and operation of the project improvements for a period of 30 years. that contract performance period starts july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2048. the contract -- the legislation
is retroactive because the contract period was started july 1, 2018, when the funding from the state was appropriated. it is not actually the time that we worked on the project. there has been no funds expended. it's simply related to the contract period. so, i would -- a little more on the project. the 900 innes boatyard park project is a project that the department has been working on since 2014. we've been -- in 2014, the city and county of san francisco purchased the property and at the time it was a blighted brown field that had previously been used for boat-building purposes. the land was identified by our department as a potential park site because it had bay access and would also provide connectivity to two other parts, the inner basin shoreline park
and open space. in 2019, the department working with the parks alliance submitted an application to the statewide park program requesting $8.5 million to fund the construction of the boatyard park project. the statewide grant program is a program that is -- it is part of the california drought, water, parks climate, coastal protection and access for all 2018 that was approved by voters june 5, 2018. this prop 68 grant program focuses on creating new parks and new recreation opportunities in communities that are underserved. the underserved -- the definition of underserved community for grant purposes are communities that have median
household income equal to or less than 80% of the statewide average, or communities that have less than 3 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. the program, the grant program also prioritizes projects that serve the communities with the highest numbers of people living in poverty, as well as projects that have high levels of public outreach that involve the community in the design and planning of the parks. so we were awarded a grant in 2019 for $8.5 million from the california state parks department. and we are now prepared to move forward with the project in 2022. so, i'm here today to ask for the committee to recommend to the board of supervisors to authorize our department to
accept the grant and to enter into the 30-year grant performance contract. that concludes my presentation. >> chair: great. thank you, ms. moran. is there a b.l.a. report on the item? >> we do not have a report on this specific item. >> chair: thank you. open this up to public comment? >> checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on the item press star 3 now to be added to the queue. continue to wait until the system says you've been unmuted. are there callers in the queue? >> there are no callers in queue. >> chair: public comment is closed, thank you. colleagues, any questions or comments? seems like a very good thing [laughter]. outside support from the state
to support our parks. i want to make a motion to move item 6 forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. sorry. and deputy city attorney pearson, do you want to speak to these amendments at all? >> i reviewed the amendments and they're not substantive. i believe they were described by the department representative. >> chair: great. all right. well, i want to make a motion to amendments on the items. on the amendments, please. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> chair: great. and then if we can have -- i wanted to make a motion to the
full board with a positive recommendation as amended. roll call vote? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair: aye. there are three ayes. >> chair: thank you. this will go to full board with a positive recommendation as amended. please call item 7. >> item 7, resolution retroactive authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend grant funding in the amount of $1.6 million from the california department of parks and recreation for the rossi pool renovation project for the project performance period of july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2024 and approving the grant contract which requires the recognize nation and park department to maintain the project for the duration of the contract performance period from july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2048. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, should
1-415-655-0001. 187 670 9592. then press pound twice. if you have not done so, press star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair: all right. welcome back, ms. moran. >> thank you. so i'm here to present the legislation for the per capita grant. the proposed resolution retroactively authorizes the recreation and park department to accept and expend grant funding in the amount of 1,622,072 from the california department of parks and recreation for the rossi pool renovation project. for the period of july 20 -- 1, 2018, through june 30, 2024. and to approve a grant contract requiring the recreation and park department to maintain the
park improvements, or the pool improvements in this case, from july 2018 through june 30, 2048. similar to my last presentation, this is a prop 68 grant funded through the california drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection and outdoor active for all, active 2018 and it was approved by the voters on june 5, 2018. it's similar in the case that these bond projects are -- the contracts are appropriated when the bond funding is appropriated. and not when the grants are entered into or awarded. so at this point, no grants have been expended. it is the term of the contract that makes this a retroactive action. a little bit more on the per capita program. it's administered by the
california state parks department which makes funds available for local park rehabilitation, creation or improvement. there are two per capita funding streams, there is one for cities and districts and one for the urban, county and regional park district. on september 19, 2019, the san francisco recreation and park commission adopted a resolution approving the recreation and park department to apply for per capita funding and to enter into an agreement with the state to negotiate contracts and applications for the program. the recreation, park department went back, evaluated several projects that could potentially benefit from per capita funding. and in the end, selected the rossi pool project because it had sufficient funds to complete the project within the
performance period. and also it was -- would be completed within the grant performance period. so those are two pretty important factors for our decision. we committed -- submitted a full application requesting all the funds please applied to rossi pool and that was approved by the state. about the allocation, there were urban county per capita allocation, was 1,440,120. and our city per capita was $177,952 for a combined total of $1,622,072. explain that the city per capita application was not based on our population. it was based on the floor because the state had so many cities and there was not enough money to actually allocate.
it would be pennies for some cities for them because their population was so small. so they created a floor and that amount is 1777952. one other circumstance is that the $177,952 allocation will not be allocated to the city until fiscal year 2122. so we will be amending the contract associated with this action once that -- those funds come in. that concludes my presentation. >> chair: thank you. appreciate it. colleagues, are there any questions or comments? this is similar to the previous one.
all right. can we open this up for public comment, please? >> yes, mr. chair. checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there callers in the queue? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> chair: public comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> on the motion, vice chair safai? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair: aye. there are three ayes. >> chair: great, thank you. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation and thank you, ms. moran, for your work.
>> thank you. >> chair: madame clerk, is -- let's do item 8 and then we can go back to item 2. can you please call item 8? >> item 8, resolution authorizing the establishment of a small business emergency financial relief program to be administered by the office of economic and workforce development, oewd, and authorizing the director of oewd to enter into one or more funding/loan agreements with the california rebuilding fund, l.l.c. in an amount not to exceed $2 million to facilitate the origination of loans to certain small businesses in the city. and to enter into one or more funding slash grant with kiva capital management llc in an amount not to exceed $1.4 million to provide monies for an interest buydown fund for the loans facilitated by california rebuilding fund to certain small businesses in the city. members of the public who wish
to provide public comment should call 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d., 187 670 9592. then press pound twice. if you have not done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will say you have been unmuted. >> chair: thank you, madame clerk. we have oewd here to present on the item. >> hi. good morning. thank you, chair haney, supervisor safai and senior mar for the opportunity -- supervisor mar for the opportunity to speak on item 8. this is a resolution of the small business emergency relief program in the form of loans. amendments have been circulated providing updated amounts to better reflect the anticipated breakdown of the entire authorization which is $7.3
million. and it would be to be divided between a loan investment of $4.2 million to california rebuilding fund. and interest buydown in the amount of $1.3 million to kiva funds. this will require a one-week continuance. i'm joined by my colleague to take questions now, or we can take them next week. so, i'll make myself and my colleague available now. >> chair: thank you. >> supervisor safai: just one comment. i got further explanation. i understand why we're using this fund that is a higher interest rate and we're going to use money to pay down the rate. the issue that i have, is you read -- you know, and talk to lot of small business owners, it's not really about loans anymore because a lot of them have taken on significant debt. i wanted to make sure there was
room in the program that we have the opportunity if the funds are not utilized, that we're able to convert some of this money into grant opportunities. because i think that everyone that i've talked to, all the small businesses in my district and many city-wide have taken on significant debt so it's not about debt anymore. it's about how to pay down debt to keep their businesses alive. that's the -- that's the biggest issue i'm hearing over and over again. but i know you guys are going to come back next week and so, hopefully, you're thinking about that and hopefully there is the ability to make that amendment in this legislation. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i did have a couple of
questions. the first one is more general, like how does this new small business loan program sort of compliment or build on the past of existing programs. the city has created loans. the s.f. help program. and a couple of loan programs targeting african-american and latino small businesses. and then there has been a number of federal, like, small business loan programs. you know most significantly the p.p.e. program. so, yeah, it's more of a general question. what is the sort of more strategic sort of focus of this program and how does it complement or build off of the prior local and federal small business loan programs?
>> absolutely, supervisor. so, this loan program was specifically developed by the state to leverage funding to target specifically those businesses that are smaller in size. less employees, $2.5 million gross or less and those communities that have not benefitted. those small businesses that have not benefitted from traditional loans. this product was specifically -- this partnership was developed with that in mind and it will complement our other products that we currently have available. again, making them more complementary because of the interest buydown. so we're making this product more attractive and more favorable for our san francisco small businesses with this partnership. so, also the state has been able to successfully leverage more funding that will then allow us
to increase our amount, our level of investment, by at least probably about six types more. that's how it complements the variety of offerings between the loan products that we currently have. it does allow and continue to work in partnership with our local cdfi. so we just add to the different portfolio of available products that we have out there. >> supervisor mar: thank you. for that. so, you sort of answered my second question then. why are we sort of partnering with the california rebuilding fund for this particular loan program? but you're saying that this would allow us to leverage the $2 million that we're allocating right now for more resources?
>> yes. >> supervisor mar: and was that $12 million? i think i saw that in the report? >> can you clarify the exact amount that we're expecting? >> what -- so $12 million total, so $10 million from private investors and then $2 million from the city. and the reason why, you can bring in investors because of an underlying state commitment. so they're sort of the credit enhancement behind the loan that brings in all of these sort of private investments, banks who otherwise might not be able to underwrite loans for these small businesses due to their strict credit requirements. so we're able to turn $2 until million into $12 million loans. if we were to do this program
ourselves for instance, you would only be able to do $2 million. >> supervisor mar: got it. that sounds great. thank you for all your work. i don't have any other questions. >> chair: is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> we do have a report, however, i believe there is change to the amendments and it might make sense for us to report next week when we have the updated legislation. >> chair: sure. we can do that. can we open this up for public comment, please? >> yes, mr. chair. checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on the item, press star 3 now to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait until you've been unmuted. are there callers in the queue? >> no callers in the queue.
>> chair: great. public comment is now closed. so, i know we want to amend this item and these are substantive amendments, so i want to make a motion to accept the amendments for this item. if we can have a roll call vote, please. >> yes, on the motion, vice chair safai? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> chair: thank you. i want to make a motion to continue the item to the next budget and finance committee meeting. roll call vote, please. >> yes, on the motion, vice chair safai? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair: aye. great. this will go to the next budget and finance committee meeting. thank you so much for your work and we'll see you next week.
and madame clerk, can you call item 2? >> yes, item 2, resolution authorizing the department of technology to enter into a contract between the city and mythics inc. for the purchase of oracle products not to exceed $60 million for a five year term of may 1, 2021 through april 30. public comment has already been provided for the item. >> chair: great. i want to go to deputy city attorney pearson. i know you sent us something as well, but maybe you can provide perspective for supervisors. >> deputy city attorney. i belief the question supervisor safai posed earlier was a time limit to rely on a procurement issued by another jurisdiction. as you know, in this case, the city is relying on administrative code section 2116
which allows the city to rely on a procurement by another government agency. that section does not include a uniform time limit for the reliance on the other procurements. so it doesn't give us one year, three years or five years, but says the city may rely on those procurements under the terms established in that -- currently process. so if it's stale for them, it's stale for us. it's active for us as well. so in this case, we have relied on an active procurement and may rely on that so long as it remains active. that is in the discretion of the purchaser. >> chair: so, member safai?
>> supervisor safai: i think this is something we can follow up on more. i understand the way it's described. i'm just curious. i appreciate the department saying that they were able to negotiate better terms and initial r.f.p. i also understand the need to allow for a time for negotiation. it's just at some point, i think we have to question the timing and how long that our fees that we can reference back to. but i think that's for a later date. i think in this situation, it's pretty clear that the city is getting a better rate than initially proposed. the only other thing i would say, and it's somewhat frustrating at times and i understand that departments are under pressure an timelines, but when we're presented information in a way that says, we don't make the decision now then
everything falls apart, that is -- that is not helpful for this budget committee. because in case we did want to pursue and did want to investigate further, you're telling us then we're jeopardizing the opportunity for 20 city departments and the cost and the efficiency and effectiveness. so, at least for this committee member, i am -- i do not appreciate that. and certainly will never make a decision based on that as the sole determining factor. but in this instance, it seems as though we have a deal that is beneficial for the city. and that we can talk further about 21.16b. >> chair: great. thank you for that. and i agree. we want things to be brought to us where we have the time to make the decision. that's why we have the process and this form of oversight. sometimes we need to delay or
amend or even potentially send folks back for further negotiations. so, with that, i want to make a motion to move this full board, item 2, with a positive recommendation. madame clerk, roll call vote, please. >> on that motion, vice chair safai? >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> chair: aye. >> there are three ayes. >> chair: great. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you for your work and sticking around. madame clerk, is there any other items in front of us today? >> there are no other items. >> chair: great. i will see you all at 1:00 p.m. for budget and appropriations. thank you.
(applause). >> i grew up total tomboy, athlete. i loved a good crisis, a good challenge. i grew up across the street from the fire station. my dad used to take me there to vote. i never saw any female firefighters because there weren't any in the 1970s. i didn't know i could be a fire fighter. when i moved to san francisco in 1990, some things opened up. i saw women doing things they hadn't been doing when i was growing up. one thing was firefighting. a woman recruited me at the gay-pride parade in 1991. it was a perfect fit. i liked using my brain, body,
working as a team, figuring things out, troubleshooting and coming up with different ways to solve a problem. in terms of coming in after another female chief, i don't think anybody says that about men. you are coming in after another man, chief, what is that like. i understand why it is asked. it is unusual to have a woman in this position. i think san francisco is a trailblazer in that way in terms of showing the world what can happen and what other people who may not look like what you think the fire chief should look like how they can be successful. be asked me about being the first lbgq i have an understands because there are little queer kids that see me. i worked my way up.
i came in january of 1994. i built relationships over the years, and i spent 24 years in the field, as we call it. working out of firehouses. the fire department is a family. we live together, eat together, sleep in the same dorm together, go to crazy calls together, dangerous calls and we have to look out for one another. when i was burned in a fire years ago and i felt responsible, i felt awful. i didn't want to talk to any of my civilian friends. they couldn't understand what i was going through. the firefighters knew, they understood. they had been there. it is a different relationship. we have to rely on one another. in terms of me being the chief of the department, i am really trying to maintain an open relationship with all of our members in the field so myself and my deputy chiefs, one of the
priorities i had was for each of us to go around to different fire stations to make sure we hit all within the first three or four months to start a conversation. that hasn't been there for a while. part of the reason that i am getting along well with the field now is because i was there. i worked there. people know me and because i know what we need. i know what they need to be successful. >> i have known jeanine nicholson since we worked together at station 15. i have always held her in the highest regard. since she is the chief she has infused the department with optimism. she is easy to approach and is concerned with the firefighters and paramedics. i appreciate that she is concerned with the issues
relevant to the fire department today. >> there is a retired captain who started the cancer prevention foundation 10 years ago because he had cancer and he noticed fellow firefighters were getting cancer. he started looking into it. in 2012 i was diagnosed with breast canner, and some of my fellow firefighters noticed there are a lot of women in the san francisco fire department, premenopausal in their 40s getting breast cancer. it was a higher rate than the general population. we were working with workers comp to make it flow more easily for our members so they didn't have to worry about the paper work when they go through chemo. the turnout gear was covered
with suit. it was a badge to have that all over your coat and face and helmet. the dirtier you were the harder you worked. that is a cancer causeser. it -- casser. it is not -- cancer causer. there islassic everywhere. we had to reduce our exposure. we washed our gear more often, we didn't take gear where we were eating or sleeping. we started decontaminating ourselves at the fire scene after the fire was out. going back to the fire station and then taking a shower. i have taught, worked on the decontamination policy to be sure that gets through. it is not if or when. it is who is the next person. it is like a cancer sniper out
there. who is going to get it next. one of the things i love about the fire department. it is always a team effort. you are my family. i love the city and department and i love being of service. i vow to work hard -- to work hard to carry out the vision of the san francisco fire department and to move us forward in a positive way. if i were to give a little advice to women and queer kids, find people to support you. keep putting one foot in front of the other and keep trying. you never know what door is going to open next. you really don't. [cheers and
>> candlestick park known also as the stick was an outdoor stadium for sports and entertainment. built between 1958 to 1960, it was located in the bayview hunters point where it was home to the san francisco giants and 49ers. the last event held was a concert in late 2014. it was demolished in 2015. mlb team the san francisco giants played at candlestick from 1960-1999. fans came to see players such a willie mays and barry bonds, over 38 seasons in the open ballpark. an upper deck expansion was added in the 1970s. there are two world series played at the stick in 1962 and in 198 9. during the 1989 world series against the oakland as they
were shook by an earthquake. candlestick's enclosure had minor damages from the quake but its design saved thousands of lives. nfl team the san francisco 49ers played at candlestick from feign 71-2013. it was home to five-time super bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the 2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played with the beatles in 1966, the stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed
in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific rail park in 2000 while the 49ers moved to santa clara in 2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the stick. (♪♪♪)
>> ♪♪ ♪♪ we are definitely pioneers in airport concession world a world of nationally if not entirely or internationally >> everybody is cop us right now. >> the people that were in charge of the retail this is where that began. >> i didn't think we would have a location at the airport. >> we've set the bar higher with the customer commerce. >> telling me about the operator and how you go about finding them and they get from being in the city to being in the airport. >> so first, we actually find a table and once we know what we want a sit-down we go to the
neighborhoods in san francisco and other people seminary of the retail let us know about the rain water and are excited to have the local operators in the airport. >> we have to go going through the conceive selective process and they award a lease to the restaurant. >> they are planning on extending. >> we that you could out the china and the length evens and the travel serve and fourth your minds and it's all good. >> how long for a vendor to move through the process. >> i would say it could take 80 up to a year from the time we go out to bid until they actually open a restaurant. >> i don't know what we signed up for but the airport is happy
to have us here. and, you know, even taking out the track simple things there's a learning curve >> with once we're here they are helpful. >> it's an award-winning program. >> we're prude of your awards we have won 11 awards the latest for the best overall food address beverage program and . >> like the oscars (laughter). >> the professional world. >> tell me about the future food. >> all the sb national leases are xooirz and we're hoping to bring newer concepts out in san francisco and what your passengers want. >> well, i look forward to the future (laughter) air are we look fo
>> one more statement. we are the one. that is our first single that we made. that is our opinion. >> i can't argue with you. >> you are responsible please do not know his exact. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> i had a break when i was on a major label for my musical career. i took a seven year break. and then i came back. i worked in the library for a long time. when i started working the san
francisco history centre, i noticed they had the hippie collection. i thought, if they have a hippie collection, they really need to have a punk collection as well. so i talked to the city archivist who is my boss. she was very interested. one of the things that i wanted to get to the library was the avengers collection. this is definitely a valuable poster. because it is petty bone. it has that weird look because it was framed. it had something acid on it and something not acid framing it. we had to bring all of this stuff that had been piling up in my life here and make sure that the important parts of it got archived. it wasn't a big stretch for them to start collecting in the area of punk. we have a lot of great photos and flyers from that area and that. that i could donate myself. from they're, i decided, you
know, why not pursue other people and other bands and get them to donate as well? the historic moments in san francisco, punk history, is the sex pistols concert which was at winterland. [♪♪♪] it brought all of the punks on the web -- west coast to san francisco to see this show. the sex pistols played the east coast and then they play texas and a few places in the south and then they came directly to san francisco. they skipped l.a. and they skipped most of the media centres. san francisco was really the biggest show for them pick it was their biggest show ever. their tour manager was interested in managing the adventures, my band. we were asked to open to support the pistols way to that show. and the nuns were also asked to open the show. it was certainly the biggest crowd that we had ever played to. it was kind of terrifying but it did bring people all the way from vancouver, tee seattle, portland, san diego, all up and
down the coast, and l.a., obviously. to san francisco to see this show. there are a lot of people who say that after they saw this show they thought they would start their own band. it was a great jumping off point for a lot of west coast punk. it was also, the pistols' last show. in a way, it was the end of one era of punk and the beginning of a new one. the city of san francisco didn't necessarily support punk rock. [♪♪♪] >> last, but certainly not least is a jell-o be opera. they are the punk rock candidate of the lead singer called the dead kennedys. >> if we are blaming anybody in san francisco, we will just blame the dead kennedys. >> there you go. >> we had situations where concerts were cancelled due to flyers, obscene flyers that the
city was thought -- that he thought was obscene that had been put up. the city of san francisco has come around to embrace it's musicians. when they have the centennial for city hall, they brought in all kinds of local musicians and i got to perform at that. that was, at -- in a way, and appreciation from the city of san francisco for the musical legends. i feel like a lot of people in san francisco don't realize what resources there are at the library. we had a film series, the s.f. punk film series that i put together. it was nearly sold out every single night. people were so appreciative that someone was bringing this for them. it is free. everything in the library is free. >> it it is also a film producer who has a film coming out. maybe in 2018 about crime. what is the title of it? >> it is called san francisco first and only rock 'n' roll movie. crime, 1978. [laughter]
>> when i first went to the art institute before the adventures were formed in 77, i was going to be a painter. i did not know i would turn into a punk singer. i got back into painting and i mostly do portraiture and figurative painting. one of the things about this job here is i discovered some great resources for images for my painting. i was looking through these mug shot books that we have here that are from the 1920s. i did a whole series of a mug shot paintings from those books. they are in the san francisco history centre's s.f. police department records. there are so many different things that the library provides for san franciscans that i feel like a lot of people are like, oh, i don't have a library card. i've never been there. they need to come down and check it out and find out what we have. the people who are hiding stuff