Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 2, 2014 10:30pm-11:01pm PST

10:30 pm
justice and parenting, some of our educational programs and substance abuse treatment and more would occur from the beginning to the end of incarceration and the trajectory would end and would continue with the operations with probation with the times that expire then continues an extension under the supervision of adult probation. i would like to hand it over to chief still, but we believe the common goal sure one that only puts public safety in the direct objective to make sure that's what we are trying to hand so less likely people who have offended who have violated are to do so again and we are liking what we are seeing already in the number of other recidivism reduction strategies that are related and not related to this particular program that we
10:31 pm
think catches the eyes of the state to do more of this which is why this selected san francisco to be that site for this contract. >> thank you, sheriff. good morning supervisors. first i would like to thank mr. rose office for the great work their analyst did in looking at this complicated issue, but to briefly the idea for this reentry pod came from noticing a gap. when inmates are being released from state prison, if there is not a warm hand off, the connection, the recidivism rate the parole was receiving was 78 percent. we have an 85 percent successful completion rate. we started charting those that were object skonding and not showing up. the population had such greater likelihood of not only showing up but being
10:32 pm
successful in completing their post releasing time if in fact we were able to engage with them ahead of time. we were the first county officers to begin the work but we couldn't send people all over the state. that's where i got the idea to let's bring them back early and work with senator hancock to work with that to give the county the pilot to do this. i support everything the sheriff said to this being a really innovative program and the opportunity to work with the population and got the governor's attention that he's written this into pod of over crowding and one of the strategies that he's basically implementing is to take it instead of the 60 days is to take it to 365 days. so the only ask is that i would have if the board could approve with one slight alteration
10:33 pm
this language that 56 bed is what guides the dollar amount in the contract, the 4.whatever million that's being looked at. the state is looking forward to improving that to 365 days i'm going to come back because i'm going to be a hard negotiator and this is what i told the governor's office and the prison law office that $77,000 a day on an on going basis is not enough for all the wrap around services they want. what i would ask is if we could instead of being limited to that 60-day window have that 56 beds and the dollar amount being received. because if we are in discussion with 160 days is more realistic to get the programming before we release them, it wouldn't impact the dollar amount on the contract and impact the
10:34 pm
56 beds so it's something i would ask for your consideration. >>supervisor mark farrell: thank you very much. colleagues any questions at this point in time? okay. mr. rose can we go to your budget analyst report, please? >> mr. chairman and members of the committee on page 22 of our report we point out that under the proposed contract between the california department of corrections and rehabilitation and the sheriff's department, the state will reimburse the sheriff's department for 56 inmates per day in the reentry pod not to exceed $6.42 million. however the sheriff's department estimates the average population of the inmates in the reentry pod
10:35 pm
will be 24, based on that the total estimated reimbursement for the sheriff's department about $2 million rather than the 4.2 million shown on table one on page 22. on page 23 of our report, the sheriff's department's total estimated incremental cost to,000 daily average population of 24 inmates in the city's reentry pod is $180,000 for approximately $5,000 less than the state's reimbursement of actually the city, if this is approved, the city will benefit to off set the city's general fund from the sheriff's department. that is because, supervisors, this refers to the incremental cost. there is a fixed
10:36 pm
staffing at the pod and there is no need with respect to this increase at 24 to in -- increase that staffing. that's why we wide unwith a surplus from the states reimbursement rate. on page 25 of our report we state that the proposed contract between the sheriff's department and california department of corrections and rehabilitation is a 3-year pilot program which requires an annual evaluation report to the state legislature and the cdcr, if the program is determined to be successful and extended beyond the initial 3-year term, the increased average daily population estimated to be 24 inmates per day could impact the size and cost of a replacement jail in 2019. if the sheriff's department enters into a new contract with cdcr to accept the transfer of additional inmates to the county for up to 365
10:37 pm
days as the probation department was testifying to, prior to release from jail which could increase the average daily population to 131. the size and cost of a replacement jail in 2019 could be higher. so that could be significant. that is separate from the specific legislation that is before you. we think it's important to note that. and on page 26 of our report, our recommendations are that we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to confirm the sheriff's department would submit to the supervisor for approval any future contract the with the california department of corrections and rehabilitation that increase the number of inmates transferred to the county and the length for the stay of these inmates and amend the proposed resolution to report the annual in
10:38 pm
crease in population and propose the resolution amended. we'll be happy to respond to any questions. >>supervisor mark farrell: okay. thank you. colleagues, any questions for mr. rose? >> a couple things, we very much appreciate the work from the budget analyst. for the record i want to read something we sent information to the budget analyst. i want to make sure it's clear. in the budget analyst report on page 4, on the top of it it says the san francisco has 2143 combined jail beds. this is a very strict reading we don't want to let go uncorrected. it really is 1988 is what the rated versus unrated beds are in the state
10:39 pm
board of corrections what is viewed in terms of our bedding accommodation housing is 1188. i don't want to give the impression that we have 200 extra beds when they are not legitimized in the eyes of the state board of correction. that's no. 1. no. 2 is, mr. rose is correct on the question of 24 inmates maybe the average as it's calibrated to the current ab 109 population could be prcs's that are coming to us. that is gauged on a 60-day level up to 60 days with the reentry pod. i quite agree with what chief had mentioned that because of the impending recalculation of ab 109 and the pod decision
10:40 pm
of new inmates coming back to us, the impact of our work in the reentry pod could go much further than for someone staying with us for 60 days which is why we do amend page two line 19 of the resolution a line insertion recommended by officer chief steel up to 365 days it's consistent what governor brown is pushing for and within the authority of the sheriff to push for that population. it very well means that our population could exceed 24 inmates because it would be for inmates who could stay a little bit longer than 60 days and we have greater ability because of the time within our care and custody with sheriff's department and probation to do that much more work with people that are under our supervision. >> yes. cara farrell with
10:41 pm
the budget legislative analyst office. we did not make that recommendation in our report and the reason is it is the proposal in the government to stand for 12 months. it would increase the average population in the jails . average numbers we receive from the adult probation department it could exceed the average population from 24-131. it would require opening up a new pod and increase the staff cost. the numbers we included in our report would no longer be the numbers before you. and it would have an impact on the replacement jail. our recommendation was very specifically to affirm that any contract that expands in the increase of numbers for inmates transferred would be subject to board approval. >> the way the contract is written at the sheriff's discretion, it can be canceled or adjusted at any time. the
10:42 pm
secretary of corrections under current authority that is ability to enter into contract with public, private entities for beds for is extended period of time at his discretion. he that is legal authority now to do this without any entity. this additional authority that they are pushing out there is this context and part of his complying with data and dollars attached to it. that's why there is in legislation. but in fact the secretary can do it right now. there is no legal authority to do this change. again, the estimates, initially cdcr was not going to include those that would end up being paroled which are coming back to our community. if they recidivate it impacts the jail population one way or the other. they are going to be in on a violation because they are go going recidivate at that rate. we have been extremely successful and we are going to meet that
10:43 pm
target. the sheriff's population has decreased 25 percent since 2010 since we've moved all of this evidence based probation and supervision and all of these initiatives. and we've increased probation termination up to 85 percent. we know what we are doing and my probation population is down to 25. >>supervisor mark farrell: there are a lot of stats flying around here that i have not had the opportunity to discuss or vet. i would feel more comfortable to review this for a week to sit down. especially red flags are always raised in my head when our budget analyst doesn't agree on data. numbers are facts. i would suggest we continue this item for a week to sit down and meet and understand this and make sure that everyone is agreeing on the numbers. if you will. i don't know if you have any comment on that. i don't want
10:44 pm
to waste any time if we are able to do this before next week. so, why don't we do that for right now and see if that motion will carry. i will bring it back up if it doesn't. why don't we open up to public comment now and let that happen and then we'll go. is there anybody who wishes to comment on item no. 4? >> thomas pico rel a.picarello. with all do respect, i'm a little troubled by this budget process here. it seems to me that city departments are now coming in front of you at the end of the fiscal year requesting
10:45 pm
additional funds were the apprehension that they don't request monies next year they won't ge appropriated with those monies. i think it's a bad idea to start funding so late in the fiscal year. in any funding now should be deferred until the next fiscal year. there is nothing wrong with having a budget surplus especially when you are looking at another deficit next year. thank you. >>supervisor mark farrell: thank you. okay. any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is close. colleagues, can we have a motion to continue this item for a week and then, actually -- >> supervisors if i might, this is so important. it's taken us a year to get here. we are going to have to come back any ways when there is the additional money if you would let us move forward with
10:46 pm
the contract as it is with the 60 days as it is, we will be back before you, but then it doesn't delay our implementation of the actual program. >>supervisor mark farrell: mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, we agree with that if the committee grease. -- agrees. that is consistent. to my knowledge there is not a difference in numbers as the sheriff pointed out. our footnote clearly states what the sheriff stated in reference to our footnote. so certainly it's up to the committee. but we would agree with the 60 days. what we don't agree with is to the 365 days at this point. >>supervisor mark farrell: okay. sheriff? >> so i was conferencing with chief steel. i agree leave it as is with the exception of 365. we'll be back with the board of supervisors anyway.
10:47 pm
pred indications with what occur at the state level should affect some of the elements discussed here today. i think we are move forward with it because we have been working for one 1 year to get this going. side line, with respect to the budget analyst. this does not affect the jail replacement whatsoever. the pod up to 56 is a much different facility than on jail replacement and this never allows us to go over the pod of no. of 56. that is an identity and has no impact on the discussion to rebuild or not build what size the jail once that comes out. >>supervisor mark farrell: okay. colleagues, i'm comfortable with the budget analyst report. can i have a motion to accept the public
10:48 pm
analyst? supervisor mar? >>supervisor eric mar: i will move to take the budget analyst recommendation. >>supervisor mark farrell: we can take that without objection as well. >> mr. chairman, i would like to have the report amended items no later than tomorrow 9:00 a.m.. >> i don't think there is any amendment as proposed by budget analyst. >> the clerk is asking to you get the amended legislation into clerk's office. >> okay. >> thank you. >>supervisor mark farrell: i trust we'll coordinate well. all right. madam clerk please call item no. 5. city clerk: sfitem 5 :[apply for grant - biodiversity action plan - $250,000] sponsor: yee resolution authorizing the
10:49 pm
department of the environment to apply for a $250,000 grant from the california strategic growth council to create the biodiversity action plan , for the period of july 1, 2014, through june 30, clerk: sf 51234 >>supervisor mark farrell: okay, thanks. we have guillermo rod riguez from the department of environment. >> this is to apply for the $250,000 grant for the california strategic growth to create bio diversity action plan. if awarded the department of planning will present bio diversity and master plan for san francisco and greening san francisco. >>supervisor mark farrell: colleagues, any comments. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we accept this without objection.
10:50 pm
>> so moved. >> this item is accepted. madam clerk please call item 6 and 7 together. city clerk: item 6: [agreement - hdr engineering, inc. - construction management services - $27,500,000] 6. 131236 resolution extending an agreement for an additional six months between the public utilities commission and hdr engineering, inc., through december 29, 2014, and increasing the estimated cumulative contract amount to $27,500,000 for additional construction management services, pursuant to charter, section 9.1188bb. public utilities commissionncity clerk: sf 61234 item 7: agenda[california environmental quality act findings - peninsula pipelines seismic upgrade project - san mateo county]1400497.resolution adopting findings under the california environmental quality act, including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and a statement of overriding considerations related to the peninsula pipelines seismic upgrade project in san mateo county. sf 71234 >> >> item 8: [hearing - reserved funds - public utilities commission - 10,242,545]1400538.hearing to consider release of reserved funds, public utilities commission file no. 100337, ordinance no. 92-100 in the total amount of $10,242,545 to fund the water system improvement program wsipp peninsula pipelines seismic upgrade reserve project cuw367022. the work consists of reinforcement of various fault crossings of the san andreas pipeline and the sunset supply line branch in san mateo county. public utilities commissionn1234 >> >> >>supervisor mark farrell: okay. thank you puc for being here.
10:51 pm
>> the water system improvement director for puc. i recently came into this position and the director is here and we are proud to be entrusted with this leadership program. i will be working hard with the team to bring this program to successful completion over the next several years. as julie promised, we plan to bring the updated to the budget finance committee. if you would indulge me with an 5-minute update. i would like to give you a little update and turn to agenda items 6, 7 and 8. if you look at this pie chart,
10:52 pm
the program is about 80 percent complete. the complete project is $2.6 billion. we have exceeded 80 percent of the funds. there is about $2.7 billion current and that is 16 projects in the bay area. some of the largest programs are still in active construction. we have projects in the design phase. we completed 52 projects in the last year. some of our achievements are that we did satisfy the pipeline upgrades. that's on the agenda items today that relate to that project. we've completed construction on seven of the projects including some of the major projects that help us to get
10:53 pm
kremently closer to the level of those service goals to provide water within 24 hours after a major seismic event in the bay area, including pipelines in the east bay and on the peninsula and we completed a major water treatment plant project for sonoma valley treatment plant and reservoir which increases the operational of our system. we also improved the bay tunnel which are the two most transition upgrade projects. the bay tunnel is the 5-mile tunnel underneath the bay. it is currently being groutd. the space between the pipe that carries the water and the tunnel itself. we expect it to go under service this fall and the tunnel that takes water from the sun ol valley into
10:54 pm
fremont to the east bay. we have placed a number of projects in this service and complete a program over seen by the revenue bond oversight committee and the auditors were very complimentary of the program. they made some good recommendations and we are striving to implement those recommendations as we go forward. regarding the last point the safety regard program is outstanding. i don't want to boast about safety because i don't want to relax for a moment but it's about half the industry average. this slide provides a good visual to demonstrate if you look at the major transmission projects that are part of the water system improvement program, we are making outstanding progress towards providing that key lifeline to provide water reliably within 24 hours after a major seismic event. you can see the major
10:55 pm
fault, the san andreas fault and in the bay and and along the peninsula and you can see the aqueduct that brings it from the eastern part of the state to the bay area. the blue portions of pipe represent projects that are 100 percent complete. we've met our seismic upgrade goals for the project. the green are the projects under construction. you can see the tunnel and the bay tunnel currently in construction but we are about 90 percent complete on both projects. we still do have a few projects in the peninsula that are still under construction. again, the bay tunnel, we hold through again last year and the pipe is placed into tunnel and it's pretty exciting to see this tunnel come to shape and it's going to be quite a remarkable accomplishment when we see this go into service
10:56 pm
this fall. i must say, the biggest challenge of the program going forward is the calaveras damn replacement project. this project you heard about in the past is the largest project in the program one of the most complex. in 2012, we discovered an ancient landslide during construction that increased the amount of volume needs to be excavated by more than 3 million yards and you can see the an excavation being made. there is a large cut that is about 500 feet high that you can see. to date we have another 200 feet to go to the bottom of the valley. in 2012 we also recognized there was another feature called area b which was another suspected landslide but it couldn't be determined until we got to that level. it has been confirmed that there is another ancient landslide that needs to be removed. that is
10:57 pm
another half or so cubic yard with respect to excavation. we have done geologic exploration to make sure we find the limits of that additional feature. we are currently evaluating the schedule and cost impacts associated with that feature and we expect to have those numbers in the next couple of months. we are currently in a rebaselining for the program. this is the rebaselining. we expect to bring to the commission at the april 22nd meeting and we'll be subsequently coming to you with that rebaselining program asking for your approval at that time. so i would like to pause and see if you have any questions regarding the update before i turn to the items for today. >>supervisor mark farrell: colleagues, any questions? okay. let's go forward. >> the first item is the construction management services agreement with hr
10:58 pm
engineering. this agreement so provide construction management services for multiple projects on the peninsula. we have regions set up in the program. we hired really in the program consultant management services for each region and the crystal spring san andreas transmission is one off the peninsula. the peninsula projects have gone quite well an most are on schedule and some have run under budget. this one has been delayed due some very difficult site conditions that differed from the contract documents. and we wanted to not drain the reservoir to preserve water supply so we've got considerable under water work that is high risk. we have encountered some high rock and different conditions with existing facilities that are over 100 years old. the project has delayed substantially. we need to be able to extend the management agreement for this purpose to be able to over see that work
10:59 pm
over the next 6 months or so and we propose to extend the agreement to september of this year and we are asking to increase the amount by up to $1.5 million. then turning to agenda item 7 and 8, these relate to the peninsula pipeline seismic upgrade. this project is to upgrade several critical pipelines on the peninsula including san andreas pipeline 2 and 3. it addresses critical fault crossings and ground shaking and liquefaction on six different sites on the peninsula. the request is to adopt ceqa findings and overriding considerations and to ask the committee to release the remaining reserved funds to fund construction of
11:00 pm
the project. >>supervisor mark farrell: okay. thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? okay. thanks. we might be back in a minute. mr. rose, can we go to your report, please. >> yes, mr. chairman, regarding on the committee regarding item 6 under the proposed 2nd amendment between the puc and hrd which is the contractor. hdr, the contract amount is increased by $1.5 million as the department has testimony and that would be from a $26 million to $27.5 million the contract between the puc and hdr for the peninsula region projects. on the bottom of page 31 shown in table one on that page the proposed budget for