tv BOS Govt Audits and Oversight Committee SFGTV July 2, 2020 6:00pm-9:01pm PDT
extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available for each item on this agenda. cable channel 26 are streaming public comment number across the screen. your opportunity to speak during the meeting will be by calling 408-418-9388, and enter 1 1 1469339147. press pound, and pound again. when you are connected, your microphone will be muted, and you will be in listening mode only. to enter public comment, press star and three to be entered
>> clerk: yes. resolution urging the city administrator to immediate nominate an interim county veteran's service officer to safeguard the public health of the veterans in the city and county of san francisco during the existence of a local emergency due to the ongoing spread of the novel coronavirus covid-19. mr. chair? >> supervisor haney: before we begin, i do want to welcome supervisor stefani who's joined us for this item, and also note that susie smith from the human services agency is here with us and able to answer any questions. supervisor haney, the floor is yours. >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair mar and members of the
committee. colleagues, today for your consideration is a resolution that i introduced last month, urging the city administrator to immediately nominate an interim county veterans service officer to safeguard the public health of the veterans in the city and county of san francisco with covid-19. since i introduced this resolution, the city administrator has nominated someone for consideration, and i really want to thank supervisor stefani for her very vocal and steadfast leadership on the veteran's service officer. she first raised it at the board of supervisors and has been taking the lead on making sure this happened, and --
[inaudible] >> supervisor haney: someone is not on mute. can everyone put themselves on mute? thank you. so -- [inaudible] >> supervisor haney: this is a concern that was brought to me from the veterans affairs commission, their leadership, and they have been also raising the alarms about a lack of support for veterans not just during this crisis but before it. we brought together a roundtable of leaders in the veterans community, swords to plowshares and other community leaders, to discuss what needs to be done and critical urgency of bringing forward a veterans
resolution. the effect of this virus on military veterans has been especially hard. they are, many times, but not always older, and many reside in shelters, nursing homes, and places that have been breeding grounds for the virus. many are essential workers that continue to serve our city as sheriffs deputies, hospital workers, and others, there are 12,000 veterans in san francisco, many of them who reside on the streets. many are black and brown people who struggle to get the services that they need. many veterans are unsheltered or homeless, and in some cases,
they've been moved to a new facility, making it difficult to provide access to care for them in this new environment. and the v.a., which many of them do rely on, may not have the same access for them. san francisco veterans do not have a central advocate to represent them and to coordinate services. the position of the county veteran's services officer has been left vacant for over a year, including during this crisis, and the city needs a dedicated liaison to coordinate with state and federal services, local organizations, and local services. many require wraparound services as well as going beyond basic intake and referral services. i just want to close by
thanking the veterans affairs commission. i think this is a resource for our city when it comes to our veterans and their services, and i think there should be greater partnerships with a veterans services officer, a cvso, and making sure that tisy is brought to us in the last number of weeks and months. thank you, supervisor stefani, for your leadership and continuing to push on this. and i think because of your work, as well as the veterans affairs commission, we're seeing some progress in the appointment of or nomination of
a veterans services officer. we have a petition of miles tucker from the veterans affairs commission speaking on behalf of the commission to explain the issues that our veterans are facing, and he will also complain why the position of the cvso is so critical, and their position on sort of how this process has gone and what their prospective is on the nomination and what it entails, and i'm sure perhaps supervisor stefani has comments, as well. again, i just want to thank you for bringing this to our attention and your vocal leadership to get this done. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor haney, and also, also, supervisor stefani for your leadership on this position. supervisor stefani, do you have
any remarks? >> supervisor stefani: yes, thank you, chair mar. as i've mentioned several times, i am the daughter of a viet nam vet, a granddaughter of a world war ii veterans, and this is an issue that i've been working on quite sometime -- [inaudible] >> supervisor stefani: -- so perhaps that can be part of this resolution. you know, i don't know where the miscommunication might have happened with regard to the veterans affairs commission because i was working with them, as well, on this position, so i think the need for a resolution is really moot at this point because of the work that we did prior to the introduction of your resolution, which i do appreciate. as i mentioned tuesday at roll call, this is a position that,
because we called attention to it in a formal letter of inquiry, i worked with this city administrator, naomi kelley, and several others, to make sure that it was posted right away. they've already hired somebody who started june 29 is my understanding, the la understanding. the last process to make sure this thing goes through is a resolution to the board of supervisors, which will be heard on tuesday, so i think it will go through next week. i understand the urgency which i explain in your resolution, but again, like i said, i think it is moot at this point. in regards to veterans services, i think it's something that needs to be done, and we need to continue
to work on that. this is a process, and obviously, the hiring of this process is a process that we cannot interfere with us. i just want to, again, thank you for your attention to this very critical issue, all of the statistics that you mentioned about the veterans that suffered through this pandemic are all the more relevant and absolutely heartbreaking to me. i think we need to do much more for veterans and everything that touches on veterans issues. i have 108 units of veterans issues in the presidio. i've worked with swords to
plowshares, and we are working to improve that area, as well. again, thank you for your attention. i think part of the resolution for calling for an interim director is moot at this point, but i think working on wraparound services for veterans for everything that they've done for us and continue to do is important. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor haney, did you have anything in response to supervisor stefani's comments or report? >> supervisor haney: no. i'm looking forward to working with you on these larger services to veterans, and so definitely with that, you know, i think that the pieces of the
equation that relates to the veterans services officer, i think it still remains relevant, but we're moving this forward because of no small part of your leadership. the veterans and leaders who have brought this to us have not told me that they believe it's moot. so i would defer to them, and i know we have someone here, as well, who may want to share some remarks on it. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor haney. maybe we -- what is your interest on having miles tucker from the veterans affairs commission be before we get to public comment? yeah. so mr. tucker, would you be
willing to share your remarks right now? >> yes, chair mar, i would. >> supervisor mar: okay. >> thank you. first of all, thank you, chair mar, supervisor haney, supervisor stefani, and supervisor peskin. my name is miles tucker, and impart of the veterans commission. i know our chair would have liked to address the board, but he was unavailable today, and he sends his regrets. the veterans affairs commission has a concern due to the handling of the veterans community services officer.
the position had been vacant since may 1, 2019, and while the agency had named an interim supervisor, we did not appoint an interim cvso. given the understanding of the veterans commission that this person was not a veteran, then this would possibly have run in contrast to the state statute stating that the cvso must be a veteran. in addition, in order to receive funding, the cvso must be filled. we're grateful for the services of supervisor stefani and haney to expedite this hiring. however, that process did not start until may of this past year. while we're very, very grateful in working with the city
administrator to allow this hiring during the covid pandemic, 12 months out a leader for our veterans coordinating services is, in our view, unacceptable and unavoidable, and we believe this was due to just lack of oversight. and on a similar note, while we do understand, as supervisor stefani, again, helped to expedite the hiring of a cvso, the commission did not really know who this person is, and we understand in the draft going up to the board now, there is no supporting resume listing this person's qualification, which is contrary to the last nomination of a cvso. it's the lack of transparency that sort of fits into this narrative over this position. as supervisor haney has mentioned, the commission has brought up this concern and
proposed a possible ordinance that would work in coordination with cvso to involve the cvs -- excuse me. the v.a.c. would work to help facilitate oversight of the cvso position through to the planning process similar to how the commission has a role in hiring the director. this falls in line with that intent, we believe. the v.a.c. is composed of a group of veterans from different backgrounds, different armed services experiences. we'd like to be a part of this
solution, and we thank supervisor haney for his proposal. now to pivot to covid-19, covid-19 has had san francisco's 27,000-plus veterans especially hard, including our 600 veterans who are currently experiencing homelessness. we are unaware of spread due to a lack of access to care. we understand there's over 100 h.u.d. bash vouchers. part of the c.v.s. role is to active seek out veterans to use these vouchers, and again, to have this position vacant during the last 12 months and during the pandemic, to the commission, is very
unacceptable. the cvso, with covid-19, this has made an already democratic system more challenging to navigate. i'd just like to reiterate this commission doesn't believe this situation would have been in place if the leadership position lierg had been carried out. the v.a.c. is requesting that this committee recommend to the board of supervisors to pass the current resolution to nominate a cvso, to name a permanent hire, and to grant oversight of this position to the veterans commission and certain rules, and to have any nominee for the cvso, to include the current nominee, if
changes to oversight are not in place, to be subject to a rules committee hearing if not brought to a hearing before the full board of supervisors. i'd like to thank you for your time today. >> supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: yes. mr. tucker, as i've said, i'm committed to working with you to make sure we really strengthen the critical role of the veterans commission. what i wanted to ask you as it related to the potential interim or to the interim cvso, was the veterans affairs commission consulted in any way? did you all know that there
was -- obviously, there was an application that went out, and a process. were you all involved at all in the selection of the individual who was nominated? >> supervisor haney, no. we saw his name in the draft resolution and saw no supporting documents or this person's resume. while we think this person is a fully qualified, outstanding person, there was simply no way for us to qualify or verify this person is. >> supervisor haney: and i heard they had started their job, it sounded like, from supervisor stefani, on monday. have you or any of your fellow commissioners heard from them since they've been in their role? >> through the chair, supervisor haney, no, we have not. >> supervisor haney: okay. i realize this isn't a hearing
on the nomination of the interim cvso, but i think that seems to me to be unusual and problematic and underscores the need for this commission to be much more involved in these sort of decisions in the future. and obviously, the necessity of this resolution. i hope the person who's put forward is fantastic and does his job incredibly well. i also hope that they are closely in touch with our veteran leaders and most importantly our veterans affairs commission. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair mar. let me be very clear. the vice president of the
veterans affairs commission contacted me about this way back in april, and i immediately started to work on this. i went through the process to inquire with our city administrator, to inquire with our human resources agency, and get this process going. i was a department head for two years with the county clerk, and i understand the process. i think we would benefit from hearing from susie smith about how the hiring process actually occurs, and whether the veterans commission had any oversight. as i mentioned before, as supervisors, we cannot interfere with the hiring process. we know that there is a hiring process that is very well set
out. it was posted on may 11, and that was a post that was open to the public. the veterans commission was very well aware. they could have had people that they know to apply for it, and i'm just very confused as to where the breakdown in communication was in terms of me putting forth a process that was brought to me and concerns brought to me by the commission president. and then, it seems, at some point, that same concern was communicated to supervisor haney while the process was already underway. now whether or not the veterans affairs commission wanted to weigh-in, and of course, their opinions and their expertise is very valued, and we will have a hearing at the rules committee on the resolution i've introduced on this person who has been selected through our hiring process. so i would like to have miss
smith weigh-in on that, and perhaps the deputy city attorney ann pearson, to weigh-in on what was or was not followed in that position. so i'd like to, miss smith, explain the process. >> well, i appreciate the reference to your experience in terms of civil service hiring. sometimes it can take longer than we all would hope. so this, the position, people were encouraged to apply through may 25. we had -- it was an open process, so any candidate that the veterans commission was interested in putting forth, we would hope that they would encourage that. in terms of the commission's
part in the hiring process, as a civil servant position, i'm not sure they could fully be involved, although we could look at having them on a panel in the future in terms of moving forward. i feel that would make a lot of sense, but they could put forward candidates that they felt were qualified, and we'd provide the resume of the candidate who had been selected. in terms of the work that's been happening during the vacancy, i just want the supervisors to know that the work has been ongoing. we've had a manager. we couldn't put that manager forward as the veterans county services officer. she's not a veterans herself, but she has had years of experience working with veterans services, so the part about advocacy and getting veterans to their services and connection to the larger safety
net, it's been there. we couldn't put her name forward because she wasn't a veteran, but the work hasn't stopped because we didn't have a veterans community service officer. >> supervisor haney: thank you. i didn't think that the work has stopped, but i think in the future, we should integrate the commission into more of the process, whether that's giving them a bigger role or' making them part of a panel. i would say that i don't think that anybody thinks that this is sort of an ideal situation how the process was done, considering how long the position was left vacant. i think we're talking about
moving it and helping our voluntarily leaders on this commission in terms of their experience and expertise and not suggesting anything inappropriate in how this person was nominated, although we do have some questions as this ultimately goes to the board of supervisors, and hopefully this person reaches out soon to ensure that they're all on the same page here. >> supervisor mar: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair mar. i have been around long enough to see. i understand that this is a civil service hire, but i understand what miss smith says and has been referenced by supervisor stefani and haney,
the normal protocol, which is a member of the commission or a former member of the commission or somebody from the community is on the panel. i was selected, as a supervisor to be on the panel for the new budget and legislative analyst on the board of supervisors. so there clearly is a communication breakdown here, an inclusivity breakdown here. unfortunately, the head of the commission isn't here. certain members of the commission sent messages to one member of the board of supervisors, and other members of the commission sent messages to another member of the board of supervisors. but having said that, transparency, and having this
position which is not within the purview of the board to hire or fire or the commission to hire or fire would just make this process for our veterans community much better and much more inclusive. i'm not sure how we resolve this due to the instruments that are in front of us today and will be in front of the whole board due to the efforts of supervisor stefani. it would be great to see if supervisor stefani and supervisor haney could come together. i'm trying to see if i see something that could do that, but i just don't see it. >> supervisor mar: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: i just -- just in terms of what you're saying there, supervisor
peskin, that this was somehow factions of the veterans affairs commission, that was not my goal of it. we want the veterans commission so be involved. we want their leadership, and we want the services for the veterans. i don't think we have any conflict, we just all want to get this done. >> supervisor peskin: right on. >> supervisor mar: okay. any further comment from anyone before we go to public comment on this item? mr. clerk, are there any callers on the line? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. for those who have connected to our meeting via phone, please press star and three to enter the queue if you wish to speak
on this item. for those already in the queue, please wait for the beep to be prompted to speak. if you wish to speak on this item, please call in by following the instructions on your screen. dial 408-418-9388. enter the meeting i.d. 1460991339. president the pound key twice and then star-three to enter the queue to speak. mr. qu, do we have any callers on the line. >> operator: there are no callers on the line for item number 1. >> supervisor mar: thank you,
mr. clerk and operations. hearing no callers on the line, public comment is closed. thanks again, supervisor haney and supervisor stefani for all of your leadership and work on these important issues. supervisor haney, do you want to make a motion? >> supervisor haney: yeah. i'd like to move to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor mar: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: at this speak to the motion, and maybe this is not particularly important because the resolution expresses a sentiment. do we really want to urge the nomination of a temporary officer if a permanent officer has been selected? i mean, should we take out the work interim, through the chair, to supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: yes, that
is a fair point, and i -- >> supervisor peskin: i mean, do we want to include a whereas an individual has been selected and take out the interim. >> supervisor haney: yes. >> supervisor peskin: page 3, at line 15. and indeed, this has already happened. the county services manager has already nominated a county services officer, right? >> supervisor haney: yes. >> supervisor peskin: so i don't know we need to instruct the city manager to do something she has already done. >> supervisor stefani: that was my point in the beginning. >> supervisor peskin: to maybe that first resolve is no longer
necessary, and it sounds like the national search, identify, and recruit has happened, and the third one is, i think, still relevant -- [inaudible] >> supervisor haney: the third one is still relevant because we need to still find that person. basically, we're talking about the first resolved? >> supervisor peskin: yeah. i think the first resolved is
now superfluous, and the second is maybe kind of superfluous, too. >> supervisor haney: supervisor peskin, the fourth resolve. >> supervisor peskin: i'll just do line numbers. i think the resolve starting at line 14 is superfluous, the resolve starting at line 18 is superfluous. all the other ones are still relevant. >> supervisor haney: all right. why don't we strike lines 14 through 20, and then, we need to have the title of the resolution reflect that. >> clerk: so the title -- my policies for interrupting. if we remove the first two resolve clauses that are on
page 3, that would change the function of the resolution to being a resolution that provides the veteran's commission with much more so that is the resolution beginning at line 21 and below. and you would want to strike lines 14 through 20 on page 3. >> supervisor peskin: yes. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisors peskin and haney, for those amendments. supervisor stefani, do those amendments make sense to you? >> supervisor stefani: yes, they do, and i look forward to working on this together going forward. >> supervisor haney: yeah,
thanks. same. >> supervisor mar: so i would just move that we amend that we accept the legislation as discussed. >> clerk: would you like me to take a roll call on the motion to amend? and i have the motion to amend as being offered by supervisor haney. >> supervisor mar: okay. please call roll on that. >> clerk: on the motion to amend lines 14 through 20 and make conforming changes to the course of the resolution offered by supervisor haney -- [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. can you please call roll on the motion to recommend the item as amended to the full board? >> clerk: okay. we have a mover for that? >> supervisor haney: i'll move
that we send this to the full board. >> clerk: as amended? >> supervisor haney: as amended. >> clerk: on the motion by member haney to recommend as amended -- [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you, mr. clerk asupervis and everyone. mr. clerk, please call item 2. >> clerk: item 2 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to prohibit the city from entering into an agreement to provide goods or services to incarcerated persons of a jail facility that allows the city to collect some or all of the revenue paid for these goods or services. members of the public who wish to call in to provide public
comment, call had 08-418-9388. enter the meeting i.d., 1460 # 91339, followed by pound, and pound again to enter the meeting. press star and three to enter the queue. >> supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor fewer, the floor is yours. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i want to thank mayor london breed and former sheriff vickie hennessy for leading on this effort a year ago and want to thank the treasurer's office financial project and jail justice coalition for their advocacy. thanks to their leadership, these reforms were reflected in the city budget. one year later, i am taking this one step forward and make
this a permanent part of our budget. [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: in the midst of our current health and economic crisis. prior to this reform, if a person incarcerated in san francisco jail made two 15-minute phone calls a day, it would typically cost $300 over 70 days or $1500 over the course of a year. items in the jail commissary such as soap, coffee, and food items were marked up 48% to generate revenue for the jails. in total, we were extracting
$1.7 million from families and loved ones of incarcerated people each year. it's important this is enacted now. as we know, the city is facing a dramatic budget deficit. low-income people and communities of color face this also. we want to ensure we never again return to this practice of generating revenue for incarcerated people and their families. we do not want to repeat some mistakes of the past, even if we are tempted to do so during tough budget times. we also do not want to reduce the funding commitment made to this cheap programming in the jails. these include violence prevention, parenting classes, substance abuse recovery and more are vital in supporting
incarcerated people in their time of need. we need to do whatever we can to provide support, not hit them with higher prices. the treasurer's office financial justice project commitmented that 80% of jail -- estimated that 80% of jail phone calls and commissary were paid for by incarcerated people's loved ones, low-income people and people of color. we cannot ask them to bear the burden of filling our budget gap. and third, as our jails explore offering other communications service like video calls and tablets, ipads to incarcerated people, we want to make sure
that these services apply to services so they can operate. typically, they provide these services to incarcerated people by charging high prices. we want to make sure these services are provided for free or at the lowest cost possible for incarcerated people and their families. i want to applaud sheriff miyamoto and their office for their partnership on this issue and mayor breed for championing this issue, and thanks to the officer of the treasurer and tax collector and the san francisco justice coalition for collaborating with my office and the sheriff's office.
this should be the norm, and this legislation will help pave the way for other municipalities to follow suit. [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: the first is to add language to the finding, on page 3, lines 7 through 16, i would like to add the following language to address that we do not want to jeopardize the budget for funding the program previously generated on the backs of incarcerated people. [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: -- prison or leader services, substance use programs, contracts with community based organizations to provide parenting classes and violence prevention programs and programs staffed to coordinate jail programming.
when this policy change was implemented in 2019, it was done so with a commitment that funding for programming for incarcerated people would not be reduced. instead, it was the intent that san francisco, the city and county, would provide the funding and would not rely on people in the incarceration system to do so. on page 4, lines 9 through 15, i would like to strike the language regarding, if the services are available on-line as the sheriff is committed to sharing this information with stakeholders. i'd like to turn th we have several people available for comments and
questions. so if we could have ann from the treasurer and tax collector financial justice project speak first. thank you. >> yes, hi. thank you, supervisor fewer, chairman mar, and supervisors for having me here today. my name is ann, and i direct the san francisco financial justice project. can you call hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> supervisor mar: yes. >> thank you. you know, the financial justice project, it's our job to work with others across the city, county, and courts to reform fines, fees, and financial penalties that can have an
adverse effect on low-income people and people of color. as supervisor fewer said, we would be the first county in the nation to commit to never again generating jail revenue for services provided to incarcerated people and their families. i'd like to make a few quick points about why this legislation and this ordinance is important. as the supervisor said, charging exorbitant fees to incarcerated people and their families whether it's for jail phone calls, commissary goods, or ipads is common in almost every jail across the country. but things like reentry services should not depend on fining incarcerated people above and beyond their sentences or on gouging their families. secondly, these practices strip money from incarcerated people and their family who are
disproportionately african american and people of color. most often, the people paying these costs are women of color and women of color with low-income. when we drain the bank accounts of incarcerated peoples' families, we're punishing them for staying in touch with their laughed ones, and this should be celebrated and not penalized. for lifting this burden off of incarcerated people and their families is a good investment. we make it easier, not harder, for families to stay in touch with their incarcerated family members and loved ones.
yes, the way we were doing things previously generated a small amount of revenue, but it has adverse effects when we financially strain or cut people off from their families. the services that were previously funded by high prices for phone call and commissary items are really important services, and the funding for them should be maintained. the only problems with the way these services were funded, not with the services themselves. and lastly, passing this ordinance is -- would have a big impact beyond frisk. we're getting calls from across the country about how and why we did it. san mateo just announced it was lowering its commissary prices to match san francisco after a person there asked why items why their jail store were more expensive than in san francisco, and state senator
holly mitchell has put forth sb 555 to lift this burden off incarcerated people and their families. lastly, so many people came together to put this forward. so many community members came forward and shared their experience and talked about the impact of these practices their lives and shaped this ordinance. this is not easy for people to do, and i want to thank them for that. the san francisco sheriff and his team have been committed to this every step of the way and very open to dialogue with formerly incarcerated people and their families. they've hosted community meetings to listen to people, as well, and thank you, supervisor fewer and supervisor walton for your leadership and championing this issue.
thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. and could we have the public defender. >> thank you, supervisor fewer, so much. thank you, supervisors, and thank you, supervisor fewer, for leading on this legislation. and i also want to thank supervisor walton for his cosponsorship. my office, in particular, jennica and carolyn, has bee n engaged in this process from the beginning, and we are thrilled that this is moving forward today. as public defenders, we see firsthand how markups of phone calls and commissary items are a financial burden on families who are already desperately struggling to make ends meet. these costs weigh heavily on black and brown communities,
especially women. i met with a friend last night who was telling me that the ramen was at least four times what it cost in the store, and since dinner was at 4:00, he had no choice but to purchase it. we know that increased communication between incarcerated people and their loved ones in jail decreases jail incidents and the commissary provides a way for people to purchase basic necessities, like food and basic hygiene products, both critical for people to maintain as much dignity as possible until we can get them home
again. this has become even more important during the pandemic, when many people inside and outside of incarcerated settings are afraid of preparing food prepared by other food. request the people over profits ordinance, we can ensure that both phone calls and commissary are available to loved ones and incarcerated people in san francisco. san francisco is, again, leading the way on the potential consequences of criminal legal system contact. this legislation provides a model for other cities and counties nationwide to follow, to put people over profits, and i want to thank supervisor fewer for taking this step to ensure the city will not be allowed to profit avenoff thos
our jails and our loved ones ever again. thank you for allowing us to speak to you today, and i urge you all to vote in favor. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. now, could we have valentino from young community developers? perhaps we should then now pivot to the sheriff, paul miam miyamoto. >> hi. thank you, supervisor fewer, and everyone. good morning. i can't add to everything that was already said, other than this was a long time coming. this legislation is a recognition that the city has in partnering with us to make sure that we can do this in a way that we continue the
services, the programs, and the many other things that we do with our inmate welfare fund, which is mandated for us to maintain. having a commitment from the city to ensure that we set out the funds to have these accomplished is important to us and to me specifically as a sheriff because we have a long-standing relationship in working with you first. i've gotten inquiries from other jurisdictions and sheriff's offices in how we're doing it. and as this is repeated throughout the county and the state, hopefully, this'll be repeated in the nation as a
whole. ann mentioned, you know, that she is -- she has provided us with the focus. and by highlighting what we're really doing here and accomplishing, i believe, public defender even mentioned, in terms of clarification and communication to the community for those that are in our jail system, incarcerated, is extremely important from a public safety aspect in keeping people in our community safe, and that communication is key. as mentioned earlier, we are trying to provide for tablets, to put a tablet in the hand of everybody who's incarcerated, and the major component for that is to make sure that there's communication, not just for programs and services, but their loved ones, and community support networks, as well.
this is all tied into the bigger picture of making sure we support those in need. i am happy to be a part of the leadership here. i'm happy and grateful for the commitment from the city to ensure that we continue to have that funding and that revenue being replaced with the budgetary commitment to continue these programs and services. i just want to say thank you to everybody for this, especially in those times of global uncertainty, with everything going on, we're committed to finding ways to impact people and through the community to making sure we support everyone in need. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much for joining us, and thank you, sheriff, for your collaboration. with that, char, i think we are ready for questions and comments and public comments. thank you.
>> supervisor mar: thank you so much, supervisor fewer, for your leadership on this important issue. before we go to public comment, colleagues, do you have any questions or comments? yep, seeing none, why don't we go to public comment. mr. clerk, are there any callers on the line? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. operations, are there any callers in the queue? for those already connected to our meeting, please press star and three if you wish to be connected to the queue for this item. for those already in the queue, please wait to be prompted to begin. for those watching our meeting on cable channel 26 or via streaming or through sfgtv.org if you wish to speak on this item, please call in by following the instructions on your screen. dial 408-418-9388.
enter the meeting i.d. 1460991337. please press the pound symbol twice, then press star-three to enter the queue to speak. mr. qu, do we have callers on the line? >> operator: yes, we have three callers. >> clerk: welcome, caller. >> hello. my name is paul connelly bryley. i'm with all of us or none, and i want to thank you all for this effort. i'm also from san francisco. this touches me to my heart. this addresses so many issues, and to make phone calls free, that was one thing, because to even get people to put money on your books, you have to be able
to make the phone call itself. we all know that this is rise from plantations, and i would think the rise of black people from share people and incarceration, i'd just like to thank everybody who moved this forward. >> clerk: thank you, mr. bryley, for your comments. mr. qu, can we get the next caller. [inaudible] >> -- can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> good morning -- thank you, thank you. good morning, supervisors. i am a program manager at young community developers and a member of the san francisco jail justice coalition, and i
wanted to voice my support for the people over profits ordinance. [inaudible] >> they often struggle to stay in touch with their loved ones even despite the hassle and high cost of jail phone calls. the higher the price of each call or commissary item, the more difficult it is for incarcerated people to stay in touch with their support, so they rely on any civilian contact with for a variety of reasons, but mostly to develop a plan that'll help them transition back into the community successfully and reduce rescidivism. it's important to recognize that when an incarcerated person has some support, it is typically from other family
members who are most often black and brown, low-income people, like me, who have to take on the responsibility of putting money on the person's accounts to maintain any form of contact they can. i have been deeply affected by this over the last couple of decades. most family members will still sacrifice some basic needs or choose between paying rent or groceries to meet these needs. especially during the pandemic, these calls are critical timelines -- [inaudible] >> clerk: thank you very much for your comments. mr. qu, could we get the next speaker, please.
>> hi. [inaudible] >> clerk: we can hear you. >> hi. my name's javier, and i'm a community organizer with community housing partnership, which is a supportive housing provider, and also a member of the jail justice coalition. i want to start by thanking supervisor fewer for leading on this legislation and to the financial justice project for their tireless work on behalf of justice for low-income communities. and i also am in full support of this legislation and want to note, in the last few years, san francisco has been leading the charge to eliminate unfair fees against -- against low-income folks, and to also note that a couple of years ago, we passed legislation to get rid of $33 million in criminal justice debt. and so we're leading the charge
and inspiring other cities and municipalities to stop making money off of the lowest income people in their constituency. and also, as a supportive housing provider of the people in our building get -- the little money that they have eaten away by these kinds of things if they're inflicted by the criminal justice system, so i want to applaud this legislation, and i'm excited that the city is taking seriously the resolution passed two years ago which really treated incarceration as a public health issue and not as a means to make money off of the backs of the lowest income communities. so thank you, and i want to urge you to vote yes on this
led legislation. >> clerk: thank you very much for your comments. mr. qu, could you send in our next caller, please. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is -- [inaudible] >> hello? hello. this is roma guys from taxpayers for public safety, and i want to -- i want to support -- we want to support this ordinance at every level, and most importantly, at the level of those who will implement it in the sheriff's office. this is a landmark, and it's already been noted by our leader, supervisor fewer, and the coalition. so we agree that prices shouldn't be based on the
poorest and it has a thoroughly racist implication, which we're trying to change in our community. so thank you, and just let's move on and see where we can get with this. really appreciate the leadership. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, miss guy. mr. qu, could we get the next speaker, please. [inaudible] >> i'm a 40-year resident of san francisco, and i have found myself incarcerated three different times over the years, and i found that the biggest concern over the years is staying in contact with my loved ones through letters and
phone calls, so i'm really pleased with the effort that you're making in making that not a burden anymore. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you very much for your comments. mr. qu, do we have any further callers for this item? >> operator: that completes the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor mar: well, thank you, operations and mr. clerk. hearing no further public comments, public comment is closed. i just wanted to thank, once again, supervisors fewer and walton, and all the community advocates for justice reform for your work on this. this really important measure is long overdue and unjust fees and charges on individuals incarcerated in our jails. especially now in this historic moment of reckoning over
systemic racism in law enforcement and criminal justice, it's incredibly important that we move this forward now, and it's exciting to know that this is going to lead to similar efforts in other cities and counties around the country, so thanks again, all of you, for your work on this, and i would like to be added as a cosponsor on this. colleagues, do you have any -- supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: thank you, chair mar. i will defer to committee members first before i end with closing comments and ask for your approval of the proposed amendments. >> supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. i also, supervisor fewer, want to thank you for your leadership. it's so amazing to see consensus from the mayor, the
sheriff's, the public defender, on this incredible issue. folks have been raising this issue for years, for decades, in terms of the huge burden that it places on incarcerated individuals and their families in challenges that make it harder for them to stay connected and get on their feet when they come out of incarceration, so it's obviously something that is racially cre racially discriminatory, as well, and has an impact on
certain races in san francisco. i'm happy that we are ensuring that this is a policy of our city, so thank you, supervisor fewer, and i would also like to be added as a cosponsor. >> supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair mar. let me associate myself with the words of the chair person and supervisor haney and saying in the interest of time, i, too, would like to affix my name to this legislation as a cosponsor and share my thanks for pushing this legislation. this is really great work. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor peskin. so i'd like to move that we incorporate these amendments presented by supervisor fewer. mr. clerk, can you please call roll. >> clerk: on the motion to
amend offered by chair mar -- [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. and i'd like to move that we recommend this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: on the motion to recomme move this to the full board with a positive recommendation -- [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: thanks, again, for all of your work on this. mr. clerk, please call item number 3. >> clerk: agenda item number 3 is a resolution urging city departments to ensure that all
clients brought into the covid-19 response system be placed into shelter or housing post emergency, requesting a comprehensive plan to prevent shelter in place hotel clients from being discharged to the streets, and urging transparency in hotel referral and griefance policy. members of the public who wish to comment publicly on this item should call 408-418-9388,
enter the meeting i.d., 1460991338, and press pound, and pound again. >> supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor haney, do you have any comments? >> supervisor haney: yes. focus investments have helped to curve the spread of covid-19 and provide temporary housing for over 1800 people experiencing homelessness in hotels and hundreds more in safe sleeping sites and r.v.s. this is clearly still ongoing. there is a lot of work left to do to get vulnerable people off the streets and into the hotels as the covid emergency continues. we also have to plan ahead, and it will take all of us thinking about, right now, the next step building off of these investments in temporary housing to keep everyone housed. the resolution cosponsored by
supervisor walton calls for a [inaudible] homeless housing plan, and a clear, unequivoca requirement that those being housed outdoors are brought in to shelter. there was a block on eddy and taylor that, for months and months and months was full of people living humanely on our sidewalks. 44 people were brought off of those sidewalks and placed in hotels just yesterday. and what everyone in the community is asking is how are we going to make sure that this
doesn't go back to the way it was, and how are we going to make sure that this is permanent for them, and they have long-term how's -- we have long-term housing for them? as groups work to put forward a plan, i look forward to having a more robust conversation about how we leverage acquiring hotels and transitioning them into permanent supportive housing, filling vacancy in the city's current stock of
supportive housing and rapid rehousing, flexible housing subsidies, new housing, and other placements. this resolution urges other critical priorities, as well. one that h.s.h. and h.s.a. apply the shelter grievance policy to shelter in place hotels. this city has a long-standing shelter grievance policy and should be extended to the shelter in place hotels since we are extending this for an indefinite period of time. the current process relies on the h.s.a. and then the controller's whistleblower program as request for clients rather than the long established process that is familiar to shelter clients. i hope that h.s.a. and h.s.h. can work with the shelter client advocates, the shelter in place providers, hotel providers, and shelter monitoring committee which should resume meetings immediately to create more due
process. secondly, h.s.h. and h.s.a. should refine a community-based referral model. intake referral has remained largely nontransparent with the exception of one small hotel. service providers are able to refer covid positive or people under investigation of covid-19 to isolation and quarantine, but given how critical these shelter in place rooms are, it is essential for this health intervention to be provided for in a way that's more transparent and clear for people to access. lastly, we want to request that h.s.h. conduct a coordinated entry assessment and enter into one system every client in a shelter in place hotel, r.v., or congregant sites.
it's my understanding that many people have not been surveyed for shelter in place housing, a critical step in helping them end their homelessness. this is a conversation how we build off the immense investments over the last couple of months and ensure that anyone in the covid response system is released to the streets, and behavioral health options like mental health treatment, addiction treatment, are integrated into future system planning. i know that emily cohen from the department of homelessness is here to answer some questions, and i would love any remarks to address the status of issues raised in the resolution, in particular, the grievance policy, coordinated entry assessments, and any
updates on planning. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor haney. miss cohen? >> hi, good morning, supervisor mar. thank you for having me. i don't currently -- i'm not set up as a presenter, so i can't share my screen, but i'm happy to set up some slides if anyone can help me -- thank you. >> clerk: we can see your slides, if you can put them as a presenter. there you go. >> my slides are to discuss the advancing planning working group that supervisor walton shared with director stewart
khan, and happy to discuss that as a framework for advancing many of the goals of this resolution. i'm also happy to answer questions about the specific things that supervisor haney just raised in terms of the response system. and before i start, i just want to say that h.s.h. shares many of these agencies' goals. we're very glad to be able to expand the holistic response system so rapidly in response to covid while keeping numbers relatively under control, keeping our clientele as safe as possible, and really wanting to utilize this crisis moment as an opportunity to improve our homeless response system across the board. that includes expansion of housing, expansion of
opportunities for people experiencing homelessness. we also need to keep in mind that capacity has remain unchanged for a long time, given covid and the way to do shelter in place, and that limits our resources, so we've become very dependent on hotels, but we certainly share the commitment to ensuring that people experiencing homelessness have as much access to housing and shelter resources as possible, and i know that the working group does, as well. so just a very high level overview of the goals of the working group to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness and mitigate the impacts of homelessness. and to ensure that the covid response system is remobilized
so that no one exits reentering homelessness. we share the burden, and i think those requirements are articulated in this ordinance, and that option is central to the work of the advanced planning group. in terms of scope, the working group is largely focused on developing system models for the next phase of people experiencing homelessness, and as supervisor haney said, this is the beginning of a conversation. in many ways, we're early in the process. we've had four meetings of this working group, and i have plans for more working groups and more topics, and i'll share those, but yes, we're looking forward to coming back and sharing the recommendations coming out of the working group. housing and shelter are at the
core as well as expansion. how do we pay for an expanded system? how do we pay for an expanded shelter system and keep people as safe as possible, and of course, how do we incorporate mental health treatment as part of a homeless system response? it was an important part of our treatment before covid, and it's certainly exacerbated, but it it's remained central to our work with the department of public health. this is a list of those on the working group. it's a diverse list of city and community members with critical project staffing from the controller's office. there's discussion about planning and discussion of the scope of this group. and i just want the supervisors and the public to be aware of the topics being discussed.
we have had the first four meetings. [inaudible] and i wanted to tell the public that there will be working group meetings held throughout july so that people and the public can give their input into the working group issues. so in addition to public comment in this group, there will be other opportunities to engage as we tackle many of the topics that are raised in this resolution and are already outlined in the work plan for the working group. and so i can take questions. there are some specific ones from the resolution itself that supervisor haney already spoke to. >> supervisor mar: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: yes. so, you know, i know that there are some long-term -- you know, and i do think that something
like a more, you know, clear and systemic approach and strategy as it relates to a post pandemic plan is in part something that's being done by this committee, to understanding what that process is is really important, and i'm sure we'll have a hearing on this at some point. i did just want to zero in on a couple of these specific policies and get a status update on them, and i kind of mentioned in there at the end, but i wanted to go, i guess, through each one. one is the shelter grievance policy that's in place in shelter-in-place hotels. we have a very articulated process to shelter grievance and kind of the resource and accountability that clients at these hotels have -- or sorry,
at our shelters have, and many of these people are those at the shelters and nav centers and now in hotels, and the grievance and accessibility that they have aren't the same, particularly as we're looking at the long-term role of shelter-in-place hotels. what are the types of advocacy and ways for clients to bring up issues, particularly as it relates to the shelter monitoring committee? >> yes, and i have a couple of slides that i can use to address that question. [please stand by]
when and where it's stefani to reinstate somebody. this is for the congregate facilities than the hotels. it's critically important. additionally, the existing covid procedure is very resource-intensive from a staffing side, from both the advocate sight, as well as from the shelter staff. so in an emergency, we moved
forward with an alternative model that we think provides the clients with good recourse, very clear direction and response to some of their needs. so the first is the complaint procedure, which is a three-tiered approach, allows clients to first direct their complaints in verbally or in writing to the site manager. then get escalated to the h.s.a. doc which sees the hotels and partnership with h.s.h. excuse me, the department of homelessness is part of that document. we have a coordinator who fields these and responds. and the vast majority of the time we can handle these at that level. and we work directly with the client or the site to address the complaint. and a complaint can be from i don't like the food to poor treatment. and so we do get a why the variety of things come through. if something needs to be
escalated further, we rely on the city's whistleblower program to escalate and run that through a prompt and thorough investigation through the city into the complaint. in addition to the complaint process, we have an emergency exit. i'm sorry, emergency housing immediate exit policy. and this has been implemented across the hotels. and i want to also use this opportunity to let folks know that -- let the supervisors know that we have pretty significantly changed the reasons why people can be exited. as you might know, in the shelter system, you can get warning, if you get a certain number of warning, they can escalate to a denial of service. and there's -- there's more bureaucracy and there are rules within the traditional shelter system. and in light of the emergency and our need to keep people inside and safe, we've really reduced the reasons why somebody can be immediately exited to
violence, possession of a weapon or threats of violence. so really a bare minimum in terms of standard of behavior and safety at our six sites. then clients are asked to leave, and it's pretty rare that this happens, the client may submit a request to be re-admitted and are provided the information to the shelter client advocate. that way they can access the advocate, as they would under the traditional grievance process. and supporting them in follow-up conversations. readmittance to the same or other site depends on the person's covid status, if we're talking about a congregate facility or a specific issue. and then obviously resources within the emergency housing portfolio. but this policy allows for a much quicker review than our traditional policy, with the goal of readmitting people as quickly as possible, within public health guidelines.
so we find process to be more efficient than the more robust or the traditional grievance procedure. it has served us somewhat well for the immediate emergency. we recognize that there is interest in reforming this policy and this is something that h.s.h. is looking at in partnership our providers to better understand how we can support our clients in ensuring that they can continue to have access to immediate emergency housing. >> and so with this, is the sense that this is a better process than the shelter grievance process? it is interesting because the shelter monitoring committee and some of the advocates and such have shared with us that they don't feel that way. that people are not familiar with this new process and they're more familiar with the
shelter grievance process. there are a way to connect the two maybe? if somebody files in a similar way that the shelter grievance, that somehow that's connected. you know, i just -- i hear what you're saying. i can believe there's a better way to do this. the people working with the folks in there don't feel that way. >> there's not a universal sentiment on that. you're certainly hearing from one subset of the community. and i think that this way -- i would say more efficient. in an emergency like covid-19, efficiency is important. and quickly as possible to reinstate people. we know that if folks are asked to leave the hotel and then spend time outside, more likely to then get infected and bring it back to a different hotel. we want to speed up the reinstatement process and this policy has allowed us to do that. we're absolutely open to continuing to evolve this policy.
it's something that we've been grappling with internally. so, you know, very committed to an ongoing conversation with the advocates and the providers about finding the right balance between efficiency and due process so that our clients have the best access. and the needs of the clients need to stay central in this. and i think that the alternative process does give them a much quicker resolve. to h.s.h. is central. but we also want to make sure. and we are engaging with the client advocates. they have the opportunity to be contacted as part of that reinstatement. but like i said, we're not closed off to continuing to evolve. and i think this is not an opportunity to look at the existing shelter grievance policy, the traditional policy and see where it can be made more efficient and reformed. so i think the reform can go from both directions. >> that's fair. thank you. i just would ask that, if it hasn't already, that there's
conversation with the shelter monitoring committee and the local homeless coordinating board about this -- this different grievance process. on the issue of referrals to the shelter-in-place hotels, you know, this has come up again and again. for a long time, it was only through the hot team. it was really not a way for community groups to -- or even individuals or anything to be able to refer people. and even people really couldn't refer themselves in the sense. like,. >> commissioner haney:, i'm over 60 and i have a medical condition. i need to be in a hotel. we didn't have an answer for those folks. and so, you know, there's some change that to that in the tenderloin that i'm very well aware of. a broader change that's taking place? or how do people access the shelter-in-place hotels? how do they know how to access them? more broadly, not just in the
tenderloin. >> that's a great question. and one i get many, many times a day. and so i appreciate the discussion on this. you know, the top priority for the shelter-in-place hotels, much like the entire covid response system, is to ensure that we have capacity in our hospital system to respond to a surge in covid-19 for people experiencing homelessness for, you know, for housed folks as well. when it comes to hotels. so discharge from the hospital, vulnerable folks who have either been covid-positive or who are in the hospital for unrelated reason, but need to give up space. they no longer need the hospital care. that is a top priority for the hotel. as is identifying the most vulnerable people that we've talked about, numerous times with the board, with the shelter system and on the street. as you well know, we were able
to move the vulnerable people out of the shelters. that was the priority number two. priority area number three has been the streets. and largely focused on at this point moving vulnerable -- covid-vulnerable people off the street into hotels. we work off of a -- we have worked off of our existing data systems and have identified over 4,000 people in the homeless response system and the public health system who need that vulnerability criteria. when they're on the street working with folks to bring them in, they can quickly verify their vulnerability, and move them in. one thing we have noticed over the many years i have -- different referral processes into shelter, is that folks aren't always where they say they are when we get a referral. what we don't want again is inefficiency. and so what we have found with our limited community engagement
pilot is that while we get referrals from partners, we're not able to identify or find those folks. and then we waste -- sorry, waste is probably not the time. we lose time in what we could have moved in five, six people into the hotel, in the time we spent looking for that one specific person, based on the referral. so we have found that, you know, continuing with our prioritization, using our existing data and working the streets in high-impact areas, the bayview and tenderloin the most specifically, most efficient way to bring people in. i think we -- you know, we really want to utilize the shelter-in-place resources as a tool of emergency response system. so that's a tool for the hospitals, a tool for the health care system and a tool for the street as we see these emergencies emerge. we are sort of open to exploring more processes here. but what we cannot lose sort of
the ability to deploy beds quickly based on the public health need. and that's why sort of control has remained tight. >> supervisor haney: have you shifted at all our own eligibility or definitions of who is high risk? i know that just last week, the c.d.c. removed the specific age threshold from the older adult classification. and now ones that, among adults, risk increases steadily as you age. so it's not just over the age of 65. but actually they have an expanded list of medical conditions that puts people at risk. any way our own eligibility requirements? >> we're working with d.p.h. to determine how to best integrate that new guidance. >> supervisor haney: okay. last thing that i just wanted to ask about, and we have some amendments as well.
this issue of whether people were inside the shelter-in-place hotels, or congregate sites are receiving a coordinated entry assessment and being entered into the one system. you know, i imagine that most are. but i just would like an update on if that is starting to happen and how extensively. >> yep. absolutely. so that's one of our top priorities. we know that in order to house somebody, the first step is to do this housing assessment. so 85% of shelter-in-place guests have been enrolled in the one system. and 60% of the guests have had a coordinated entry system. we're working towards the goal of 80%, which is standard across our system. so we're at 60%, we're not quite where we need to be, but we're making pretty steady progress on that, by deploying rapid
response teams to the hotels, to the congregate sites and the r.v.s, to conduct these assessments. we have found that about 16% of people who have been assessed, of the 60%, their housing referral status, which means they are the highest priority to be moved into supportive housing and 84% are probable-solving status. and so they work with some of our flexible financial resource, home ward bound, a variety of other sort of problem-solving tools to connect them with housing alternatives. but with 16% that are housing referral status, are immediate top priority to move into housing and out of the hotels. you know, we're not waiting for the end of the hotels to begin that process. that work is under way. >> supervisor haney: great. all right. well, great. thank you. and we'll look forward to further opportunities to hear
about the post-pandemic plan. i know it comes up all the time now, particularly as we see some progress in the tenderloin finally. people are saying let's use this as an opportunity to make a fundamental change in what is happening on our streets. i have some amendments, chair, but i'll turn it back to you. >> supervisor mar: okay. thank you so much, miss cohen, for the presentation and responding to the questions. and thank you, supervisor haney, just for all of your work introducing this resolution. also i'm just addressing the challenges of the intersection between our health crisis and the homelessness crisis. that certainly impacts your district the most intensively. it impacts our whole city and concern for everyone. yeah. and supervisor peskin, do you have any remarks or questions? we can go to public comment right now on this. mr. clerk, are there any callers
on the line? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. operations will check to see if we have callers in the queue. for those who already connected to our meeting via phone phone,. >> supervisor preston: star followed by three to be added to the queue to speak for this item. for those already on the hold in the queue, wait until you're prompted to begin, it will say your line has been unmuted. for those watching the meeting on cable channel 26 or sfgov tv if you wish to call in, follow the instructions on your screen, dial (408)418-9388. enter the meeting i.d., today's meeting i.d. is 146 099 1337. press the pound symbol twice and then press star followed by three to enter the queue to speak. mr. coop, do we have any callers who have connected? >> operator: yes, sir, two
callers are on the cue. i'll admit the first caller. >> clerk: thank you. >> caller: supervisors, we all know san franciscans looking at what's going on at ground zero, that we need to help those who cannot help themselves. i made this statement before that at the press conferences, where you have dr. grant colfax and some others. and i believe some them are jumping ship and maybe this woman who just gave -- was making some statements, beating around the bush. supervisors, after all this, the
people who need to move into some type of housing, where they can get wraparound services, has long passed. in other words, people are slowly dying on the streets of san francisco. and we cannot just be talking in circles. and we just cannot be relying on statements that are made. no timelines, no goals, no accountability and no transparency. as you know, these virtual meetings are drab. and there is no full accountability. and i will read in the course of today or tomorrow about the brown act and other laws that i
think are being put on the back burner. but time is running out. and those that are facing inclement weather, they need to be helped. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. mr. coop, could we be connected to the next speaker, please. >> caller: linda chapman. you know, i really want to thani really want to thank the sponsors and supervisor haney for having the special hearing to monitor what was happening on april 30th. and everything came out. i realize that maybe you -- it may look normal to have people living on the streets. but before the 1980s, nobody
did. anybody who was receiving public benefits, whether it was from the county or from the federal government, veterans, you know, social security, s.s.i. or whatever was housed. now we have a situation that we've created, first by the homeless coalition as randy shaw has described, you know. creating an affirmative action class. and then the city managers, programs, they have such a distorted view. who knew until they actually disclosed at the hearing that supervisor haney called that we believe that people could not seek care in hotels. we were not worthy. that was why they were paying for rooms, hundreds of rooms, 40,000 a night i think supervisor peskin said and leaving them empty. and not considering whether they should put people in. and deciding which ones --
carefully screening. my god. when i worked for welfare rights, the county welfare director was skewered by the person who came from albany for a fair hearing, simply because he discovered that the director had not immediately moved a woman, who was homeless and her poem home was partially damaged by fire. i urge you to read a book called "blaming the victim." it was written to the way in which social workers and teachers and so on look down on people who are living in poverty, at the time poverty was an issue. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. the speaker's time has expired. mr. coop, do we have any more callers on the line? >> operator: mr. chair, that completes the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor mar: hearing no
further public comment, public comment is closed. supervisor mainy , you want to present your amendment? >> supervisor haney: i have two amendments that i would like to move. one is on page 2 and also the clerk has an electronic copy of the amendments already. i'm on page 2, line 17. i'd like to add a clause, whereas as part of the citywide post-covid-19 recovery efforts, a housing and shelter work group, comprised of representatives from the board of supervisors, mayor's, h.s.h., h.s.a. and community stakeholders was formed in early june to outline a set of option and policy proposals for safety increasing housing and shelter capacity post covid-19 response. and address. and secondly, in a final result clause, further resolved that the board urges the work group of the citywide recovery work group to incorporate the goals outlined in this resolution, including ensuring that nobody exits the covid-19 response
system to the street or unsheltered homelessness and ensured behavior and health treatment options are integrated in future system planning. i want to move those two amendments. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor haney. mr. clerk, can you call roll accepting the amendments. >> clerk: on the motion to amend, as offered by supervisor haney to insert the two sections, member haney. >> supervisor haney: aye. >> clerk: vice chair peskin. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> clerk: chair mar. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: supervisor haney, do you want to make a motion? >> i'd like to move this resolution to the board, positive recommendation. move it to the board. >> clerk: on the motion that the resolution be recommended as amended to the board of supervisors, member haney.
>> supervisor haney: aye. >> clerk: vice chair peskin. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> clerk: chair mar. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> clerk: mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: thank you, mr. clerk. can you please call agenda item -- where are we. 4. >> clerk: a resolution urging public works and the office of the city attorney to take immediate steps to cancel the revenue agreement with j.c. decaux, including ceasing implementation of the lucrative grant of advertising rights. members of the public who want to call the public comment number, the number is (408)418-9388. enter the meeting i.d. 146 099 1337. press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting. press the star key followed by the number three to enter the queue to speak. mr. chair. >> supervisor mar: supervisor
peskin, the floor is yours. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair mar, and thank you to d.p.w. in the form of miss dawson and mr. spitz, with regard to the discussion that we will have today. you'll be regaled with something that pre-dates all of us, which was the original 1994j.c. decaux advertising and kiosk contract, which expired some 20 years later. in 2015, there was an r.f.p. which ultimately >> to reasons that i don't fully understand, was -- which had three bids did not go forward. and subsequently there was a second r.f.p. to which only one bidder j.c. decaux.
there were a number of short-term extensions that were granted by the board of supervisors, relative to the 1994 contract. and the board was put under quite a lot of pressure to move forward with the contract, both for financial reasons. and all of that is set forth in the july 2019 budget and legislative analyst report. obviously as we all know in january, there were revelations and this is going to be the subject of our next hearing about corruption at the department of public works by the then public works director muhammad nuru. and i started thinking about all of the places where mr. nuru --
and this was the general exception to his operating rule, put the board under a lot of pressure to approve contracts or in some cases -- certainly the case with regard to the removal of the bridge over kearny street, that connects the hilton hotel to portsmouth square, where mr. nuru actually went to great lengths to scuttle what the community overwhelmingly wanted, which was the removal of that. so in some of these instances, it has led me to wonder what was going on behind the scenes. and in february, late february of this year, i introduced the resolution that is before us today, urging public works and the city, which is all we can do, to cancel the j.c. decaux
contract. that was on the eve of of the covid-19 emergency. we know that the controller just released his report detailing over $10 million of funds that mr. nuru and public works expended with little -- actually virtually no oversight. if there's any good news, j.c. decaux contract was passed unanimously, the resolution was signed by the mayor. but i wanted to use this opportunity to hear from public works, to go over it, the original contract, which by everybody's account this is the 1994 mayor jordan era contract, which by everybody's account was lucrative for j.c. decaux and not lucrative for the city. certainly the contract that the
board of supervisors approved was much more financially advantageous for the city and county of san francisco and came with a number of benefits, including some $50,000 -- 50,000 hours per year of staffing of these toilets, which is policy priority that supervisor -- then supervisor jay kim started in the tenderloin, which we all support. but i wanted to turn it over to mr. spitz and ms. dawson to really walk us through the history of this contract. and most particularly the thing that i'm most interested in is -- and probably did not delve into enough or did not resist enough is what happened in 2015 as to why that request for proposals did not move forward and was thrown out. and subsequently in the next
r.f.p. in 2016, there was only one bidder j.c. decaux. i would like to understand that. and certainly have heard directly and indirectly that in the 2015 solicitation, one of the three bidders clear channel had a proposal that was much more financially advantageous for the city and county of san francisco. so with that, i would like to turn it over to mr. spitz. >> thank you, supervisor. thank you, chair mar. i'm actually going to let julia dawson take the lead on this, because she was really the subject matter expert on this contract. so our deputy director for finance and administration julia dawson. i will walk you through the existing -- or the existing contract, the r.f.p. process and the 1994 contract as well. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> julia dawson from public works. i apologize for not having my
camera on. i'm having bandwidth trouble. so i want to make sure that i can both hear you and you can hear me. i hope that is okay. okay. so i'm going to go ahead and walk through kind of the timeline a bit. as supervisor peskin mentioned, in 1994, under mayor frank jordan, the city enter into a first kind of trial agreement phase with j.c. decaux for automatedded toilets in exchange for advertising rights on public service key os,s and the right-of-way. they first amended and restated full agreements was approved in 1998. and it expanded the program beyond the first trial through october 17th of 2016. the original agreement provided 25 self-cleaning and a.d.a.-accessible single-stall toilets. 114 advertising kiosks.
since the program started, we have had extensive use of those public toilets. 13.5 million uses since the program began. and about 830,000 uses last year alone. in that original agreement, there were tiered advertising rights given with a cap of 7% of gross advertising revenue to the city. in preparation for the expiration of that agreement, the department did issue a solicitation beginning in mid-2015. and at that time we issued an r.f.p. and received non-expensive submittals and it needed to be re-advertised. these flawed bids were caused by an error in the original r.f.p.,
which did not mention that advertisings kiosks could not be further expanded because of the voter-approved proposition g, which was passed in 2002. as a result, the three different proposals that the city received had wildly different and incompatible proposals to what was actually required by law and the will of the voters. so the department declared all of those proposals nonresponsive and moved to correct the lack of clarity in the original r.f.p. and then re-issued an r.f.p. with the correct information, clarifying that there was a cap on how many advertising locations would be eligible to any vendor. when we issued the revised r.f.p., to companies actually did attend that pre-proposal
conference. but j.c. decaux was the only company that chose to respond formally to the re-issued r.f.p. j.c. decaux originally provided a design and we began to seek all the necessary city approvals. decaux's design was approved by civic design review and the arts commission. but we did receive some negative feedback on the design, from members of the public, members of the board and members of the historic preservation committee. the feedback there was that they were not particularly happy with the rather utilitarian design of the first concept. and the lack of community input into the process. and as a result, public works listening to the feedback went to the beginning and launched a design competition for a new design of the toilets and the
kiosks. at that time the department engaged in the robust community outreach process and took the approach that the toilets in the kiosks should be aesthetic assets, rather than just blend into the background. as supervisor peskin has said, the new agreement was approved by the board in july of 2019. the agreement offered a one for one replacement for the existing toilets and kiosks, with the option for the city to purchase additional toilets and core responding maintenance services at cost. it replaces the toilets and the kiosks with up-to-date technology and the new design that came out of this design competition. in addition, and as part of the new agreement, j.c. decaux will be assuming staffing responsibility at 11 of the j.c. decaux locations, 12 hours a day, which is an in-kind service
valued at $2.15 million per year. other financial benefits of the agreement included a one-time payment of $1.5 million or equivalent in monitoring services, administrative fee to cover the cost of oversight of the agreement, 50% of any gross advertising revenue over $16 million. and 50% share of all non-advertising revenue that might be generated under the agreement. so that concludes my summary. and i'm happy to take any questions from committee members. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, ms. dawson puppet that pretty thorough. -- that was pretty thorough. i appreciate what was that in the 2015 r.f.p. insofar as the board approves this and the mayor signed it in july, i believe that the contract was actually executed
in august -- i believe august 20th of 2019. and as i read the contract, that would make the start date as defined in the agreement september 1st of 2019. do you know -- it says that there were 30 days. this is section 1.8 of the executed agreement. do you know if that $1.5 million was tendered within the 30 days of the start date? >> what i can tell you is that the department chose to take that $1.5 million in monitoring services, rather than taking it in cash. and so what will happen is as of august 1st, j.c. decaux will take on responsibility for 11 of the pit stops for 12-hour service, or whatever financial equivalent that is, if we decide
they should take on some of the 24-hour pit stops, which are currently j.c. decauxs. so that implementation date is again august 1st. so the city's general fund will then benefit for not having to provide for the cost of those services. >> supervisor peskin: so when you say -- define monitoring services for this committee, ms. >> what i mean is the people who stand by the pit stop and ensure that it is being used safely. they provide assistance to users. they provide a dog waste receptacles, they clean the facility, they also clean around the surrounding area and just generally make the public feel comfortable that the facility is safe and well maintained. >> supervisor peskin: right. wasn't that 50,000 hours per year one of the requirements of the contract? >> yes.
but it phased in after 18 months. so what we did was move up the phased-in date, using the $1.5 million financial equivalent. so that the city would be relieved of that responsibility sooner. >> supervisor peskin: and it is about i believe budget analyst report said about $200,000 per year, per toilet worth of staffing, is that correct? >> that's correct for 12-hour shifts. if it's a 24-hour shift, it actually is more costly. >> supervisor peskin: and then relative to how the -- who does the staffing and does j.c. decaux enter into a contract directly with those individuals? are they city employees? are they city-contracted workers and how were they selected? >> so the selection process is going on right now. it is a competitive solicitation. they have issued a public r.f.p.
for services. and then they will evaluate their proposals, tabulate the results and then provide the city with their assessment, which we have to approve. >> supervisor peskin: so we're outsourcing this entirely to the contractor j.c. decaux? >> no. they are doing the solicitation process, but the city still has the right of review and feedback. we had the right of review of the r.f.p. that they issued. we have the right of review of their recommendation. but they will take on, once we agree to -- that their process was meeting our programmatic needs, they would enter into the contract for the 11 locations. but it is anticipated that we would coordinate, between j.c. decaux and the city, because there are other decaux locations that are currently monitored. the city has three different
non-profit organizations that are currently providing monitoring services. that has become far more extensive as we have stepped in to try to help the city's covid-19 response, at the request of policymakers, including the board members. >> supervisor peskin: right. and those three non-profits are -- who are they and how were they selected? >> so the three current non-profit providers are urban alchemy, hunters point family and mission neighborhood centers. we have provided -- we did a competitive mini r.f.p. process to our qualified grantee pool. each of those -- we received five responses and i'm remembering this off the top of my head now. each of those responses was scored and then we picked the top scoring proposers, in order.
>> supervisor peskin: and then -- so what you just spoke to does not include the sites during the transition period for the in-kind services, as opposed to the monetary subvention that was provided for under the contract. but you also said that j.c. decaux is in the midst of their own procurement for those services. insofar as as i read the contract, we're taking it in-kind services and the start date, as i understand it, was september 1st of 2019, although you just said august. it's been going on for almost a year. who have they been using for those locations during the
transition period? and how was that vendor or vendor selected by them or did they just inherit what we gave them or how did that work? >> i think i might have confused you, supervisor. so let me try -- >> supervisor peskin: it's easy to confuse me. >> i apologize. so from the start date of the contract, the monitoring services would not start until 18 months later. sop you have to add a year and a half of time to the execution date of the agreement. so what we did or what we asked j.c. decaux to do was to move the monitoring service up in time from being -- from starting 18 months from the start date to instead starting as soon as possible, with the $1.5 million additional one-time payment, which calculated out to be august 1st of 2020.
>> supervisor peskin: okay. you know what, i am owe owe -- d and i am slow. here's what section a1 of the executed agreement says. it says fees paid during the transition period and the transition period is defined as 18 months from the start date. during the transition period, the contractor, which is j.c. decaux, shall pay the city as follows. a one-time payment of $1,500,000. or payable in-kind by the payment of attendant services at the sole discretion of the city. we'll get to that in a just a second. should have notified by the city to the contractor through an authorization to the contractor within 20 days of the start date. so what you're saying is that within 20 days of the start date, which was almost a year
ago, the d.p.w. sent a letter saying we don't want the $1.5 million, we want you to start doing the monitoring in a year and a half? is that what that means? did i get that right? >> well, what we asked decaux to do was instead of starting monitoring 18 months from that date, so that would have been march of 2020, that instead we use the $1.5 million to move the start date for monitoring up in time, for what they -- what that $1.5 million would cover. the way the calculation worked, that would mean that decaux would start monitoring all of the 11 locations, that they would ultimately be responsible for in the contract sooner. from march until august.
august 1st. >> supervisor peskin: from march of 2020 to august of 2020? >> 2021. from march of 2021 to august of 2020. >> supervisor peskin: march. let's do that again. march of 202 2020 to august -- >> it's about an extra seven months of monitoring, supervisor. >> supervisor peskin: okay. if the annual costs of the kiosk for 12 hours a day, let me go back to the budget and legislative analyst report, it's $200,000. how do you get to the $1.5 million for only seven months?
because that gets you to $1,283,000 worth. >> i think we would need to look at all of the dates to give you the correct calculation, which i apologize i don't have in front of me. and i'm having a hard time doing on the spot. >> supervisor peskin: no problem. >> but the intention here was to take the $1.5 million and to bring the services forward in time from the 18 months -- 18 months after the official date of the agreement to as soon as we could, understanding that we didn't want to have them take on fewer than 11 of the locations.
the idea here was to be able to provide kind of uninterrupted transition between the city and decaux. and not disrupt the program -- the pit stop program any more than necessary. and i'd be happy to come back and/or share the information on exactly when decaux and the city, you know, discussed this and that there was this notification and how we made the calculation on when the appropriate start date would be, given the amount of money we had available. >> supervisor peskin: and how internally -- well, it says at the sole discretion of the city, i assume that met the sole discretion of the department? >> that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: and how did the department come to the internal decision that it didn't want $1.5 million in cash last august, as compared to it wanted
services next march? >> the department felt that it made more sense and it would be better for the program to have the continuation of the monitoring services come sooner, rather than the cash payment. >> and can you characterize those discussions, because i mean this seems to me that it would have been financially better for the city to be working the interesting on $1.5 million than waiting that long period of time. >> but the interest on the $1.5 million still accrues to the city regardless. so the value of the monitoring services includes the accrual of that value to the new start date. so it is not as if the city is foregoing interest. it just earns that on behalf of the monitoring services, starting when they do. >> supervisor peskin: and can
you tell us -- sorrelletive to the current -- so are these 11 sites being monitored? i think attended is probably a better word than monitored. it looks like there's a service. these 11 sites, are they being attended now? >> yes. they are. >> that's under a city contract? >> correct. >> supervisor peskin: and who does that -- now what vendor does that -- or is it done by city employees? >> no. it's -- this attending service has never been provided with city employees. and it's likely a combination. i don't have the list of all of the pit stops in front of me. but it's changed over time. the original program was overseen by hunter's point family, as i've said now it's transitioned to three different service providers. so it kind of depends on what
poinpoint in time, decaux may wl have been had services provided by hunter's point family and now may be urban alchemy or mission neighborhood center. the idea of the program and the way that the program is run is the same, regardless of the grantee on terms of the services that the grantee provides. and the way that the services are performed. >> supervisor peskin: and the city spends city money, presumably general fund money for those vendor? >> that is correct. yes. >> supervisor peskin: so why wouldn't we just take the $1.5 million and continue to pay those vendors going forward? i don't understand why we would defer that to an earlier start date? why? >> for us as long as the accrual of interest on the $1.5 million was still to the city's benefit, it seemed equivalent.
whether we're earning interest on the cash and doing the appropriation or whether we choose to take the million plus the earned interest and start the services sooner, it was an operational decision. it had the same financial benefit regardless. >> supervisor peskin: and was mr. nuru involved in that decision? did he care? >> no. he was not particularly involved in that decision, no. >> supervisor peskin: okay. and then relative to the annual administrative fee, in the amount of $275,000, have we received that first fee yet? >> no, not yet. i don't believe it's actually officially -- the start date of that fee has not officially occurred. >> supervisor peskin: yeah. i think it's due one year from the official start date. and you are right. that is still a little over a month away. all right. thank you, ms. dawson.
i really appreciate it. that was helpful. and i will defer to my colleagues, if they have any questions or comments. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor peskin, for this and for those really good questions around the details of the current agreement with j.c. decaux. ms. dawson, hi some questions just about the r.f.p. from 2016. that is the basis for the current revenue agreement with j.c. decaux. and just, you know, the fact -- the glaring fact that they were the only bidder, you know, responding to the 2016 r.f.p. and so, yeah, i just wanted to see if you could explain why that was and why d.p.w. would allow a sole, you know, only one bidder on an r.f.p., given that this is for over 20-year period, you know, representing you know
what may be hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. yeah. and i know this is definitely related to the -- the next item on the agenda, you know, which is the controller's audit of d.p.w.'s procedures and processes. with you explain -- why they were the only bidder to the r.f.p. >> that's a little bit hard for me to completely answer, because that really relates to what was going on in the private sector and not the public one. but what i can tell you is that the initial r.f.p., that was written, was confusing to the providers. and, as a result, when we received three proposals from the original r.f.p., they were tall wildly different. wildly different numbers, assumptions, wildly different budgets. we couldn't compare them. they didn't make any sense. and it was clear to us that unfortunately the original r.f.p. had not been written in a
way that was clear, so that vendors could then respond appropriately with proposals that were comparable, that had the same assumptions on the number of advertising locations. so that we could then rank the proposals. so we ended up having to re-issue the r.f.p. when we had a pre-proposal conference, we had two vendors in attendance when we had the first series of bids. there were three proposals. the public advertising industry is a somewhat small one. and there are only a few big players in the business. i would also say that generally speaking, and this is just my understanding of the industry, and i'm not an expert, but that in this case, there are not very many advertisers that specialize in providing in-kind products and services, in exchange for advertising rights. that is a niche that decaux has
generally taken in the industry. and they are good at that particular work, because they provide very good quality product. and in terms of the public toilets that have been out on the streets, they've been there a really long time. i think we know any furniture in the right-of-way has to be pretty durable in order to survive repeated uses over more than 20 years. and still look pretty good, relatively speaking and work well. so in terms of why we had two proposers that attended the pre-bid conference and then only one proposal, i can only presume that the other attendee, that attended the conference, which was clear channel, decided that it was not in their best business interest to submit a proposal, because it didn't seem to work for them. and i can't speak to why that would be. that would be their private company decision.
i hope that somewhat answers your question. >> supervisor mar: yeah. thank you, ms. dawson. colleague, do you have any further questions? >> supervisor peskin: i want to thank chair mar for that. before supervisor haney says anything, what i'd really like to delve into the original sin, if you will, of 2015. and i've heard some very different -- it's been, you know, half a decade, but i've heard some very different stories at the time. and i would love if you could furnish me, ms. dawson or public works could furnish me with the original r.f.p., the subsequent r.f.p. and any and all letters that were given to the original three bidders, as to why the r.f.p. was canceled. i really would like to delve into that further. because the word on the street, after i scheduled this hearing, was that basically it was put
out there that nobody else should bid because this was going to end up going to j.c. decaux. obviously that was not information that was before the board of supervisors last year, when we voted on it. but now post-mr. -- the revelations about mr. nuru, that is what i'm hearing. i would like to delve into that. i'm sorry for interrupting supervisor haney, sir. thank you, chair mar. >> supervisor mar: sure. supervisor haney. supervisor haney, did you have a question or comment? >> supervisor haney: yeah. and i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this forward and for your leadership on this. you know, one of the things that comes up with this contract, that i think is important and maybe was mentioned a little bit, but i want to see if you could clarify a bit more around
this particular structure of the advertising and if the limitations that are available on advertising on sort of street furniture. and sort of how that leads us to have somewhat of -- maybe an unusual arrangement. or maybe it isn't unusual. is this generally how other cities fund these type of, you know, programs? i know that we have some unique limitations that we've placed on our selves, as it relates to advertising. and that sort of drives some of the aspects of this contract. can you explain those a little bit more and i may have some more specific questions about that. >> so i will try. and if i don't, i'd like to provide all of the answers, please, ask me for additional clarification. it is pretty common for public jurisdictions to have an
exchange of some kind of street furniture, in exchange for advertising rights. and an example, even within our own city, the sfmta transit shelter agreement, where there is transit -- there are transit shelters that are provided and maintained by a private entity in exchange for placing advertising rights on those shelters. and also on some free-standing locations, because of platforms that are underground. so it is very common. there are other agreements like this in los angeles area, new york has a very similar transit shelter agreement with j.c. decaux, where they provide new york city transit shelters in exchange for advertising rights. but there are other examples with other street furniture. and i don't have all of them in front of me, i'd be happy to kind of provide you with a bit
of a rundown on what is common in a bunch of different cities. one thing that is different about san francisco, and you alluded to this, and i mentioned in my testimony, is that there was a proposition brought before and ratified by the voters, that basically restricted the number of advertising locations that could exist in the right-of-way. that was called proposition g. and it was passed in 2002. the proposition did not place similar limitations on the shelters connected to transit. so what you see now in san francisco is that the general advertising and the right-of-way, which is the agreement that public works has, is restricted to the 114 advertising locations that are essentially grandfathered in by proposition g, whereby the sfmta can actually expand its number of shelters and its number of
advertising locations, depending on what happens with their service locations. so they are not restricted in the same way. >> supervisor haney: so essentially we restricted it, but the particular set number are grandfathered in. but we don't restrict it for m.t.a., because there's sort of an exception for transit-related things, so that they can expand based on their services? >> that is correct. >> supervisor haney: okay. so in order to allow more -- if there was more advertising, we would actually have to go back to the ballot to allow for that? >> that is correct. >> supervisor haney: got it. okay. so that provides -- in terms of the r.f.p., that provides some, you know, pretty strict guidelines in terms of what can be offered to us by a particular
-- if we're seeking for these bathrooms to be funded, you know, in no small part or largely or entirely by advertising. they have to only use these particular already defined street furniture? >> locations. they're restricted to the 114 locations, yes. and i think that has something to do with whether vendors would or would not choose to propose. although here i'm only speculating. i can't say for certain. because i'm not any one of these advertising providers. haney. >> supervisor haney: the actual bathrooms themselves cannot -- they don't provide advertising? >> that's correct. they just have public service information on them, whether it's maps or anything else that the city determines it would want to put on them. but they are not permitted to be used for advertising. and the other piece is that one in three images -- or 1/12 of
electronic images of public service announcement, even on the kiosks that are used for commercial purposes, there is a set amount of time that is reserved for public use. and the arts commission has curated those locations on market street. i think to quite a great success. and we included that provision in the current agreement, as well as the plan to basically -- to transfer part of the administrative fee, that we're receiving from decaux, was intended to cover the cost of the arts commission, production, of those items so that we could continue that public service benefit. >> supervisor haney: okay. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: i do have another question for ms. dawson. do you recall if either the
first or second r.f.p. included a very tight timeframe for the successful bidder to put the toilets out on the streets? do you remember that? >> i don't. but i'm happy to look and share that information with you. i don't remember the timing being different between -- between r.f.p. one and r.f.p. two. i was involved in the preparation for r.f.p. two. i have brought in to help with r.f.p. two. i was not very involved in r.f.p. one. though i remember r.f.p. two being rather patterned on r.f.p. one, but just making an effort to respond to the confusion that was clearly happening with the
proposers. so r.f.p. two was re-written to hopefully avoid and clarify those points of confusion for the proposers. >> supervisor peskin: all right. i'm going to get to the bottom of that. but my recollection is that r.f.p. two had a 90-day transition period, which because j.c. decaux owned the original street, furniture and toilets, or i should say the kiosks and toilets, the other entrants into the field thought it was impossible burden to meet. and that it was basically structured in such a way that only j.c. decaux could compete. but we will get to the bottom of that. >> may i speak to that for a minute. >> supervisor peskin: sure. >> i would say two things. one is i wish if that were the case, that that proposer had brought it up in the
pre-proposal conference. i was at the pre-proposal conference and i don't remember that being a question. we would have entertained looking at changing in the r.f.p. if somebody had brought that as a concern to us at the time. the second thing i would say is that it wouldn't have precluded them making a proposal, but flagging that as a point for negotiation, which i think the city would have entertained, because something like a transition plan is a -- we're looking for proposals. but the city is always willing to entertain a better arrangement and be flexible on those kinds of terms. that's often what happens in contract negotiations. you work through things that the city might have put forward, that were not reasonable, unintentionally so. and try to craft an agreement that's in the best interest of the city. >> supervisor peskin: well, in that vein let's go back to the
mid-2015 r.f.p. there were three actual responses. in that same thinking, why not say we're interested in what appears to be the best response, but we the city want to let you know that you can't have any additional locations beyond the 114. why would that necessitate throwing it out. why can't just say, yeah, this is the most lucrative bid for the 114. and we need to clarify with you there's not any expansion. why would you throw them all out and start over again? >> so the bids were so wildly different, that some of the bidders assumed that there would be thousands of locations available. it would have been very hard to understand how we could have negotiated -- well, for one you don't negotiate until you can compare. and if you can't compare, because the differences are so huge, it wouldn't make sense.
and my recollection of this is that the only bidder, that really -- the three bids were radically different, each of them. and each of them had very different assumptions on the number of advertising locations that were even available. and as such, offered arrangements that never would have been feasible. if they assumed thousands and thousands of locations, their financial picture would have been -- it might not have scaled appropriately. so it was our decision that we couldn't professionally compare all three proposals. there was gist no way t -- justo way to do, that without making so many assumptions, that we didn't have information for. rather than make inappropriate comparisons and make incorrect assumptions, we chose to reject and put another r.f.p. out on the street. and we felt that was the most responsible thing to do at the time. >> supervisor peskin: ms. dawson, i totally appreciate
that you were not involved in r.f.p. one. if you take the same logic, which is the notion of comparison, when you have only one bid, there's nothing to compare it to. so in reality, the second r.f.p. was as flawed allegedly as the first r.f.p., because in the first instance, you had three proposals that you couldn't compare. and then in the second instance, you had one proposal that you couldn't compare, because there was no other proposals to compare it to. >> or you make the assumption that with so few locations, that arrangement didn't pencil out for some of these providers, because to ramp up and create street furniture or other things and be able to come up with a viable operation, wasn't worth it to them. that there was too much risk involved. and so i'm not sure you can say that, that would be necessarily true. perhaps i would feel more that
way if we had only one bidder at the pre-proposal conference, but we had two. and at that time, that bidder had the opportunity to ask questions to clarify, to tell us the timing was incorrect, whatever. they did not do so. and so when we received one bid, we just felt that there was a reason for fiscally it didn't make sense for those proposers. and they had the opportunity. we did a lot of outreach. we made sure they knew about all of the conferences. they all got the r.f.p. at some point in a limited market, we had felt that we had done our due diligence. and that this was the only proposal that felt that this arrangement worked for them. >> supervisor peskin: and you say the first r.f.p. and the second r.f.p. were basically the same, except for the clarification of the limitation
on the amount of locations? >> yeah. i mean, it's been a long time, supervisor. but what i remember is that the first r.f.p. was confuse, probably more than one place. i think when we received three radically different proposals, we did go back and had a review, that included our city attorney, it included our head of contract administration and it included me. >> supervisor peskin: okay. >> so i can't say we only made one change. we may have made a couple of changes. but they were in the interest of making sure that the r.f.p. was as clear as it could be, in all places. because when you pull something back, you get the chance to do it over and hopefully make it better. >> supervisor peskin: and was the scoring criteria -- what weight was -- what weight is given to different things, whether it's formal interviews or the value of return to the
city. were those weighted the same in r.f.p. one as they were in r.f.p. two? >> i apologize, supervisor. i don't remember. but i'm very happy to provide that information in a memo to the committee, with the two r.f.p.s. and anything else that you wish to have. >> supervisor peskin: that would be great. thank you very much, ms. dawson. just so that we're clear, i have nothing but respect for your professional and integrity. unfortunately i can't say that for your former director and maybe some other people, definitely at least one other person that used to be in the department. so, you know, these are, in addition to a pandemic of racism and public health, we also have public corruption problem that is keeping me and my ten colleagues up at night. so i'm sorry, this is not certainly. > -- this is not personal. >> i do appreciate your kind words. i'll do my best to provide all
of the information the committee is interested. i'm happy to come back and speak on the matter, if you so wish. and i will do my best. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, ms. dawson. >> supervisor mar: supervisor haney, did you have further questions. >> supervisor haney: i have one more question which is for the street furniture, that's part of this sort of designated in this contract as places where advertising can take place, is there -- is there further specification of what that street furniture can be used for? other types of uses? does j.c. decaux get full kind of authority to design them and sort of include different aspects of them? i'm particularly interested -- it's my understanding that some of them are used for like cell phone-related reception and uses. is that a part of what's
included? i guess there's a partnership between j.c. decaux and verizon. that allows them to use these for these sort of things? are you familiar with that? >> i can speak to that a little bit. there are a bunch of different possible uses. so in the old days, in the original agreement, you might remember a lot of news stand kiosks, because at the time we were trying to eliminate surplus street furniture. and a lot of the new stand operations were consolidated into kiosks. the idea and the new agreement is there are basically three types of public service kiosks. one that's just three-sided and has advertising. one that is similar in appearance, but offers the opportunity for small-scale -- i guess you could call it retail operations. so what we had done is convert those to kind of a public service or community benefit
idea. and we had been working on a program to basically solicit, you know, s.f. made or a community group who was interested in activating those kiosks to be able to do so for really no cost. so it's a public benefit. so we've gotten interest from a variety of community groups to do that. and they would share that space. there's also a model of a kind of, for lack of a better word, a rather large ipad-like screen, where we could provide information on the community activities that are within that region, where people could come and touch, get a map, you know, maybe get a directory on what type of community activities, museums, organizations, restaurants. you know, things that we could curate that would provide an incentive for people to go out and have fun and shop in our different communities, where
it's mostly kind of oriented towards the commercial districts. but there are some that extend out towards north beach and chinatown and some in south of market. and so those can be used to kind of promote the community identity. and that's what we have been working on internally. i hope that kind of helps to clarify. in terms of the cell sites, the idea there would be, and my understanding, it wouldn't necessarily be exclusive to verizon. that any of the cell sites could approach decaux. if those were sites that they thought were of interest to them, and that the idea is there is essentially spare space, so the cell sites would not be visible. there's no kind of urban visual impact. but there is a monetary benefit to the city. we would share in 50% of any leasing arrangements that decaux
would enter into for that type of mortgage private corporate use. >> supervisor haney: so would they be able to -- i mean, do they have to get permission if they have some sort of private partnership or they're going to get some revenue as a result of allowing one cell phone company to use this street furniturer? or sort of have the authority to do that as they wish? >> they do have the ability to enter into those lease agreements, because technically the kiosks -- we're licensing them. they own the kiosks themselves. but, you know, they are under a city agreement. and if there are particular concerns, i have always found them to be responsive to our concerns. so if there's anything in particular, that you have a concern about, i would appreciate you letting the department know.
>> supervisor haney: right. it just came to my attention this morning around the issue of verizon. you know, i don't know that there's -- it was a surprise to me. my understanding -- particular person who brought it to my attention, said it's exclusive with verizon. if it's not, which seems like your understanding of maybe it's available to anyone. it doesn't sound like this is something that's available to anyone. it sounds like they've basically turned some or all of those street furniture into like sort of mini cell phone towers for verizon. >> that's not my understanding. because i know they were all working with at&t. so i can work to clarify that for you, supervisor, if you'd like. >> supervisor haney: but they've done this as part of their revenue model it sounds like. they're not required to share that with us. >> no they are. they are required. we get 50% of any of these arrangements. it's a 50/50 share. the city benefits equally. that was important to us.
>> supervisor haney: okay. if they use their -- any of the revenue that they get, whether it's advertising or cell phone towers or whatever it is, it's a 50/50 split? >> well, the advertising is different. we get a 50 split after we reach a threshold of $16 million. and that's because there's an awful lot of capital and maintenance services that they're providing to us. so what happens is once we reach a threshold of $16 million, then we share equally. and anything that's above essentially what covers their capital and operating costs, which is a very different arrangement than the last one, where we were only had a tier that maxed out at 7%. >> supervisor haney: okay. thank you. >> supervisor mar: great. thanks again, ms. dawson. also mr. spitz, for ep gaming with the -- engaging with the committee in this discussion. colleagues, unless you have any
further questions or comments, i think we can move to public comment? mr. clerk, are there any callers on the line? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. operations is checking to see if there's any callers in the queue. if those connected already via phone, press star followed by three. for those watching our meeting on cable channel 26 or via a streaming link or sfgov tv, if you wish to please on the item, dial (408)418-9388. enter the meeting i.d. of 146 099 1337. press the found symbol twice. mr. coop, are there any callers on the line already? >> operator: yes, there are two callers in the queue. i admit the first caller. >> clerk: thank you, caller.
go ahead. >> caller: hi, this is bob schmidt. i'm with clear channel outdoor. i'm the regional president. i'd just like to make some comment about some of the questions that the supervisors asked. so the first motion is relative to r.f.p. number one. relative to that the r.f.p. was written, we went back with questions, through the process, and the r.f.p. was not clear there would be widely dissparaged response. it would be difficult to evaluate. and we met and were told that was the intention of d.p.w. at the time. and so d.p.w. got what they asked for. and then later on it was determined that they were widely disparaged, so that was canceled. relative to the second r.f.p.,
there were provisions in there regarding transition time. i believe it was 90 days that you had to provide new service, new kiosks, new toilets, all of those things. again we responded that that would be onerous and cumbersome and virtually impossible for anybody to do. we asked about things, could we purchase the equipment, so we could fulfill those requiremen requirements. based on those things it varied directly and got negative responses to our requests. it was perceived by us as a very lucrative contract. we wanted to do it. we tried to get it and at the end of the day, we chose not to bid on the second one, because it was not a leveling playing field in terms of the r.f.p. so we chose not to do it. i had to write a memorandum to my executives on why we would choose not to bid on an
opportunity like this. >> mr. chairman. >> supervisor mar: supervisor peskin. >> i don't know if the previous speaker, mr. schmitz, i have not spoken to has been -- it has been many years. i have not spoken to or seen in many, many years. is he still on the line? >> yes. >> i don't want to truncate your testimony. but i would like to ask you some questions. and i had no idea that you were calling in. so this is remarkably interesting. but please conclude your testimony. >> i didn't think i was going to call in, too. i just was listening to the testimony. thought i could contribute. thought i could contribute some items just to bring some clarity on why the proposers chose to bid, would not choose to bid,
what did we do. and because i had firsthand knowledge of the situation. and thought i could bring some clarity from the private sector into what was happening here. >> supervisor peskin: if that concludes your public testimony and chair mar and supervisor haney will allow it, i would like to ask you some questions? >> supervisor mar: yes. please do. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair mar. so i think -- and thank you for shedding some light from the perspective of one of the proposers in the mid-2015 r.f.p. i was not on the board of supervisors at the time. wherein you represent that you did, indeed, or your company did, indeed, inform public works that they were going to receive wildly responses and their response was that that was
exactly what they were intending and precisely what they wanted. was that documented? was that done verbally? how did your company set that forth? >> i believe that we put that forth in a question. then there was a meeting with a director. and i think the managing person for the r.f.p. and we had a meeting with myself and our public affairs and other people to discuss our concerns about the r.f.p. >> supervisor peskin: got it. in the second, there is a representation from ms. dawson that is very different than the
representation that you just made, which is that you indicated -- and i -- you indicated that the 90-day provision for the requirement for provision of new service, within 90 days of transition was onerous and cumbersome. and that you set that concern forth. and also proposed solutions, including the potential purchase of the assets from j.c. decaux. did you do that in writing? because ms. dawson represented that there were other proposers that came to a meeting and that none of these issues were raised. so how did your company raise these issues? >> we proposed them in writing. we proposed them in writing. we asked if the incumbent would be open to having it purchased
-- us purchasing the equipment, so we could continue on. we -- i think even in our original proposals in 2015, we gave an amount to purchase the equipment. but it was referred to us that the incumbent was not interested in having that type of arrangement. >> supervisor peskin: okay. if you could, and obviously this is up to you and your company, but if you could provide this committee and this supervisor with any or all written correspondence or comments that you made to public works during the mid-2015 r.f.p. or the subsequent one in 2016, please do so. and then relative to the question i asked ms. dawson, which she did not recollect, but will furnish to the committee about differences in scoring between r.f.p. one and r.f.p. two, do you have any
recollection about that? >> i don't have any recollection. i can research it. but i don't have any recollection at this time. on the difference in the evaluation process. >> supervisor peskin: okay. thank you very much, mr. schmidt. i don't know if any of my colleagues have additional questions for you, but i really appreciate that you took the time to call in. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor peskin. mr. clerk, can you continue public comment? >> clerk: we can. mr. coop, can you please connect us to the next speaker. >> that completes the queue. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you. thank you, operations and mr. clerk. hearing no further callers, public comment is closed. supervisor peskin, would you like to make a motion. >> supervisor peskin:, no actually i would not. i would like to make a motion, but not the motion to pass this today. i would like to just go back to
ms. dawson. because ms. dawson has committed to getting this committee the information that we previously discussed. do you have -- so to ms. dawson, based on what mr. schmitz said and i realize the mid-2015 r.f.p. you were not a part of, he specifically referenced director nugu and another person who is no longer with the department. neither one of them are with the department. but you were involved in the 2016 r.f.p., wherein mr. schmitz makes very clear representations around the issue of the 90-day transition period from new services that, indeed, seems in his words and i agree, quote onerous and cumbersome. you don't recollect that they brought that up. [ please stand by ]
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on