the work that you do. i think that many of our departments feel the same way. one of the questions i have for the organization and the market octavia plan overall. i think he mentioned that child care facilities was something that was prioritized and identified as a need in the area. as you look at the additional information, this does not list a recreation center. can you speak to that discrepancy if this is not considered a phase one or two party, where is it fit? >> we are talking about two different documents in this case. when we are talking about the need for a child care facility, those are identified needs in

the plan. the central freeway projects were approved by the central board in 2006. those were projects which were specific to the project. they are a separate obligation and commitment. by the identification through the long community process, there is a commitment that the excess funds of the central freeway parcells would then be designated towards these ancillary projects. >> the idea you are articulating is that they're both parties in two separate plans that tend to overlap. >> exactly. >> if we sold this parcel at a below market rate, we would have more than enough to pay for some

of these days one, phase two projects. these things that were valued at a certain level back in 2006. i'm imagining that we were in 2000 all of them, those values have gone up. if we end up selling this parcel, it appears that will be short likely from what the estimated total budget looks like. what do you think about that? >> the estimated budget was 7.5 million. you're correct, those costs have changed. we're much closer to the completion of those projects. those have gone out to the

construction project and will start and the next month. this is a 95% shrine. this is fully complete and ready to go to bid. as to be closer and closer, that number becomes more and more firm. this includes funds which have been expended for the designs of the state park. we are keeping the number as a conservative estimate. >> for the two remaining projects, are those substantially under way? >> one has committed that concluded its process. >> those are not necessarily at a place for we know what the cost will be? >> these are less certain than

the state park. >> finally, with regard to the ancillary projects, there is 8 $2 million estimate it cost. -- a $2 million estimate cost. >> the dog run is on caltrans parcels. there is maintenance of these facilities, maintenance of the streetscape. that is a five-year estimate. >> with regards to the financial component, i am thankful that we have come forward with some improvement but we have had some improvements to the transaction. i would like to say that if we do sell the property at a below market rate and at some point in

time after the agreement terms are met, say 30 or 40 years, if the boys and girls club decide to sell 8 or whatever the subsequent information -- organization is, what is the city's potential financial uptake and what any appreciation would be. i don't think that we have that in the previous agreement. i want to thank-you for that and for those improvements to the legislation. the other things i wanted to talk about, the residential development. i don't have any additional questions at the moment. if there are no other questions, i want to open this up for public comment. are the members of the public that wish to speak on this item? >> good afternoon, supervisors.

thank you for hearing our comments. the current building was built in 1952 and has had decades of use. the infrastructure is really old, from plumbing, to the bathroom facilities, machines, technology. the layout is inefficient for moving the kids around the building. there is poor natural light. we don't feel that it makes sense to invest in renovating that particular area. we have attempted to rebuild a new facility with upgraded technology and infrastructure, so i asked for your support in selling its property to us. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. supervisor mirkarimi, he has done a lot of work in our district. i want to speak to the heartbeat of the boys and girls club and the dynamics of the community from the standpoint of different children coming from different parts of the area and being able to come to a safe environment. i think that this will provide that. it is interesting to me, sir and kids can live on laguna street yet they still go to page street for the services. this brings some of that closure with the kids coming from different areas. i think the most important thing is the dynamics of that community of the blocks, from

one block to one block. some people are living as gangs. i think this is a neutral area. i think would be very beneficial to the city, to the community in providing excellent services. thanks to the city and i hope this passes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for having me. i'm a former member of the boys and girls club. i want to speak to the transportation. i guess in part with this location, it would be very neutral. not only that, we would have transportation close by. we have the board, the

underground muni, the buses that run along the xanax. -- that run along van ness. that allow children from all of the city to take it an edge of the boys and girls club. we have different events that go on in the area. we have used coming from a sunny tale or hunters point. if they have a neutral place to go in a way to get there, that to be fantastic. that is the goal, to get as many use as possible. dust to get as many -- to get as many youth back as possible.

i want to thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? >> good afternoon. i have been a lifetime member of the boys and girls club. this thinking about the boys and girls club in my community would be huge. this would speak volumes. i used to catch a bus to the club on a regular basis. that is not viable anymore. parents are not letting their kids catch the bus anymore. i used to catch the bus that six and seven years old. now, it is not like that. we are able to help those who are otherwise unable to get there now. i have seen the work we have done at hunters point and the new mission club. ii am ecstatic that we're moving

it club down to the western addition so we can serve more kids. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the club house director for the tenderloin club. i want to talk a little bit about the wider impact that this is going to have it this comes to fruition. some have been to our club, like supervisor kim, and we're one of the smallest clubs. in terms of space, we have a social recreation room, and we have a learning center. and most days, except for tuesday's food bank, we have an art room. otherwise we share everything else with mercy housing. so we are at their whim. we use the committee, so our kids walk five blocks to the

tenderloin rec center, and we share that space. if you are familiar with the space, you know that the gym is not even a half-court gym. if you have seen it the rims, and i am sure you are aware that we're sharing that little tiny space. we use the court, the outside area. and just to paint a picture for you, there's an outside hoop, and my social rec director was talking about, on a thursday, when the rec is doing the skate park, his basketball practice, because they cannot use the gym, was in between cars shooting free throws. now, if this works out, our kids are going to be walking a shorter distance than they do even to go to school. [bell rings] to carmichael or tenderloin community school. and they will have a full gym and other resources as well. thank you.

supervisor chu: >> good afternoonm alumni of the tenderloin boys and girls club. i was a member for 12 years, so i know what it is like for us to have fewer resources compared to other clubs bit of for example, we walked five blocks to the tenderloin rec center to share a small gym space, which is also used for a dance class, roller rink, and for basketball games. the programs for the kids -- the rec center is also used for programs for the kids. so our kids are always the one- like, we cannot always use space. however, if we were to walk seven blocks to fall to an end gough, our kids would be a what to play with these and have appropriate space. in closing, this possibility

will help allow the kids to explore their interest and have an additional programs to benefit their future. supervisor chu: thank you. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number 8? aca none, public comment is closed. jennifer, did you want to add anything? >> yes, i think we would request that we move the amendments, which are to the purchase and sale agreement. they're not to be underlying resolution. and we're happy to include a for the amendment that would require the housing development, per supervisor kim's questions, and if we could do so at this time, we would request that the item be moved to the full board. supervisor chu: thank you for your request. question to the city attorney. technically, given that this is the underlying agreement, the first three items, in addition to the fourth item with

amendments, do we have to take a motion on that? >> madam chair, deputy city attorney here. no, you do not. the new agreement would be lodged with the committee. and if the committee desired to move the new version of the agreement for work, then that would be the vote could you do not have to move to make an amendment. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, given the presentation, i think that we certainly got more information today. we certainly have improvements with regards to the amendments, the first three, in addition to that last suggestion. but i would be uncomfortable sitting this item forward to the full board at this time because there are so many moving parts to it, and i prefer we get most of this information solid at the committee before we send it forward. it would also get the budget analyst time to reflect the changes in the budget analyst report, which i think will be useful as we continue to talk about the speed of at the end of the day, we will be able to make improvements through the amendments to change the financial picture for the city

and to provide additional guarantees that strengthens this deal that we would be able to consider. but with regards to the process and how it came forward, that will ultimately be a policy called for the board. and i understand that part of it. there's nothing you can do to kind of change the way that this transaction came to us. i understand that a but i think we should spend some time to ensure that we're submitting, at least on the financial component, the strongest language and the most tight package possible. so i would request that we continue this item to january 4. that will provide supervisor mirkarimi -- that will be his last meeting. but he can be part of that, given that he is the sponsor. and it will give the department of to make sure that this information provided to us is complete but i am a hopeful that the department will be able to sharpen your pencils around some of the public amenities that were promised through the selling of the parcels could do -- to make sure that those are

what they should be. so those are some of the outstanding issues i think we can work on, sharpening the language with regard to financial, and two, making sure the information that we are provided under the public amenities we promised under the central freeway agreement is committed to and we're prioritizing that. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, madam chair. i find that reasonable. i think that with some of the refinements that have been discussed here, and in the conversation has been good, there is an anticipated standard of what kind of contacting data should come before us. so use the next few weeks in order to perfect that. of course we want to see this happen. i do. but let's just get to that next step in making sure that it is well-secured. supervisor kim: i support as well, and i really appreciate the work that has gone on over the last couple of days to strengthen and clarify some of

the questions and concerns that were brought up. again, i am really a fan of boys and girls club, and i actually think that this is a great parcel, both for the western addition and the tenderloin, i see how this will benefit the tenderloin as well. and in terms of the western addition, i think more of the families, anecdotally, seem to be more closer to the eastern side of the western addition than the western side. and with sfusc and the ballet, there are many great partnerships for our young people. i think that will be important. i am glad to see that this is being brought before us. i am happy to work with all the partners before this comes back to the board, the budget committee, on january 4. supervisor chu: thank you, colleagues. thank you for the presentation and information but hopefully the department will work with us

and we will receive actual language of the amendments as well before the january 4 meeting. so, colleagues, we will continue this item until its january 4, our first but a meeting of the year. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you, can we call item number 7, please? >> item number 7, resolution approving the amendment of the resolution approving the second amendment to the refuse collection agreement between the city and county of san francisco and trichology sentences go, recalling to golden gate, and recall it is and this scavenger, increasing the total not to exceed the amount of the agreement from $23,537,527 to $29,337,527 under

charter section 9.11b. >> the resolution request an increase in the not been -- not to exceed amount of $5.8 million to the mou agreement between the city and rheology, formerly known as sunset scavenger, which provides to the collection and disposal of solid waste generated by the city. oca inherited this agreement, which was originally proposed by the then deputy city administrator. the terms and conditions of the agreement, as previously approved by the board, remained essentially the same. they are simply requesting approval to increase the dollar value of the contract to allow user departments to pay for

refuse collection services through the end of fiscal year 2011-2012. it has been approved by the board during the budget process. the services provided include the collection of waste from city receptacles located on city streets, the three boxes of various capacity, located on city property and public parks. it does not include commercial or residential collection. we wanted to provide you with a little bit of history regarding the agreement. their original term of the agreement was april 1, 2007 to june 30, 2011. at time of approximately four

and a half years. and not to exceed amount of $29,337,527. the agreement included two one- year options to extend the contract, which could be exercised at the sole discretion of the purchaser. amendment 1 exercised the first one-year auction, extending the term to june 30, 2012. it also added half a million dollars, increasing the not to exceed the total to just over $23.5 million. in the amendment, we also made changes to various standard terms and conditions to bring them to the latest versions, which is a standard practice for oca when amending agreements.

although the march 2007 resolution gave the purchaser the sole discretion to exercise the two one-year options, the resolution specifically approved a not to exceed amount just over $23 million, which was less than the original requested amount of $23.5 million. because the board designated a lesser amount, oca interpreted it that charter section 9.11a, subsection b, requiring board approval of any contract estimated to exceed $10 million or amendments exceeding half a million dollars to such contracts was applicable. again, the business terms of the

mou, has reviewed and approved in 2007, are essentially the same. with the exception that oca has negotiated for the elimination of the cola increase that recology was entitled to for fiscal year 2011-2012. that cola adjustment would have been 3.25% or approximately $182,000 for the year. the mou agreement includes pricing for the collection of city refuse, based on the commercial rate schedules, with the following adjustments -- there is a rate discount of 25% off of commercial rates for their recreation and park department and a 17% discount off of regular commercial rates for all other city departments. we would like to note though

that in practice, recology has actually provided a 29% discount to recreation and parks. there is also a recycling incentive program, and it is sometimes referred to as a diverse and discount, based on the volume of waste that departments are able to divert. finally, there is a cap credit, is essentially the city may receive a credit to cap the city's costs under the contract. as applicable, the city receives that credit, which is distributed equally to general fund departments. there is one last price adjustment which allows recology annual cost of losing adjustments, and that is the cola increase. the office requested information

regarding rate increases since the inception of the contract. so we would like to provide you with that. and willie, recology -- and willie recology provides the right books for the rec and park the permanent separate rate books for all other departments, reflecting the rate discounts described. this table utilizes a sampling of prices from the city's great books. any rate increases, as you can see, are applied equally across the rate categories. . this table, again, illustrates the history of price increases over the term of the mou and reflects recology's agreement to waive its right to a cola increase in fiscal year 2011- 2012. our calculations indicate a

cumulative increase of 16% for the term of the mou. as of the time this resolution was submitted, all funds remaining on this contract were incumbered. their proposed increase of $5.8 million was estimated by taking the actual amount voucher in fiscal year 2010-2011, which was $5.7 million, plus an additional 2% contingency of $100,000. we think the small amount is reasonable based on fluctuations in usage. further, the not to exceed amount is an agreement cap. it does not obligate the city to spend this amount. the amount departments can spend

as determined by their budgets, which have already been approved for fiscal year 2011-2012 by the board during the budget process. because the city negotiated the waiver of a cola for fiscal year 2011-2012, the total cost to the city is estimated to be the same. the savings is estimated to be, again, approximately $182,000. the resolution requests an increase of $5.8 million, increasing the not to exceed amount from $23,537,527 to $29,337,527. thank you. i have staff from oca, as well

as staff from the department of the environment, and representatives from recology to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair and members of the committee, we have not completed our analysis. we have just received information from the department. we will be having the various recommendations on at this item. but as of this time, our recommendation to you is to continue the resolution so we can complete our analysis. supervisor chu: thank you. let's open this up for public comment. are there members of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. just a question in a given the information that you have received from the department, it sounds like from your report the