the vast majority of that was through the branch library improvement bond of 2000. subsequent to that, there has been some additional dollars infused through the library's preservation fund, as allowed by the ordinance of 2007. supervisor chu: got it. ok, thank you. why don't we get to the budget analyst report? >> madam chair, members of the committee, on page 6 of our report, we point out that as shown in table 1, and that is on page 5, as of february 29, 2012, ms. singleton reports that of the $189,999,608 budget, at $167.4 million is expended or incumbered. this subject request, the proposed of supplemental -- the

proposed supplemental would be appropriated to complete the new north branch library, and it would increase the total budget from $189.9 million to $196.3 million, and that is shown on table two on page 6 of our report. on page 7, the table 3 shows that the requested funding sources and the reallocated program-wide reserve funds would provide an additional $11,048,574 for this project so that it would increase the current $3.5 million budget. as you recall, that $3.5 million was strictly for a renovation project, and when it was decided to make this into a completely new library, that cost went up to $14,548,574. the additional $11 million is

reflected in table 3. we do recommend that you approve both of these ordinances. we believe they are consistent with prior board of supervisors policy. supervisor chu: thank you. last question -- in terms of the 2000 bonn, all those bonds are called for? there are in process? >> are they accounted for in terms of expenditures? i believe they are. >> between the bonds and the bond interest, we have $109 million that has been spent to date, so they are not fully spend, but they are close to being spent out. supervisor chu: close to being spent out. ok. is there a large balance left? >> no. the total available is $112,900,000.

supervisor chu: i guess the question is what was the authorization for in 2011? >> $105,865,000. the variance is the additional bond interest that has accrued overtime that has been appropriated over time to the project. supervisor chu: ok. probably i will just have to clarify with you offline. public comment on this item or these two items? items seven and eight. >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak in opposition to these two items. i am sure everyone is familiar with the elderly gentleman that comes before the board on tuesdays with his computer presentation about the different aspects of the library system. i am kind of wondering -- maybe

we should pay a little more scrutiny to what actually goes on in the library system in regards to finances, etc., etc., etc. also, i would like to point out, in today's "examiner," there was an interesting article about a member of the library commission. i get the impression that everybody thinks that's ross is arrogant, but i have a feeling that i see a lot of arrogance every time i am here at city hall. i would like to remind everybody for the record the all of the employees of the city and county of san francisco are employees of the citizens of the city and county of san francisco and that everyone should show some respect to people like myself when we speak because, technically speaking, we are your boss, and it is not the other way around. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you.

other speakers on items 7 and 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to send these two items forward? ok, we have a motion to send both items forward with recommendations. i also will reiterate how important i think this project is. i think many of our districts have seen transformative spaces with our library renovation projects, i just want to speak highly of it, and i am glad to see this come forward. thank you. item nine. >> item 9, a resolution designating those agencies qualified to participate in the 2012 annual joint fund-raising drive for officers and employees of the city and county of san francisco. >> good morning, office of the city administrator. we submitted a letter and a report from the city administrator, as required by the administrative code. we reviewed the six applications from federated agencies to participate, and they all meet

the criteria required by the code. chief white was the chair this year, and the campaign raised over $1.2 million, and she will be chairing next year's campaign as well. supervisor chu: thank you very much. i believe we do not have a budget analyst report for the item. why don't we open up for public comment? are there members of the public wish to speak on item 9? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item forward. we've got a motion to send this item forward with recommendation, and we can do that without objection. item 10. >> item 10, ordinance waving competitive bidding and solicitation requirements of the administrative code and authorizing the director of the port to execute an amendment to the contract with turner construction company to perform certain improvements or alternatively to enter into an agreement with the second highest-ranked composer of the pier 27 cruise ship terminal and

ne were plaza project for the improvements or into into an agreement with the america's cup event of 44 assignment of its contract with power engineering construction company to the port for improvements to pierce 30-32 related to the 34th america's cup event. supervisor chu: thank you very much. yesterday, we had action at the board in order to approve the disposition agreement and related documents to the 34th america's cup, so today, we have this item before us. we do not have a budget analyst report, so our hope the court will look to going into detail about the specifics, but it is my understanding that the budget analyst is working on a report that will be available to the members of the board either at the end of day today or tomorrow. >> brad benson, special projects manager for the port of san francisco, representing the port director. committee members, i really want to thank the committee for considering this item today.

i want to thank the board generally for being willing to hold a committee meeting as a whole. particularly want to thank the budget office was been working hard to prepare a report for the committee as a whole. the reason for this item is that yesterday, the board of supervisors approved a least his position agreement for the 34th america's cup. under that revised proposal, the city would provide the new leases to the america's cup event authority for periods ranging from about a month from now to six months after the match, which is scheduled for september of 2013 on a rent-free

basis. and the port would conduct a series of improvements to port property using port harbor funds to prepare the various sites for the events and fulfil certain regulatory requirements, which i will go over in a moment. the delivery dates -- either under the lease disposition agreement or the permits for the america's cup, mainly issued by bcdc but also the regional quality control board, are very aggressive timelines, and the ports that -- staff believes we cannot use the standard contract in process that the city has an be able to build those improvements in time, particularly with respect to peers 30-32 -- piers 30-32. hence the ordinance today. the reason we are asking for

quick consideration is that the port commission is next going to consider the least disposition agreement after the board's approval. the port commission also has to approve that. they will be considering that on april 10. it is the recommendation of staff that we are going to request that the port commission take on these obligations and under the timeframes that are contemplated, that we also give the commission some comfort that it has the contracting tools necessary to be able to complete our collective job. with that, i would like to ask the clerk please to put up the slides, and i will walk through the proposed ordinance. we have an amendment that essentially narrows the scope of the waivers that we are asking for today, and then i would like to get into some of the history of the bids that the court has

undertaken for the cruise terminal project and how we would hope to use the ordinance to deliver very specific improvements at the various sites. supervisor chu: before you start, do you happen to have any hard copies of the presentation? >> no, i did not. i apologize. i will get that for the clerk. i do have hard copies for the public of the amendment as a whole. supervisor chu: for whatever reason, when the presentation is plugged in, our screen roles, so we did not get to see what is on there. if you could perhaps ask your staff to send it to committee members. >> or if you e-mail it, we could open it up. >> i think i have the only copy of the presentation. i think i could take a moment to

e-mail it to you. supervisor chu: i think that would be great just because we are not able to see it otherwise.

>> ok, there. i hope it went through. it was a rather large file. supervisor chu: ok, we will look for it, and perhaps you can begin. >> ok, should i go ahead and start? supervisor chu: yes. >> could we have the computer display please? >> so i have mentioned that the lease disposition agreement requires the port to undertake work, and i want to elaborate on

that a little bit. there is a range of work required by the bay conservation and development commission. mainly some public access improvements and removal projects that the lease disposition agreement requires the court to conduct. -- the port to conduct. there's a group of projects that 27-29, most notably some construction projects and building to the shed after we complete demolition, that the event authority was going to undertake under the old disposition and development agreements. and those projects are the port 's obligations under the lease disposition agreements. there is a large project piers 30-32, an estimated $8 million

project that i will describe in more detail. the lba provides two options. supervisor chu: sfg is requesting you put your presentation on slide mode. thank you. sorry for the disruption. >> ok, so the lease disposition agreement provides two options for the work to get executed, one, that the port would execute a contract with a general contractor to perform the work and two, that they could accept assignments of a contract entered by the evened the authority to build these piers 30-32 improvements. by way of background, the event authority was planning for the

better part of the last year to do a large project, it the $5 million project. it had gone through a competitive selection process for local contractors. to perform that work. following procedures that the city had proposed as part of the disposition and development agreement. essentially, looking at a field of qualified bidders, knowing that field based on qualifications to two bidders and making the two bidders bid on the project. they had completed that process. the two qualified bidders on that project work howard -- were power engineering and dutra. power engineering and process. because they have done a lot of sight due diligence and are quite familiar with the plans

for this site, that they would enter a contract. i think the port's strong preference is that the port manage the contract for that work, so the assignment would allow them to be managing the work of power engineering, if that is the path that is selected. as i will describe in the presentation, we have a preferred alternative to that approach that the ordinance permits. it waives certain competitive bidding requirements to allow us to use our previously bid contract to do a lot of the work, or it allows us to accept assignment of the power engineering contract from the event authority. the proposed amendment of the whole today -- we wrote the initial version of the

ordinance that was introduced at the board of supervisors rather broadly based on some other waivers that had been drafted in the past. i think that we are sensitive that the amount of work we're talking about here purchase $20 million worth of construction work. and the -- approaches $20 million worth of construction work. rather than just a wholesale waiver -- the original ordinance waived these competitive bidding rules and talked about an informal bidding procedure -- the ordinance amendment before you today clarify the informal bidding process that the port would propose to use. they eliminate certain waivers of code sections, particularly the environment code. we have eliminated those requirements for those waiver

requests from the ordinance because we do not believe that we need those waivers. then, there is a new provision that we propose. current law permits a general contractor using the construction manager general contractor form of contract to directly negotiate for 7.5% of the trade work of an overall contract. in this case, we would see the ability to allow our general contractor to self-perform some of the 7.5% of work just to expedite the project. that is an overview of the amendment as a whole. i can answer any questions you have. we also have the city attorney's office who can talk about the amendment as a whole. finally, i have edgar lopez of dpw, who is an expert in this

form of contract think we can answer the committee's questions. supervisor chu: thank you. is the amendment as a whole substantive? >> it is not. this clarifies and refine some of the existing language. >> back to the presentation, i have got on the slide a depiction of the work. but he is required to hold the team basis at the site for 2013. i tim ball is building a highway-agreed driveway that can support trucks and buses. about 90,000 square feet of debt and pile repair -- deck and

pilot error in the area shown in green to support various industrial activities along with a crane to with both in and out of the water -- boats in and out of the water. this is the work that the event authority proposes they enter a contract with our engineering for and that we accept assignment of that contract. i think that we have another recommendation that the ordinance would permit, which is that if the port under the terms of the ordinance enters a contract or contract amendment with turner construction to perform this work, turner construction would bid this, and we would propose to bid it to the finalist that the evened up 40 vetted -- the event of

authority vetted through their process. we would go through a quick bid process using this two previously qualified bidders to ensure we got the lowest price for the work. this slide provides a lot of detail about the projects that we have to execute now using the ordinance. it also describes a few projects that we would execute with existing contract authority, so i just want to go over that we think that there's about $6.8 million worth of work at the site that we had previously counted on the event of authority to fund and deliver.

the ordinance permits confecting flexibility with two line items in this list of work. the site grading and storm water improvements -- a portion of that work is authorized under the existing contract. a good portion of it is not in the contract site grating, which makes up most of the cost. we need to install a new wall on the end of the pier, and that work is not in the existing contract for the cruise terminal. i have talked about the piers 30-30 to work. starting with the public access improvements, we have a need to

substantially rebuilt the pier 19. it is red-tagged, and it is supposed to be dedicated permit a public access. we estimate the cost of the project at $3 million. we are having to deliver pier 19 to the event authority by july 1, 2012. this construction activity is necessarily going to extend beyond that timeline. we do not have a firm completion date, but part of the purpose of the ordinance is to speed up our ability to get into a contract for this work so that we have less overlap between our construction activities and the event authority occupancy of the pier. the same issue relates to the pier 23 handrail on this slide, a $700,000 project. again, related to public access

and making sure that people are safe. we would like to complete those construction activities as soon as possible. they are going to overlap the event authority's occupancy somewhat, but we would like to minimize that. with both of these projects, we are exploring a potential path, and i think we have not arrived at a conclusion on this where our general contractor could secure the supply is, basically piles to rebuild the pier 23 south apron and fabricated railing. and that potentially port maintenance staff would be best qualified to actually do the installation work here. we have several pile rigs. our deputy director of maintenance is here today if you have any questions about the approach, but we think it might be one of the more cost-

effective ways to deliver those improvements. next, we have two full removal projects. pier one-half removal. it is a red tag parking lot structure. bcdc has removed the facility as well as some remnant piles. those projects total $1.6 million. that in-water work is work that we would like to get done before the next winter season where it may be hard to do construction activities during storms. you will see on this slide dredging. i want to be clear that the increased contract and flexibility we are reflecting does not apply to this dredging work.

the port previously been a five- year dredge contract. dutra won the competitive process. we have fixed pricing under the contract, a rate of about $23 per cubic yard for dredging and disposal. we would use that contract vehicle to perform this additional dredging work. so that is the end of the slide presentation, but, you know, i want to close by saying that we are committed at the staff level to use a competitive process here. the construction manager, general contractor form of contract that you have in the administrative code is a very effective form of contract and

that the city has developed, and it allows the competitive process to choose the contractor and further competition among subcontractors for trade worke. it has been highly effective. if the board approves this ordinance, we would finalize negotiations with turner construction, who is our general contractor on the cruise terminal project. those negotiations would go to really three items that they did as part of their previous bid on the cruise terminal. in general contractor's fee, general conditions fee, and hourly rates. when the port bid the contract and awarded it to turner, it was in the deepest part of the recession for construction activities in the city. we got excellent bids on the contract. ur