Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 30, 2011 10:30am-11:00am PST

10:30 am
there. is there anybody to partnerships that we can make with community- based organizations or civilians who could help staff the? >> absolutely. i think that a facility like this integrates the police department even more into the community. currently, the captain of southern station is holding community meetings in the sro's. there is no reason why this location cannot fit into all the community policing efforts that we're utilizing of their -- up there and become an important part of that. i think it gives the city, the government, and the police department, in particular, a location in the community. that alone, the mere physical presence there of the building, is good. supervisor kim: thank you, captain. supervisor chu: thank you. i want to welcome supervisor campos, who has joined our
10:31 am
committee. i have a final question for the redevelopment agency. there was conversation about the half a million dollar grant that would be provided. the question about where that money is coming from, given the tenuous state that redevelopment agency generally is in at the moment. is this money that we already allocated and available? is that something or an action that has taken place? >> the money has already been approved by the board and the redevelopment commission in the agency's current-year budget. so the money is available. because of the suspension in redeveloper activities, we're not allowed to enter into any contracts at the moment. but we're hopeful that that situation will be resolved as early as january, at which point we will start the process of allocating that money to the construction of the station. supervisor chu: i guess the question for us overall is, depending on what the resolution is, we do not have a clear sense of what that will be in january. we are dependent on that half a
10:32 am
million dollars to do the renovation work. it that were the case but the redeveloper the agency was not able to enter into a contract to provide that grant, what would be another option? >> the money has already been allocated. it is already in our budget. that $500,000 would go back to the city if the redevelopment agency was eliminated, for exam, as part of a supreme court decision. that money would potentially be available in another form. but it really depends on what the supreme court decides. there are a lot of ever ways that that case can be resolved. obviously, us during the project, that would depend on the court actually upholding the two state laws in allowing the redevelopment agency to continue. if that did not happen, we would have to look at the situation and figure out what to do next. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. colleagues, any other questions?
10:33 am
seeing none, -- supervisor mar britney. supervisor mirkarimi: not a question. i just want to support supervisor kim's, i think, gestures and line of questioning with regard to sfpd about the need for really capitalizing on the idea of community policing so that is a two-way street and more engaging for the committee to be able to access this outpost, this satellite. i think that is where you were going. i think this is an evolves idea that the midmarket area merits, but the idea of trying to get greater engagement between public and sfpd ad community, those who reside and do business there, is something i think should be more forward. i am hoping that this strategy is more inviting of that. i think that this is a good
10:34 am
start, but it looks like it could use some further development. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. if there are no of up -- no other comments, the item is before us. ok, we have got a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. >supervisor mirkarimi: so moved. supervisor chu: we have a second. i would like the groups to work together to let us know what the secondary options if the $500,000 cannot actually be approved. that is still unknown, and that this project is dependent on that money to renovate the space, i would be concerned if we had to find that funding elsewhere, given that we have so little money in capital dollars. colleagues, we have the motion and a second. we can do that without objection. ok, item number four. >> item four, -- item number
10:35 am
three? item three, resolution authorizing the sheriff's department to retroactively apply for, accept, and accept and expend 249,006 in its $62 in funds from the office of justice programs through the justice and mental health collaboration program. >> good morning. we are requesting approval to accept and expend a ground of $249,662 two 01 the telehealth coordinator for our veterans that are incarcerated for two years. this provided a dedicated coordinator, which we have not had in the past. supervisor chu: ok, can you explain, is there going to be an additional person funded through the grant? a new position? >> yes, but this is through walden house the with our community based partner.
10:36 am
so it is not an fte to the city. it is a contract with walden house. they provide psychiatric services in the jail. they are familiar with our population. this would allow them to dedicate one person to the population. supervisor chu: ok. this does not have a budget analyst report with it. if there no additional questions, let's open it up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number three? ♪ >> believe it or not i would like to see the money you see and i would like it all to come to this item please money flying away on a wing and a prayer who could it be for? me it is for the puc be willed -- believe it or not i would like money to be free
10:37 am
i would like to fly to this item, can you not see? flying away on a wing and a prayer who could it be for? me it is for the puc ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the kennedy who would like to speak on item number three? >> good morning. my name is linda evans, and i work with legal services for presence with children. i would like to address this need for mental health counselor inside the sheriff's department. we feel very, very strongly -- were closely connected with the veterans program in the jail. one of our members, the supervisor of that program, and personal conversations, she has
10:38 am
commented to me many times on the need for increased mental health treatment for the veterans in her program. so i really support the expenditure of this money and the allocation of this money for the counseling that veterans need so desperately, but when they're inside the jail and then hopefully they will also receive services in terms of reentry and being able to reintegrate back into the community without the burden of the mental health issues that they may have developed previous to being in jail, for post- traumatic stress syndrome, and certainly inside the jail, which is a stressful situation as well. we definitely support the allocation of this money for a mental health counselor for the veterans in the jail. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to underscore how important the cover program is and the need to deal with the reality that is escalating in the u.s., in
10:39 am
particular, california, that we're finding veterans, especially out of iraq and afghanistan, implicated in the criminal-justice system or now sort of falling off the track and then are becoming offenders. we're noticing the trend on this. nationally, to the degree where they're now part of the realignment population, and they're part of the population that is challenging many counties throughout the state of california because of programs like this, like cover, and the need for better in this house rehabilitation and post-custody release reentry is something we really need to step up our game on. cover is a program provided by the city and county and has not been nationally recognized. this is something that is very small but will go a very long way. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. we have held public comment and closed public comment. the item is before us. i have a motion to send forward with a recommendation. and a second. we will do that without
10:40 am
objection. item number four. >> item four, ordinance approving a contradiction in the city and county of san francisco and the western renewable energy generation information system. supervisor chu: thank you. i believe we have bart and the puc on this item. >> good morning, government affairs manager with the sfpuc. i am here today to talk about an ordinance regarding agreements for the tracking of environmental attributes. environmental attributes are things like renewable energy credits that are generated when it renewable electricity is created. it includes things like cap and trade emissions of said, which are created when you undergo an activity that actually reduces greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as the planting of trees, emissions allowances, which are actually impacting the environment but it loud and emitter of greenhouse gases to actually do that.
10:41 am
and then, low carbon fuel credits, which are part of the air resources's board effort to reduce transportation and fuel and backs in terms of climate change in greenhouse gases. the ordinance before you does three primary things. first, it authorizes agreements with the western renewable energy generation information system, which we call regis, and that is for the certification and tracking of renewable energy credits associated with the city renewable electricity generation the second thing that it does is it waves some city contacted requirements in the san francisco administrative code, primarily because these agreements are standard agreements that the city has no authority to change. so it cannot conform id to our contract in requirements. the third thing that the ordinance does is it authorizes the general manager of the puc
10:42 am
to execute similar agreements to track environmental attributes. starting with the regis contract, the western renewable energy generation information system is a nonprofit credit by the california energy commission, along with other western states and provinces. it is the only entity that is permitted to certify and track renewable energy credits for the purpose of utility compliance with the renewable energy procurement requirements of the state. the agreement works very much like a bank account, so the account is for keeping renewable energy credits, somewhat to currency in the bank account. it certifies the number of regs that are created. and they store those for later demonstrations of compliance with the state law.
10:43 am
to do these services, they come with modest fees. the fis and the contractor very minimal. for example, if the puc were to register and certify all of the electric generation associated with our solar facilities, the cost would be $4,500 per year, so very modest indeed. if we were to certify all of our hetch hetchy generation and also certify all the generation that may be necessary to launch phase one of the clean powersf committee choice aggregation programs, that would max out at $32,000 a year. still a very modest cost in relation to other contracts. the next part of this ordinance has to do with the labors of the administrative code and include things like the competitive
10:44 am
procurement. this is the sole source contracts. no one else can do this for us. automatic renewal but a the contract automatically renews when you pay your annual fee each year. the macbride principles related to northern ireland. they do not really apply, but these types of waivers are basically things that are smart for other contracts but because the city has no authority to amend this contract, we need waivers for those. the third thing this ordinance does is it gives opposition to the general manager of the puc to enter similar contracts for the tracking and certification of environmental attributes. there are several regulatory proceedings that are going on now for the sfpuc expects that there will be similar contracts such as this coming forward, associated with emissions allowances and offsets, possibly
10:45 am
low carbon field credits. so this authorization is the general manager the ability to be nimble in our response. we need to be nimble in this situation. the reason is that they are very tight deadlines that associated when you launch these new programs, and you typically create a rash of entities that are seeking qualification. if you look at the regis situation, the city must register all of our generation that is renewable by july 1, 2012. right now, public utilities across the state and other generation entities are doing the same thing. they are trying to get their facilities registered. so, delays that might be caused by going to the board for approval at what are actually very modest costs could actually result in a loss in value for
10:46 am
the city or a loss in terms of financial value or perhaps a loss in compliance value. just a few things to keep in mind about this authorization to go again, these contracts are standard and not negotiable. they are required for full participation in compliance with state law. the deadlines are tight. the delays and risk losing some of the values. costs are very modest. it concludes not to exceed its limits, which is $1 million for the contract and $2.5 million for all the other environmental attributes. finally, these costs are reviewed in the budget, as a it is available for the board to review and approve the budget process. that is the contract. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. supervisor kim: i and a stand
10:47 am
with regis that we're limited in our ability to negotiate a contract because of requirements set by the state. so when asked to also be allowed to go into a future in agreements with other entities, are we assuming that these entities will have similar restrictions? >> we are anticipating that. the air resources board has released an rfp for a third- party entity to administer emissions allowances. this city will be issued those emissions allowances by the air resources board, and we will be expected to auction goes off in order to offset the cost of the cap and trade program to our rate payers. it is expected that these will be most likely very similar to what has been done by the energy commission with regis, which is a nonprofit entity that is non- partisan, neutral, and they can go in and look at it in a very
10:48 am
factual way to certify whatever the environmental attribute is in question. supervisor kim: it will not be competing entities that are able to monitor the same types of things. it is more that it'll be a different entity that will monitor a different attributes. >> yes. supervisor kim: ok, thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members, as shown on page 7 of our report, this is in table one. as the department has indicated -- i should say tables one into the, the cost to the puc would range annually from $4532 to $32,545. as the department has also indicated, this allows the puc
10:49 am
to enter into other similar agreements in the future to track environmental attributes without obtaining a court to revise our approval. any additional cost would be subject to annual appropriation approval by the board and would only allow the puc to enter into other agreements up to $2.5 million dollars. that is the cap. these are state requirements. our recommendation is that you do approve the agreement theregis. however, we consider approval to the proposed ordinance as it relates to the general manager of the puc to enter into similar agreements without getting supervisors approval to the apology -- to be a policy decision for the board. supervisor chu: thank you. let's open it up for public comment. any members of the public that wish to speak?
10:50 am
♪ >> you go out tracking after midnight out in the moonlight searching for the budget like you do you go out tracking in the moonlight searching for budget money for the environment like you do you go out walking and i hope you track the budget good luck to you ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. other members of the public who wish to speak on item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, the item is before us. ok, we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. can we do that without objection? we will do that without objection. thank you. item five, please. >> item number 5, resolution
10:51 am
placing funds intended for defense and special circumstances cases on controller reserves and adopting guidelines for receipt -- for release of such funds. supervisor chu: thank you. i know there are a number of folks in the audience here. another is a representative from the courts. our public defender is here. and of course supervisor campos is here, the sponsoring supervisor. supervisor campos: thank you. thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce this item and speak about this item. i also want to thank the budget and legislative analysts for their report. i want to let knowledge that we have our public defender here, as well as the chief attorney for the public defender's office. former supervisor is here. here on a different matter is the police commissioner. this is a pretty common sense to call item that request that
10:52 am
funds be transferred from an existing fiscal year 2011-2012 for mandated legal services account into a newly created indigent defense of special circumstances reserve account of the transfer of this money is not only consistent with the legal obligations that we, as a city and county, have with respect to the legal representation to individuals, but it is also consistent with the practice that we have had for more than two decades, where these funds have been made available for cases not only involving the death penalty but also cases that could result in life without the possibility of parole. i recognize that there is the difference of opinion in terms of how a particular judge reads a specific section of the penal code, but what i would say is that the transfer of the money at issue goes beyond what the
10:53 am
requirements of 987.9 of the penal code are. it is very clear that we have a constitutional mandate and a mandate that is codified in other sections of various codes, including the evidence code, to provide adequate representation to individuals. and the case law that has handled and dealt with these issues is very clear. we see in the report of the budget analyst sighting of a 1984 case, but there are other cases that make it clear that the obligation to provide adequate legal representation and to make sure that the legal representation that is provided is effective, necessarily implicates providing payment for some of these services. with that in mind, i think that this is something that makes a lot of sense.
10:54 am
and i would simply ask every question to the city attorney's office comic event that we have it effort -- city attorney's office, given that we have a difference of opinion in the coach section. what specifically is being asked of the board of supervisors? it is pinera and discrete action, which is to assembly approved the transfer of funds in the adoption of specific guidelines to be followed. and we have every right in the authority to do that. so if i may, through the chair, ask cheryl adams. >> you are correct, this is a distinct transaction, and movement of money that already exist in the budget, changing the name of the appropriation and placing it on a reserve and establishing criteria for the release of the reserve. it is not an expenditure of that money. supervisor campos: great. with that, i would simply ask my colleagues to move this item forward. if you have any of this of the questions coming as a more than happy to address them.
10:55 am
we also have the public defender and the chief attorney who are here in the event that any questions as well. supervisor chu: thank you. i will like to offer the public defender an opportunity to say a few words on this item. >> thank you very much, supervisors, for hearing this resolution today, and thank you, supervisor campos, for sponsoring it. for as long as i have been public defender and even before then, this fund has been established in order to allow our office, as well as the superior court, the indigent defense program, to provide representation in cases where individuals were charged with death penalty offenses and/or special circumstances offenses where a person faces the possibility of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. the reason why this fund was established as for three reasons. one, we cannot anticipate these
10:56 am
cases which are investing in of, intensive, as well as cost intensive because of the need for expert witnesses. these typically involve dna evidence. they also involve extraordinary costs that are not currently budgeted within the public defender or the superior court's current budgets. second, we need to respond quickly to these cases. we cannot come back on the case by case basis to the board of supervisors to seek funding in these cases. often, the preliminary hearings are held within a matter of weeks, if not months, and we need to begin providing representation in these cases. third, under both the penal code as well as the california supreme court, these cases,
10:57 am
expenditures in these cases must remain confidential. for that reason, we have set up a procedure in the past that involved a confidential court review of expenditures. the reason why we are seeking this resolution is that the presiding judge of the superior court has recently determined that the court will not be making determinations in cases where special circumstances are charged, the person is facing life without possibility of parole. so what this does is essentially allows the controller's office to make that determination. so this resolution is joined by the superior court, as carmen chu indicated. we have someone here on behalf of the court, as well as the controller's office. i will answer any questions. supervisor kim: tuesday quick
10:58 am
question. i appreciate the intent of this resolution. the request was made by the superior court and public defenders, and the vast majority of them have been four defendants -- have been for defendants for cases that can result in life without possibility of parole. >> there are actually three categories of cases could of their cases are the district attorney has elected not to seek the death penalty, but it has charged special circumstances. special circumstances are specific factual allegations that have to be proven in court, which would result in a sentence of life without possibility of parole. there are also cases where the district attorney has charged that the death penalty but has not made a decision as to whether to seek the death penalty. there is a third category of cases which starts off as death penalty cases that the district
10:59 am
attorney's later he lacks on the record not to seek the death penalty. those are the three categories of cases. my understanding is that superior court was still review cases where there had not been a determination not to seek the death penalty. however, the other two category of cases, either cases where the death penalty was not charged that life without possibility of parole was sought or in cases where there was a later determination not to seek the death penalty, those category of cases would be submitted to the controller for its approval. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. a question for either the mayor's budget office or to the department. with regards to your budget for this special, whether it is expert testimony or other services that are needed for these types of cases, do you these types of cases, do you have existing resources within