SFGov

back to Juvenile Probation Department home page

Facilities_Committee

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 MINUTES OF JANUARY 2, 2002 FACILITIES COMMITTEE MEETING
held at Youth Guidance Center Conference Rm 375 Woodside Ave San Francisco, Ca 94127

The minutes of this meeting set forth all actions taken by the Commission on the matters stated, but not necessarily the chronological sequence in which the matters were taken up

1. (ACTION) Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 8:50 am. Comms. Hale and Ricci were present at the gavel. CPO Williams, Ed Lopatin, Norm Cole, Joanne Chow-Winship represented the Dept.
2. (ACTION) Review of Facilities Committee meeting minutes of November 7, 2001
The minutes were approved as written.
(public comments)
There were none
3. (DISCUSSION) Public Comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission.
There was none.
4. (ACTION) Review and possible action to recommend Capital Improvement Budget for FY 2002-03 to the full Commission
Ed Lopatin gave a summary of the budget document. In past years, the Dept has received 250K for YGC facility, 60K for LCRS, 10K for HVR. Additionally 375K for special health and safety projects. Current year they have 7 million for the JH replacement project. He said the Dept is likely to get a similar level of funds this year, but is not sure about the amount for the JH. The bulk of the document given to the Commissioners lists the total amount of unfunded projects needing attention.
The City has historically given the Dept a target Capital budget of $750K. This year’s Dept budget request is a little higher than that: $825.7 K.
Norm Cole went over several of the major projects that are on the list of unfunded projects. The total of those named came to over $12 million.
There are a number of health and safety related issues also included in the unfunded projects list: asbestos containing floor tiles, the radiant floor heating system in the W-cottages, emergency command center, floor repairs for Dept 30.
The CPO raised the issue of the availability of funds for the JH replacement to go forward. The City will not allow a bid process to go forward until funds are clearly in place, and at this point they aren’t.
Comm. Hale asked how the Commission can be supportive in this process? Is there a way of not having to attend to some health and safety projects in order to get some of the other projects done? The CPO said that this would not be a viable course, since health and safety issues are of top priority.
Comm. Chuck was concerned that some of the projects might be seen as "padding" of the budget, and that if given support, would be taken from other projects which are as much needed, if not more (eg. HVR).
Comm. Hale mentioned trying to get support from some key Supervisors or their aides (eg. Supervisor Maxwell, Hall). The Commissioner asked if the Dept was assured of continued support for the replacement project and the CPO said it was a 50/50 proposition. He suggested it would be advantageous if the Commission was in touch with the Controllers and Budget office. E. Lopatin clarified that for choices of funding one vs another project, the Controller does not hold that discretion. That is more the Budget office’s authority.
E. Lopatin commented that any advocacy would have to be done prior to the Mayor’s submitting it to the Bd of Supervisors, which normally would be by the end of May. This year the Mayor will be submitting a draft to the Bd of Supervisors April 1, and they will hold a series of hearings on the draft.
Comm. Ricci asked if the visits from Supervisors, which occurred this past April, resulted in anything positive. The CPO said they were generally positive. The Supervisors got a better understanding of the situation of the Dept. and this probably resulted in some support during the current FY budget process.
Comm. Ricci asked if the City required pictorial proof of the needs (that is, photos) and if with this the City would have a more concrete understanding of the Dept’s needs. E. Lopatin said no, they don’t need to visually chronicle the needs, but the City is requiring more narrative substantiation of the different expense categories, with more detailed explanations, for eg. what specific memberships are being paid for, or what specialized services are expected to be contracted for.
The Commissioner felt that having a visual understanding would be a more powerful statement.
Comm. Hale asked about the money needed for the replacement project.
J. Chow-Winship said that what is needed is a Bd of Supervisors resolution accepting and approving the expenditure of, the grant from the BOC. Then they will need a matching resolution from the Commission, before August 2002.
If the Dept expects to go to bid in May, then the Controller needs to see that there are available funds before he will certify a construction contract. This means that the Mayor has to put in the funds in this normal budget process (before April) so that the step to bid can be taken. She said that the most important person to get on board with this is the Mayor.
The CPO added one more thing to the unfunded projects. That is the demolition of old buildings at LCRS and landscaping the areas afterward.
N. Cole said that some of those buildings might be demolishable by themselves.
It was moved and seconded to recommend the full Commission approve the Capital Improvement Budget FY 2002-3. Upon voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
(public comments)
There was none.
5. (DISCUSSION) Announcements, requests for future agenda items.
Comm. Hale raised the question of how aggressive the Commission/Committee needs to be in order to assure adequate funds to continue such things as the replacement project, and how they should proceed on this.
He brought up another issue, regarding ADA issues. The front door entranceway is still out of ADA compliance. The Commissioner had to help a client up with her wheelchair this morning. There is not adequate signage that easily informs clients how to gain access to the building.
N. Cole and the CPO offered that there is signage that directs people to the back of the building. Maybe this is not good enough. But the Dept has met the law and requirement for accessibility.
Comm. Chuck said that he has gotten lost in the back, so the signage may need improving.
Comm. Hale said that everyone who needs to know the process needs to be thoroughly trained so that when there is another client need, all relevant personnel will be able to help the client gain the access.
6. (ACTION) Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 am.

Meeting Information

Facilities_Committee