tv BOS Budget and Finance Committee SFGTV April 18, 2021 2:00pm-3:41pm PDT
>> this meeting will cometo ord. this is the april 14th, 2021, budget and finance committee meeting. i'm matt haney, the chair of the budget and finance committee. i'm joined by committee members vice chair ahsha safai and supervisor gordon mar. i would like to think kaleena mendoza from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. due to the covid outbreak, the board of supervisors
and legislative room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. remotely. committee members will attend the meeting through a video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they're physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda, channels 26, 78, 99, and sfgovtv.org. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during public comment period are available via phone call by calling 415-655-0001, i.d. 1876709592, then ##. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial *3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and turn down your
television or radio. you may submit public comment by e-mail. if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and will be included as part of the official file. finally, items acted upon today or expected to appear on the board of supervisors' agenda of april 20th unless otherwise stated. thank you. >> chairman: thank you so much, madam clerk. we have a full budget and finance committee meeting today. so thank you in advance, everyone, for being brief with your presentations. i also want to note that if your item is retroactive, if you will please explain the reasoning for that in your presentation. with that, madam clerk, can you please call item 1. >> clerk: yes, item 1, ordinance authorizing the public defender's office to accept and expand a grander in the amount of
$250,000, and a grant in the amount of $35,000 from calton foundation to expand by 25 to 30% the capacity of the clean slate unit to meet the clean slate services for the period of january 1st, 2021, through december 31, 2021, and to provide two grant-funded positions. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1876709592, then press ##. if you have not already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chairman: thank you so much, madam clerk. i believe our public defender, mano roju, is here to present on this
item. public defender roju, are you presenting on this, or am i handing it over to somebody else? >> i'm presenting on this. >> chairman: welcome. >> and we have teams to answer any technical questions at the end. i would like to begin with a brief moment of silence for daunte wright. thank you. good morning, chair haney, good morning supervisor safai and supervisor mar, and thank you for allowing me to present briefly on this item. first i would like to extend my appreciation to supervisor melgar for introducing this and supervisor safai for cfo co-sponsoring this item. this is for a grant in
$285,000 that will allow us to expand our clean slate program by 50%. we are thrilled that we were awarded this grant as it enables us to help more people to make positive changes in their lives. people associate the public defender's office with being fighters, and we will also continue to be fighters, but much of what we do is also healing and building. we like to think of ourselves by the mantra: we fight, we heal, we build. the clean slate program helps the san francisco community by clearing criminal records that are barriers to education, barriers to employment, and barriers to housing. we get clients connected to employment. it all offers restorative justice by getting san franciscans out of the shadows of their criminal records and ending their treatment as second-class citizens. many are discriminated against once the legal
system has labeled them as criminals, and that often leads to denial of public benefits, denial of employment opportunities, and prevention of civic engagement. clean slate ends this modern-day jim crow. i was talking to a colleague yesterday, and he was relaying a story of someone that he knew, a client, who was applying for a door desk job. but because of an arrest -- not a conviction, but an arrest -- for a driving violation that took place 20 years ago, he was denied that job. the clean slate program is designed precisely to prevent such tragedies. there is universal support for clearing offenses. california has spoken. many formerly non-violent offenses can no longer be treated as felonies. clean slate provides access to san franciscans
so they can actually clear their felony records. following the 2018 "care act," thousands of clients are now able to seal their arrest records, which otherwise would have is blocked opportunities to finish high school, to obtain jobs or to gain housing. the bulk of the clean slate removes convictions for minor, non-violent offenses. i'm really proud that our clean slate program has risen to the challenge and stopped the unjust deportation of san franciscans with decades-old drug convictions. many people focus on what happens in court, but the clean slate part of our job focuses on what happens in our communities. many san franciscans have been hurting during the pandemic, and clean slate ensures our clients can continue to support their families. what we're trying to do with this, though, grant
is to expand what clean slate can do. just like daunte's proudest achievement was this clean slate program. it is important to honor that legacy by supporting and expanding this community program. for 20 years, our clean slate staff has remained the same, while serving a growing community, and supporting this makes complete sense. adding one attorney to our clean slate program will enable us to expand our services by 50%. today my clean slate team provides legal services to 6,000 clients. adding another attorney and a paralegal will allow us to serve 9,000 clients. we can then file 50% more motions in court, and being committed to restorative justice, it means we can expand clean slate for one more year at a time where clients need
this program the most. a lot of people in our community are hurting with the pandemic in and of itself, and to have something from your past inhibit you from moving forward is not where we need to be at this point in san francisco. i'd like to end by briefly sharing two stories of recent clients, and i'll share their words with you. i was sentenced to life in prison for possession of drugs. after the law changed, i got released from prison. i thought that was the best day of my life. and then i went to the clean slate program. thanks to my san francisco public defender, i obtained a certificate of rehabilitation, and now i'm studying social work at humble estates. words cannot describe my gratitude. god defined my path, not my record. and then from another
client: "i thought i would be deported, but the clean slate program cleared my drug record from nearly two decades ago. with my public defender's help, i was able to stay in san francisco and work hard for my family, especially for my beautiful little daughter, calea. and now we're all so happy because i'm just days away from finally becoming a united states citizen. thank you, clean slate, for making my american dream come true." if there are any questions, i have alaska, who manages the clean slate program, here to answer them. >> chairman: thank you so much. and thank you for continuing to be a champion of this essential program that has supported so many, to ensure they have an opportunity to participate fully and in all aspects of our society. you know, these bears barriersshouldn't be there at al
in many cases, i think we would agree, but it is so important they have the support from the clean slate program, and thank you to the deputy public defender, wynn, for your work and leadership. we're grateful. and i know how important this program was, as you said, to public defender adachi, and for you to continue it, and to find additional support for it is just powerful, and i'm grateful for it. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, members of the committee, no, we have no report on this item. >> chairman: great. vice chair safai? >> thanks. i just wanted to appreciate the hard work the crank star found and kelson foundation did. it is always wonderful to have philanthropy support
come in and support the wonderful causes of the city. i appreciate public defender roju for continuing the legacy of jeff adachi. it is extremely important to give people a second chance, give them an opportunity to turn their lives around, and particularly when they're leaving, after having served their so-called debt to society. i want to thank you for championing this and i'm proud to be a supporter. and i want to appreciate supervisor melgar for bringing this forward, and all of us who are supportive of giving people an opportunity to turn their lives around. thank you and your team. >> thank you. i appreciate your support. >> chairman: supervisor mar. >> thank you, chair haney. i want to express my appreciate to deputy public defender roju and deputy public defender wynn, for your dedication and support on this
groundbreaking program, carrying on the legacy of jeff adachi. i'm really glad to see the philanthropic support you are getting in order to break down barriers to employment, housing, and education for the involved individuals. so thank you so much. i would love to be added as a co-sponsor to this as well. >> thank you so much, supervisor mar. >> chairman: madam clerk, please add me as well. deputy public defender wynn, is there anything that you want to add? i want to give you the opportunity. >> the only thing i would like to add is to thank the chair, and supervisions safai, melgar, and mar. thank you so much for the opportunity. >> chairman: and we want to thank the foundations that are providing the support. this is a critical program, and this is
exactly the kind of thing that we're grateful for our foundation supporting and settlin settling up to expa. madam clerk, can you see if there is any public comment on this item. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. d.t.is checking to see if there are any members in the cue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any callers in the queue for item 1? there are no callers in the queue for this item. >> chairman: public comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to move item 1 to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, roll call,
please? >> clerk: yes. on that motion. [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chairman: it will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. and thank you so much, public defender roju and public defender wynn. >> clerk: can you please call item 2. >> clerk: item 2 is authorizing the department of technology to enter into a contract for the purchase of oricle products, not to exceed the amount of $60 million for a term of may 1st, 2021 to april 30th, 2026. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1876709592 and then ##. if you have not already done so, please press *3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have
been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chairman: great. thank you. we have someone from the department of technology to present on this item? >> thank you. good morning supervisors and colleagues. my name is howe char from the department of technology. i'm here to seek your approval for the enterprise agreement. this new agreement would be viewed by all departments for all of the software, hardware, and computing products. the total not to exceed the amount of $60 million over five years. from may 2021 to april 2026. this is the highest ranking proposal from mer maricopa county, which was conducted on behalf of all state and local governments in the u.s.
as of today, almost 20 departments have purchased 491 products (indiscernable). so this new agreement is not about making new purchases. it is not about consolidating all of the existing and isolating agreements no one citywide agreement. it is about making it more visible and more manageable. the annual fees we pay to maintain the existing products is $11 million a year in the past three years. therefore, we anticipate a total spending in the next five years would be at least $55 million. we are only adding $5 million for potential new purchases.
we want to establish this citywide agreement. there are three major benefits: first, it will reduce the cost and risk. we leverage the city's collective power for achieving higher count to protect the city. second, it would increase the efficiency, instead of letting every department go through 10 to 20 administrative or legal staff for similar purchases. now departments collaborate as one city, completing all of the necessary legal procurements and eliminate the doubling effort. last, but not least, it would improve visibility and expand performance. all oricle products would be purchased through one master agreement so we can
better monitor and manage the specs, to reduce the costs and then the performance. in addition, by entering this agreement, oracle helps the city reduce the cost for maintaining the existing oracle hardware. they have waived it for (indiscernable) for five years. without including any oracle termination fees. we will save the city at least $3.75 million in the next five years, either in savings or in cost avoidance. this goes to the question
(indiscernable). [heavy accent] >> they are here to help me answer the questions, if you have any. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you so much for your presentation and your work. supervisor safai. >> thank you, chair hang. haney. the whole presentation was about oracle and oracle products, and what i didn't get from the b.l.a. or the write-up is if you could explain to me a little bit about why we go through these different proposers, like mythics or
afc -- why don't we deal directly with oracle? because it sounds like once we do choose from the purchase of the oracle products -- why are we going through a third party to purchase the products? is that how oracle deals with cities and counties? they don't deal directly, so we have to go through a vendor? is that how it works. >> thank you, supervisor safai. it is very difficult for a mega vendor like oracle, microsoft, cisco, to work with the cities. it is the cost for the mega vendor, and they want to dictate to accept everything on the standard papers. at the same time, the city has a lot of
(indiscernable). we want the vendors to respect our costs. because of this reason (indiscernable) when we try to negotiate with a mega vendor. so it is very difficult that we have to introduce a partner or a seller to make sure both parties can accept the terms. thank you. >> okay. okay, my second question is not for you, it is actually for the city attorney. one of the things that also jumped out at me in this information background is that administrative code section 21.16b allows city departments to utilize the competitive procurement access of other public agencies or non-profits made up of multiple agencies to purchase commodities, and what i would like to know is, is there a time limit in
21.16b. how far back are re weallowed to go? what if this r.s.p. was done in 2010 or 2015? it just struck me as, are we really getting the best competitive opportunity in 2021on an r.s.p. that was done in 2018? not to say that everything that the department of technology presented in terms of the efficiency, the cost, the purchase ability, the savings -- all those things, that makes sense to me. what doesn't make sense to me is the timeframe. >> good morning, deputy city attorney ann pierson. thank you for the question. i'm sorry, i don't know i don'tw offhand if there is a time limit. i am happy to look in a couple of moments to see
if there is a period of time if it would become stale, but i would have to have a couple of moments to look that up. >> if you don't have time, maybe the chair will allow us to come back to this so we can make a final determination. that is something that is the second time in a matter of weeks that we've been asked to make a decision on a purchasing competitive procurement process of another state, another county. each time the presentation and the reasoning was cost savings, time, efficiencies, which i'm 100% for. but i just also want to be cognizant of the fact that we're asking all of the questions to understand that we can defend it when it goes to the full board. >> i understand. i'm happy to look into it and get back to you if you want to come back to this item. >> is the chair agreeable with that? >> chairman: yes. >> hi. i'm sorry, may i interrupt. this is the systems
director at the office of the contracts. i may be able to answer your question. >> sure. >> so 2116 doesn't necessarily have a limitation. it doesn't say you have "x" period to rely on this solicitation. however, the time limitations that it imposes are that depending on the solicitation, you're bound by the duration that was advertised. and basically the scope that was advertised. so, yes, the solicitation was done in 2018. it ended around the end of 2018. starting in 2019, i believe around january or february, we basically decided at that point, with all of the stakeholders, that this would be a good solicitation to piggyback
off of, understanding we would still have to negotiate the city's own terms and to the final agreement, and the negotiations have been going on since 2019. for contracts of this nature and size, negotiations can go on for years. so, unfortunately, if we were to limit ourselves to a specific period of time, we honestly would probably run out of time every time we wanted to use 21.16. for that reason, the scope of the agreement, as well as the duration of the agreement, reflects what is permitted by the solicitation that was done by maricopa county. >> okay. that makes a little more sense through the chair. i think that what you said seems to -- maybe that would be the kind of an amendment to my question, would be as long as the negotiations started within a particular time. so the r.s.p. was done in 2018, and you started
negotiations in 2019, and that seems a lot more reasonable. it is like when the process began, not when the process finishes. so i understand that. i still would like some clarity from the city attorney so we understand that a little better since this is the second time. but i understand your point that because negotiations can go on for a significant amount of time, it wouldn't make sense to say that you have to have a timeframe on that end. but at least on the -- when the negotiations began. so if it is okay with the chair, maybe we can come back with a little more clarity on the law and then make a final decision. >> chairman: that's fine with me. deputy city attorney pearson, is there anything more you want to add? >> not at this point. when i reviewed 21.16, it does not include a
particular deadline, as was noted earlier. it indicates our procurement has to be consistent with the procurement that has been issued, with the terms of the procurement issued by the other jurisdiction. so, you know, the plain language does not impose some type of deadline, but i'm happy to look into it further. i'm just reading it at this point and happy to talk to our contracts team to see if there is any information i can give you beyond what you have already heard from the city administrator's office. >> and maybe i would just add one thing to that, through the chair, maybe you can give us some past precedent or practices on what the normal practice is so that we understand, again, how they normally did it. i think the -- i'm sorry, i didn't catch her name -- ms. moyad said that the negotiations can go on for
years, many understanding the timeframe they have to begin by in proximity to the r.s.p., and maybe give some examples, if the contract team can do that. that would be helpful. i would still like to continue this to later in the agenda, and we can come back and make a final decision. >> chairman: that's fine. we can continue it. do you want to hear -- well, is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney, there is a report. do you want me to give my presentation at this time? >> chairman: yes. >> very briefly, chair haney, members of the committee, i'm from the legislature analyst office, the proposed contract -- they approve the contract between d.t. for the purchase of oracle products. the term is for five years, and the contract amount is $60 million. we summarize the spending plan on page three of our report.
and as has been discussed, this contract was procured through the solicitation process of maricopa county in arizona. we recommend approval. >> chairman: great. thank you. why don't we go ahead and take public comment on this item as well, and then we can come back to it, addressing the other issues. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, please press *3. ms. pena, are there any callers in the queue for item 2? >> there are no callers in the queue at this moment. >> chairman: public comment is closed. madam clerk, we will come back to this item a little later. >> going back to the
question, so, actually, d.t-- there are two things i need to highlight. [inaudible] >> the contract will expire by april 22nd. so we need to renew by the end of this month. and, secondly, the maricopa county contract, although it was negotiated in 2019, (indiscernable) six months ago. so we negotiate much better -- not much better, but at least better, in all categories, so i just wanted to present this so i hope you can expedite this course. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. i appreciate it. madam clerk, can you
please call item 3. >> clerk: item 3, resolution authorizing the city's chief information officer to enter a customer participation agreement under which city employees will provide customer feedback to oracle america, inc., and which will grant to oracle a perpetual, irrevocable license to use the city's feedback for any purpose, including development, modification, marketing, or complicity of products or services without identifying the cities or its employees in those pearls. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1876709592, and then ##. if you have not yawrd done alrey done so, please press *3. please wait until the system indicates you have
been unmuted. >> chairman: thank you. and we have jack wood from the controller's office to present on this item. >> sorry about that. thank you, supervisor. this is jack wood with the controller's. i'm director of the systems division, which runs all of the oracle enterprise systems for h.r., payroll. i'm here to talk about the agreement to enter into the oracle agreement to participate in their various advisory boards and user forums. it is really important that the controller's office and other city departments who also use oracle products, have a seat at the table there. at those meetings is really where oracle determines the roadmap for their product. it is where they get feedback from the costumers on how the product needs to change,
and then they prioritize the roadmap on implementing those changes. it is really only during those meetings that oracle really gets the feedback from the costumers and creates the roadmap. again, there are a lot of these different advisory boards. for example, on the third bullet there, the financial advisory board determined for the financial system, which includes 11 different modules, like general ledger and accounts payable, and they talk bo about what other modules do we need. and the same with the human capital advisory board controls, like, how they update their h.r. and payroll system. and at the lower level, are the focus groups, which is like an expense management focus group. an expense management is a single module, and they talk about the fields and the pages on that system and what needs to change.
so we really would like to have a seat at the table to help drive the changes. the one concern here, if you go back, the one concern is with the city giving oracle this perpetual license. and we think that is a lower risk at this point. they would not call out the city by name or any individual by name that participated in these forums, but if they caused, in this disagreement, oracle to use our feedback in the way that they need. if you go to the next slide, there are the benefits of us being on these boards and forums, and it's really in driving and influencing the roadmap, us saying what the product needs to have added or changed. and then the other thing is for the oracle products we run, we customize it
quite a bit because of the unique city rules in san francisco. for example, we have a lot of different time and labor rules from the unions. those are all customizations in the system. if you're able to get oracle to add that functionality into the base product, we can take away our customerization, which is expensive to maintain year after year. after time we do an upgrade, we have to retest them all. that's why it is better to get oracle to build it into their base product. on the collaboration front, some of the other benefits are just getting to know best practices when we're in these meetings with our peers. we get to see demos and see what is coming up. a lot of leadership discussions happen there. and the last one, noting some of the other public organizations that are already participating in these forums and advisory
boards, and that's just substantive. there are actually a lot more. we wanted to get board approval to enter into this agreement so we can have a seat at the table. thank you. are there any questions? >> chairman: thank you. >> chair haney and members of the committee -- >> chairman: you may want to mute -- >> i'll try this. if you can hear me, i just turned off my video. members of the committee, the proposed resolution would approve perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable license agreement with oracle for a customer participation agreement in which oracle would be able to provide information on the use of the products.
as we note in our report, this agreement does not actually have any direct fiscal impact. also, we did not identify any adverse impact that would arise from entering into the proposed agreement. but we do consider approval of the resolution to be a policy matter for the board. and i'm available for questions. >> chairman: thank you. colleagues, any questions or comments for either the controller's office or the b.l.a.? i do not see any. can we go to public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, press *3. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any callers in the queue for item number three? >> there are no callers in
the queue at the moment. >> clerk: thank you. >> chairman: public comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> yes. on the motion. [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chairman: so it will go to the full border with a positive recommendation. can you please call item 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 them with our care. not everybody is ready to have aggressive form of treatment. we need preventive and lower threshold programming to get people into services. as i mentioned before, these are population-focused programs. [please stand by]
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. meeting is adjourned.