City and County of San Francisco Thursday, October 05, 2017
>> testing >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen, I want to welcome you back to the next edition of the budget and finance committee. My name is cohen, and I am the
chair of this committee and to
my left is tang, and I want to thank our friends for their
assistance in the sfgov tv
broadcast and our clerk is Miss Wong.
I am yee will be joining us shortly. And I would like to go to the clerk and ask her if there are any announcements?
>> silence all cell phones and
electronic devices and completed speaker cards and documents to
be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk.
Items today will be on the 17th, unless otherwise stated.
>> could you call item one? >>ordinance amending the administrative code to establish a trial local business
Lbe: Incentive program that would allow an lbe joint venture rating bonus on professional services and design-build contracts over $20 million, and allow departments to use the amount of lbe subcontractor participation in core disciplines as selection criteria in professional services contract procurements. >> so they will add the subcontractor and participation insensitives for all of the city department contracts it is on a trial basis, a trial, three year basis and, there are two aspects, we have fine her that is going to make the presentation and welcome. The floor is yours. >> good morning, supervisors.
My name is ivy fine and I am the director of the contract administration bureau for the san francisco public utilities
commission, for the past year,
the san francisco public utility's commission and the airport and the contract, monitoring division have been
working together on ways to assist local business
enterprises to participate on city contracts.
We especially focused on contracts over 20 million. This morning, I'm here to
present on an ordinance that we collaboratively developed and
create a pilot program to increase local business enterprise participation on larger, professional services
and design build contracts. Administrative code 14 b, known
as the local business,
enterprise, ordinance, sets local business enterprise
participation requirements for covered contract and monitors the solicitation and selection
process of those contracts.
Chapter 14, b currently covers,
contracts up to 20 million. Therefore, any contracts larger
than 20 million cannot provide a
big discount, or a rating bonus,
based on local business enterprise participation.
The goal of this three year
pilot program, is to increase local business participation on large contracts.
And the program is optional, and
each department will decide when it is best to use it. I am going to tell you about the
two options on the next slides.
They are one a joint venture and incentive program and two, accord discipline and local business insensitive, and the department May choose to use one
or both options on the same contract. Under the joint venture and incentive program option, a
department would apply up to a 6
percent joint venture rating bonus, on professional services,
architecture and engineering and
design built contracts over 20 million, the prime propose error
the lead design on the contract
must form a joint venture, with
one or more contract monitoring
divisions certificated or microor small local businesses, joint bonuses will be applied
based on the participation level
of the local business performing
prime, level work or design services on a design build contract. The amount of the rating bonuses
May be 2 percent to 6 percent, depending on the amount of
participation as shown on the
slide.
>> unto the core discipline incentive program option, a department's soliciting
professional service and architectal and engineering services May include as part of
the selection, criteria, a prime
contractor's use of a microor a small local business and
identified core disciplines.
The department must specify in
the rfq, or the rfp, or the design built procurement documents what trades, skoepz of
work, or disciplines would be
considered core disciplines for that contract.
For example, the design of a waste water treatment plant like
the south east or ocean side treatment plant, the core
disciplines might include,
mechanical, and electrical engineering. Non-core disciplines that are needed for the project, May
include geo technical and industrial engineering, community out reach and graphics.
The departments have the discretion to set the value of the local business participation in the over all selection
process, the waiting of the
local business participatation
will be determined in the monitoring division. Today, we are asking the
committee to approve the
ordinance to amend administrative code chapter 14 b to establish a trial, local
business incentive program that will allow local business enterprises joint venture rating
bonus on professional services,
architecture and engineering,
and design build contracts over 20 million, and allow the departments to use the amount of
local business participation and core discipline as selection
criteria for professional
services contract procurement.
I am happy to answer any questions.
And my colleagues from the
contract monitoring division and jeff new meyer from the airport are here also and available to
answer questions. Supervisor tang does have a question. >> thank you so much for the presentation and I am glad to hear that we are embarking on
this trial and so given that it
is how would you analyze it to
transition to a permanent program?
>> great question, over the 3
year period we will be tracking and monitoring the participation and how it is going in the contracts along with the fellow departments such as the airport.
And the department of public
works and come back to you and
provide you an up date of the results and a request to permanently include it in the administrative code. >> okay.
And so that would have to be another board action to make it a permanent program? >> yes, it would, and I wonder since the airport representatives are here, we
could hear but how it has
actually helped >> could you pull the mic closer? >> perfect.
>> on the history of what we set
out to do is that we really had a number of problems that we wanted to try to solve and one is that we wanted to have the participation so that we had the representatives of the city and county of san francisco managing
and designing our projects we needed to have the local community involved. And we want to create the participation of the local businesses we have the used the program on 14 different
contracts data already.
And total contract is 2.3 billion, and some of that does include the construction and our
average cmd contracting goal has
been 24 percent and we have increased the participation on
all of the contracts up to 32 percent and up to 8 percent increase over what would have been mandated and what we are
seeing in the increase is the level. And not only have we seen the
additional participation, but we have also seen the local businesses that have been the
smaller firms that are a part of the program work hand in hand with the firms that are more established and seeing them really grow into something special and become really sustain able and actually coming back to the airport on the second contract and so we have seen not only the result of the
economic benefits but also the mentoring that has gone on and so these have been incredible results for us.
And we have been pleased with
what has happened today. Ty for the presentation and for the clarification.
>> we are going to go to public comment, and invite any member of the public to come to the podium and speak.
Seeing none, public comment is closed. Supervisor tang h all right.
>> I will make a motion to send
forth item one to the full board with the positive recommendations and do that without recommendation. >> Madam Clerk, I would like to
make a motion to excuse supervisor yee.
>> from attending today's meeting. >> yes. >> and that was seconded by supervisor tang and we will take that without objection. Thank you.
Also, I would like to make a
motion to continue item 11. >> one week. >> chair, with prior to continuing this item could we have the public comment? >> sure. >> on item eleven. >> if there is any member, let's call item 11. >> yes.
>> item 11,ordinance amending the administrative code to require the controller to include in mid-year financial reports to the board of supervisors and mayor information regarding the overtime expenditures of the airport, department of emergency management, fire department, police department, department of public health, public utilities commission, public works, recreation and park department,
and sheriff's department. >> thank you. And I would like to open up the
public comment on items 11. See none, public comment is closed. Thank you. >> and I would like to make a motion to continue item eleven for one week. >> so moved. >> Madam Chair?
For the clarification, the next budget and finance committee
meeting has been cancelled could we continue toyota October 19th. >> absolutely.
>> we will move this motion to send this to continue to October 19th. >> thank you.
>> and we will take that without objection. >> let's continue with the agenda, now that we have gotten that out of the way.
Please, call item number two.
>> item two,hearing to consider the release of reserved funds to the san francisco public utilities commission, placed on budget and finance committee reserve by ordinance no. 25-15, in the amount of $2,400,000 for the pacific rod & gun club remediation project. >> all right, thank you. And we
have got obite from the sfpuc
and the hearing to release, $2.4 million of the 6.2 million from
the budget committee reserve for
additional review, and design and construction activities
associated with the clean up of
the contamination of the lake
merced site which was formally
occupied by the pacific rod and gun club. The floor is yours, welcome. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors.
My name is oben soe and I am with the sfpuc and I am a project manager in the water resources group. I am here today to request the
release of $2.4 million in
reserves from the pacific water and gun club project.
The funding will be used for
additional site clean up, review
and permitting to facilitate the
site redevelopment.
As a bit of background, the
pacific water and gun club is at
520 john meyer drive, it is on
the southwestern shore of lake
merced it was used as a skeet and trap shooting range, since 1928.
Result of these activities cost the site to be contaminated with
high levels of lead and hydrocarbons.
In 2013, the regional water
quality control board issued an order requiring that we
implement corrective measures to address the contamination of the site.
And in 2014, the sfpuc, prepares an action plan.
And the plan summarized them to clean up the site and this plan
was approved by the regional
board within the same year.
In 2014 the board appropriated funds to the project.
On February, 24, 2015, the board of supervisors once again appropriate ated an additional
9.5 million for the project.
This funding was however, placed on reserve.
On April 8, 2015, the puc came
to the budget and finance committee requesting release of
3.2 million dollars of funds to enable us to award the contract
for clean up of the site that
remains, 6.2 dollars in reserve
at this time.
Site clean upstarted in April of
2015, and consisted of he is ka vating 88,000 tons of the soil and debris from the site. And once that site fell and it
was excavated, and we.
With the facility and back up the site with the clean soil it
has been restored with the native vegetation. And at this point, we are requesting additional funding in
the amount of $2.4 million to work with the rec and park
department to facility the sites redevelopment for the public
recreation, and complete some limited sole mediation that needs to be done at the site.
The proposed future use of the site will include the picnic
areas beings and kayaking and
botchy ball, we plan to commence the review for the plan and redevelopment of the site,
hopefully at the end of 2017. For the site in early, 2019, and i am happy to take your questions if you have any at this time. >> I think that we do have a question for you. Supervisor tang.
>> sorry I was trying to take the notes here, I missed, when
did you say that the sequa review? >> at the end of this year.
>> great. >> thank you.
>> and this, I mean, I can follow up with rec and park, I
know that you are working in tan tum on the future public uses,
but how far along are they in that process? Have they selected or gone
through the rfp process and completed for who will be operating the open space. >> yes, they actually have and
they went through the open rfp process to select the bidder to come and do the redevelopment of the site and that bidder has been selected and I believe that
they are called lake merced recreation, llc and they are working would them right now to
get the term sheet and some of
the other items kind of ironed out.
And in the meantime, we are requesting the funding to start
the process to allow that kind of proceed to the construction of the site. >> okay, great, thank you. >> you are welcome. >> all right, thank you very
much, we will go to public comment. And public comment on item two is open for any member of the public that would like to speak.
Seeing none, public comment is
closed. excuse me I am sorry, we have to
heard from the analyst. We have already taken public
comment, but I will pivot to you. >> good morning, supervisor
cohen, and tang, from the budget analyst office.
I currently there is 6.3 million dollars remaining on reserve for this project. The department is requesting a
release of 2.4 million to complete the environmental
review and clean up work. Based on their budget we are actually recommending a reduction in the budgets for
this work of $105,000.
So we are actually recommending that the release of reserves
with 2 million, and 295,000. And then that will leave a
balance of almost, 4 million
dollars, 3,994,000 on reserve and we recommend that be returned to the fund balance, it is our understanding that this
should complete the envier mental work at that site. >> thank you for finding and flagging that for us.
>> I want to talk to Mr. Nzewi.
>> are you aware of this discrepancy? >> do you have any comments or in sight that you would like to share with us. >> no, I am fine with it.
>> sounds good, okay, then we can accept the suggested amendments. Supervisor tang, I don't know if you have any thoughts that you want to share in if not you can make a motion and we will move it on. >> all right, I will make a
motion to accept the amendments. And or to amend and then approve
as amended and send forth to the full board with the positive recommendations. >> this is a hearing. To release funds, so I guess that I will make a motion to file the hearing and release the
funds from reserve. >> good job. >> thank you. >> we will take that.
>> thank you.
>> okay. All right, thank you.
Madam Clerk, item three, please?
>> item 3,resolution approving lease agreement no. 17-0112 between alliance ground international, llc and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, for exclusive use of approximately 40,778 square feet of space in airport building 648, for an estimated total minimum rent of $4,219,299.66 and a projected term of three years and nine months
months. >> all right, thank you cathy is back and she is representing the airport. She is going to share with us
about these resolution to approve a new lease between
alliance granite international
and the airport for 40,778. >> square feet. >> wow, that is a lot. >> okay. Good morning. >> good morning. Supervisor tang, and cathy with the san francisco international airport. The item before you seeks your
approval for a new lease with
alliance ground international llc.
for 40,778 square feet of cargo
and warehouse space as well as office space.
And exterior ramp space to conduct aviation support services to various airlines
operating at sfo. Excuse me.
This lease has been operating at
sfo on a month to month permit
basis as the proposed, this proposed lease will lock in the term for three years and 7 months with an estimated rent at
the airport of 3 million, 820,000 over the term and this lease was originally and negotiated and approved by the airport commission last year.
But soon there after, alliance notified the airport staff that
they intended to add some square footage. So since the company was already
operating on a month to month
lease, the airport withdrew the original item in order to return
to the board with one item that included the total square footage. And so that is what is before you today. And the rental rates for the cargo facilities at the airport are set by the finance staff each year.
Based on the super price index available space and the demands that we have for the space at the airport.
And the charges apply to all
cargo services, cargo service
providers at the airport. The budget an list recommends
approval and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you, I appreciate that offer. And before we go to public comment we are going to going to the analyst.
And hear her thoughts.
>> they said that the current
alliance is paying rent in quite of the airport.
And summary of charges, that the airport commission approves every year.
In fiscal year, 17, 18, they are
paying, $24.92 per square foot over the term of the lease of 3
years and 7 months, the estimate
of the rent to the airport is $3.8 million and I also would
like to point out that under the admin code this is a contract or the ground for the aviation services. And it does not have to be competitively bid, these are services to the airlines.
So this is not a competitively bid lease. And we also do have a technical amendment to correctly state that the rent or that the term of 3 years and 7 months, and
that the rent is $3.8 million,
rather than $4.2 million, and otherwise we recommend approval as amended. >> thank you very much. >> we can make that amendment after public comment. >> any member of the public that
would like to speak on thit em. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. Supervisor tang would you make a motion.
>> I will make a motion to adopt the amendments from the office and send forward as amended with positive recommendation to the full board. >> all right and we will take that without objection, thank you.
>> item four, please?
>> item 4,ordinance waiving the banner fees under public works code, section 184.78, for up to 300 banners to be placed by the office of economic and workforce development to publicize the city's " shop and dine in the 49"
campaign. >> is there anyone here?
>> I can just speak on it. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you and so we do this pretty regularly.
We have a shop and dine in the 49 campaign in san francisco and
really encouraging us all to
support the local small business
and so this ban er waiver is going alongside with the out reach efforts so that anybody knows that this campaign is
going on, and we want everybody
to shop locally, and so pretty
simple and straight forward, and
the banners to be placed in the city. >> thank you. We will go to public comment, supervisor tang? >> is that okay with you? >> public comment is open on item four? >> seeing none, public comment
is closed. Okay. Supervisor tang? Did you want to -- .
>> I will make a motion to send
forth the item forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> do we have to send this to the committee report. >> no.
>> okay, we will take that.
The original to motion by tang without objection.
Item 5 in
>> item 5,ordinance authorizing the installation of up to six banners on city-owned utility poles by apa family support services under public works code, section 184.78, at 1652 sunnydale avenue between August 1, 2017, and January 31, 2018; and waiving the fees for those banner s, >> all right, thank you, colleagues for considering this item today, so the resolution before you allows for the
installation of banners along
the sunny dale avenue. And right now, it is currently zoned residential. And what I am asking this resolution to do is to wave the banner fee. The banner installation fee.
The banners that are expected to
be installed will promote a food pantry, which is run by the apa family support in the san
francisco food bank located at 1625 sunny dale avenue. Which is again, located in the heart of the sun in I dale community. And so the goal of this is really straight forward it is to attract and to promote more
users of the pantry, which is
located in the southeastern neighborhoods.
And many of you and so this resolution, will support the increasing the healthy food access, and so I hope that you
will be tiebl is up able to support it.
I can see that we have santago here and I don't know if you would like to speak on this item. >> good morning, I am the executive director of the apa family support services and so i appreciate the committee's consideration of this.
And it allows us to do this, at
a more reasonable I guess seize and it is an important service
and so again, our residents are needy.
And we operate the food pantry.
The messaging that encourages them to access fresh fruits and vegetables or just make their lives better and healthier and he will save money. Thank you.
>> excellent, good to see you doctor.
Let's go ahead and move to
comment public, in there is any member of the public that would
like to move and speak on item five. Come up. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> I would like to make a motion to send to committee with the positive recommendation. >> thank you, we will take that without objection.
>> 6,resolution extending the teeter plan to special taxes levied for the san francisco unified school district under the school parcel tax..
Item 7,resolution extending the teeter plan to the parcel tax levied for the san francisco community college district under the city college parcel tax.
Item 8,resolution extending the teeter plan to parcel taxes levied for the san francisco bay restoration authority under the san francisco bay clean water, pollution prevention and habitat
restoration program. Item 9, 9,resolution extending the teeter plan to special taxes levied for the san francisco unified school district under the school facilities special
tax. >> all right, thank you.
And just as a reminder, the teeter plan is more than just a
cool name, it is actually a state wide initiative that
allows the counties toal locate
the property tax revenues based
on the total amount of property
taxes billed but not yet collected.
And we have got jimmy to further
flush out the details, welcome. >> good morning, supervisors and
my name is jamie, and I am a property's manager in the
controller's budget and an list division. And as supervisor and chair cohen mentioned, this is and these are four resolutions asking for the authorization to
utilize the teeter method for
distributing property tax revenues rather than distributing amounts based on
what was actually collected.
>> so that is the section of the
revenue and taxation code that is relevant for folks to reference. We currently already use the
method for the bulk of our secured property tax bills.
And that is the ad valorum part, the part that is based on the assessed part of property and for most of the parcel taxes,
the special assessments that also appear on the secured
property tax bill, we use the non-teeter or the distribution
based on what is collected. And with the exception this
year, of the transbay community facility district which the
board approved to start teetering this year.
These four resolutions will add the two city wide school districts parcel taxes, the school college, and the city
wide parcel tax and new san
francisco bay restoration
authority, the $12 per parcel tax.
And to the group that we already
teeter starting next year.
So the benefits for the tax is
that it guarantees whatever they
bill, is what will be based on what they received that year, so
it is a secured budgeting tool and so if they were to bond against these revenues, the
rating agencies, moody and fich
and tend to review this as a favorable thing that you are getting the guaranteed revenue,
and the city and county of san francisco as an agent, collecting property taxes for
multiple tax entity and we will receive the pent penalty for the late payments which is ten percent of that installment.
And plus, if they roll into default on July first, there is
a 1 and a half percent interest,
or 18 percent per year additional redemption interest. And the city and county, would
be the beneficiary of those penalties and interest. This slide just shows what
dollar amounts are on the tax roll this year.
We are not tee turing this year,
but it will give you an idea.
Ewe have a 99.Something percent payment rate. So our rates are only, this past year is only, 0.5 percent and it tends to be less than 1 percent.
And that roll in to the default on July first.
or from the penalties and
unaudited number was collected.
And the resolutions are approved and for the san francisco bay restoration authority, the parcel tax and particular for us
to teeter that their board, has to approve the resolution
allowing san francisco to teeteer that tax, they do not
currently keep the money in the county pool.
And that is why the additional
is needed from the tax, and the
city and county will need to buy. And for the property taxes and using the property tax, losses
and the reserved fund. And then next, physical year.
And we began to teeter these four parcel taxes if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. >> I do have a question, what exactly is the time line?
If these resolutions are accepted?
Move toed full board and passed? When are you expected to begin the collect to make the purchase?
>> so July, 15th, is the state
law's deadline, in order to do it the next physical year, and
so we missed July 15th and it
will begin in 1819 as long as it approved. And what other reason did you Miss The last deadline of July, 15, 2017.
>> I believe that it is just the recess in August, and it is just was not introduced. >> of the recess in August is in August, the deadline is in July, so that means that there is ample time to be heard.
>> you are right. You are right. >> anywhere. >> I am trying to remember. Any way.
I'm not sure why I was not introduced previous to July 15th.
>> was it introduced in 26,
July, 15th of or passed by July,
15, of 2016?
And that would have been able to teeter this year, that is not the case. >> okay, supervisors peskin is
here, and he has joined us. And supervisor peskin I want to give you the opportunity to speak on this fascinating topic.
>> the floor is yours. Welcome.
>> thank you, chair cohen and supervisor tang and I
specifically wanted to thank the controller's office and
Mr. Whitiker this is really the result of this board having put
me on the san francisco bay
restoration authority where I
learned that some counties teeter sounds like he has already explained to the committee what it is.
And some counties do not.
And that led me to inquire of
ben rosenfield whether or not we should teeter and this is the result of those conversations.
And it gives, and it is good for
the city and good for the bay restoration authority, and it
gives the bay restoration
authority steady, income, and
allows us to keep any interest
and fines that May accrue over
time >> thank you.
>> and as you notice in the
report, on page.
And the city will actually have to buy the back debt or the taxes from the school district or the college district?
And a little bit from the bay
restoration.
Habitat restoration.
>> the controller's office estimates 3 to 1200 a year when
they collect the back taxes in penalties and interest charges.
So it will take four or five years to pay off what the costs the city to do the back debt,
any of the revenues that were
obtained for the charges will
accrue to the city or the county.
And we do rec mepd mend approval.
>> and item 6 through nine, and seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor, do you have any last remarks? >> I want to thank him and the controller's office and the bay
restoration authority will be taking the requisite action that it needs to take prior to June
and I want to thank the voters
of san francisco and the voters
to pass that tax that is allowing the authority to spend, $25 million a year to bay restoration. >> I would like to make a motion to send from the committee to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> with he will take that without objection. >> thank you. >> Madam Clerk, what is next?
>> item 10?
>> item ten.
Sponsor: peskin resolution approving the third amendment to the revenue agreement between san francisco public works and jc decaux san francisco, llc, for the automatic public toilet and public service kiosk program extending the contract term by 60 days, changing the termination date from October
17, 2017, to December 16, 2017>> thank you.
>> colleagues, I will be in and
you will hear from Miss Dobson
in a second asking that we have
a 90 day term instead of a 60 day term.
As there is still a lot to work
out with the contract.
And that will require a
continuance, but why don't we
hear from Miss Dawson.
>> good morning, committee members, public works. And we are here today to ask for
an extension to the current jcdecaux agreement, which provides public toilets in
exchange for the licensing of
advertising on public kiosks in san francisco. And we are currently in negotiations with the contractor and we are also in the process of going through a number of
regulatory approvals, sequa, review and the historic review, and the art commission review and all of tho s are in process, but not yet complete.
And so in order for us to be able to bring you the contract and all of the package together,
we are respectfully requesting an extension, which is a pretty short term.
And we expect to be able to work through and all of the reviews and bring forward a completed
package for your review. Shortly.
>> and I'm here if you want to ask me any questions. >> thank you. I appreciate that. Before we I see that we have no questions for you I would like
to go to the budget legislative analyst office and hear their
thoughts. >> this is an extension of the
contract through December, of 2017, and it would under the
extended period, just to call
with the pay the city about I
suggest 129,000 in revenue and this really is the preliminary
until the public works presents
a new contract to the board of supervisors for approval.
And we recommend approvals.
>> thank you, I appreciate it. And let's see if any member of the public that would like to speak on item 10.
>> seeing none, public comment is closed.
And I would like to supervisor peskin? Did you talk in to the record
your amendments other than the
90 day change snchlt >> only one amondayment is that
to change 60 to 90 days, if you
will make that and I don'tn if he has anything to add, and that will require a continuance to the next meeting which will be on the 19th.
>> yes, the next meeting is on the 19th.
And Mr. Gibner.
>> yeah, state attorney, just to
clarify and make sure that the
department on the record is okay
with that change to the proposed
contract amendment?
The board cannot adopt it. >> right. >> it is at their request.
But Miss Dawson if you will say that for the record.
>> yes, it is.
The department is respectfully asking a change in this item from 60 to 90 days. >> all right, thank you.
we can I will make a motion to
extend and to make an amendment to attend the contract for 90 days instead of 60 days and we can take that without objection. >> thank you. And I will make a motion to send
to the full board with a positive recommendation, excuse me I am sorry. >> on the continuance.
>> on the continuance. >> I think that when, on the 19th, maybe we can send it out with a positive recommendation. >> okay. >> so we will continue this item
as amended to October, 19th, 2017. >> and we will take that without objection. >> all right, thank you very much, supervisor peskin, and thank you Miss Dawson. >> and thank you Madam Chair. >> okay, moving along folks, let's move to item 12.
And item 12, ordinance amending
ordinance member, 2 . Ordinance amending ordinance no. 244-16, regarding a project partnership between the U.S. Army corps of engineers and the port to allow federal dredging
of the central basin adjacent to
pier 70, to: 1) Change the project dredging depth from 32 feet to 35 feet; 2) Increase the estimated initial project cost from $8,971,000 to $11,690,000; 3) Increase the port's 25% project contribution from $2,242,740 to $2,922,500; 4) Change the frequency of maintenance dredging from every four years to every two years, and at an estimated cost of $2,080,000 instead of $1,026,000 for each maintenance dredge episode; 5) Increase the port's additional 10% matching contribution from $897,100 to $1,169,000; 6) Increase the estimated total cost of dredging during the first 30 years from $12,195,000, to $31,300,00; and 7) Authorize the port executive director to reserve a contingency fund of $409,150 (Equivalent to 10% of the port's total estimated cost contributions of $4,091,500), to expend in case of future unanticipated increases in project costs, for a total expenditure authorization not to exceed $4,500,650. ( >> the port has asked a continuance on this item. And we can take this and let's go to public comment. And seeing that there is no public comment. And no public comment is closed. Thank you very much. And I would like to make a motion, to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> and we will take that without objection. >> 13? >>resolution retroactively authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend a habitat conservation fund grant from the california department of parks and recreation in the amount of $121,131 for the twin peaks trail system improvements; authorizing the director of real estate to file a declaration of restriction with the assessor-recorder against the property designated as assessor's parcel block no. 2643, lot no. 021, providing that the use restrictions contained in the grant agreement will be covenants, conditions, and restrictions on the use of the property until June 30, 2036; and authorizing the director of real estate to take actions necessary to annul the deed restriction recorded against the property designated as assessor's parcel block no. 2643, lot no. 003. >> excellent, we have tony here. >> good morning, tony and I am with the recreation park and capitol division and I am the grant manager and today, the legislation before you, involves three action items. And the first item is to retroactively accept and expand the habitat conservation fund
grant for the amount of $121,000
for the twin peaks trail system and also authorizes the direct
of real estate to record the
parcel, 2643, and lot 21.
And also, to the director to
take action to anull the restriction that has previously
been reported on, on the parcel
number, 2643, lot, 003. So a little background, is that the recreation and parks department is responsible for maintaining and operating the open space for the majority of open space in the twin peaks
area, including the trail
system.
And our department applied for the habitat grant and was awarded a grant and we brought
it to the grant was for 131,000 and brought it to the board and
it was approved to be directed.
And authorized.
43, 003, and so, at the time
that we thought that we were going to being doing work on
that parcel, but as the project
progressed we learned that we did not have significant funds
to complete the project as originally scoped.
And mainly, due to cost escalation for construction.
And so we had to go back to the grantor and ask them if they would modify the scope of work.
They agreed to modify the scope of work and move the scope of work that was going to be
actually done on a separate parcel.
And so that is why we have
actions to anull a deed restriction. In mid 2016, we were we initiated the work on the project, started spending the
grant money, but we encountered heavy rain, which resulted in construction delays, and I think
that happened quite a bit in the city.
And when those delays caused us
to not complete the work, within
the grand performance period.
And so we had to request, we could not request an extension. We had to request a new grant agreement. And that is what I am bringing to you today, the new grant
agreement for the remaining
121,000 that was left in the grant. And so we actually finished the
grant work, within the grant performance period. But we are unable to bill it to
the state and now we have this
new agreement that once we appropriate those funds we will use those to pay for the work
that we did in 2016, and early 2017.
And the last part of the grant
was I want to mention that the
grant because it was delayed
olong, the work was delayed, the state required that we add an
extra five years to the contract performance period, mainly that we need to maintain and operate
the property through 2036 and
that completely feasible by our department because our capitol
fro jects generally, last
between, 20 and 50 years.
And then, the last part of the
legislation, and to anull the agreement, on parcel block,
2643, 003, our intention there
is not to have the restrictions on the property that we did not actually improve and so we want to take it off the books. >> are there any questions?
>> I see no questions thank you
for the thorough description of what this grant will do, I appreciate that and we are going
to go to public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Item, 13. Thank you.
And Miss Moran.
And I would like to make a motion to send to the full board with a positive recommendation. And we would take that without objection. Thank you. >> and thank you very much. And okay. Madam Clerk is there any other business before this body. >> there is no further business. >> thank you, ladies and
