i live a couple blocks away. i am happy to say we got part of our perimeter fence taken down. this should have been part of the planning. the historic resources exemption, if is a historic resources. however, the historic evaluation says certain things are going to keep their integrity. the storage shed is requiring the removal of some very large, healthy trees in order to

install this. we only found this out recently when we got a hold of the report. it is a moving target we do not know. they posted the trees on june 6, but the perimeter fence went up a couple weeks ago. some of them are required to be posted for several days. the ones in the middle of the park where we cannot get to them are unable to be viewed. additionally, the project manager went on vacation, so it was chaotic. one thing is the migratory bird act and whether it has been followed. they are supposed to follow a certain procedure in order to not have this be an issue for

ceqa. they are supposed to be doing a nesting survey. the report they are relying on is from the beginning of may. there could have been new things look at. i have seen them in other areas of the park. goothey have not contacted fishd game, as they stated they would do if they found a nest, and i have the nesting report triggered a stated just yesterday they saw -- face faded just yesterday they saw the red hot fledgling and certain birds have disappeared.

five public comment will be continued on item 13, but we are on item 5, the consent calendar. >> i am representing the friends of cumberland and playgrounds regent -- friends of cabrilla playground. we have been doing things to raise money and a generous donation to read furnish our clubhouse and to buy other types of equipment not covered by capital funding. thank you. goo>> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. >> moved and seconded. any opposition? seeing none, is approved. good >> item #6. the san francisco zoo. >> i brought our ceo because of the budget consent calendar. i also have our 17-year-old intern. i wanted her susie -- i wanted her to see the most functioning committee in the city appear again -- in the city. as you saw, they have profited for the school year. we hope you will find it controlled in terms of revenue. we project 4% growth this coming year, but we are facing health- care cost increases as well. we plan to keep new hires at a

minimum but invest in improvements, much like we did with the bobcat. our first public bobcat display ever, so we are happy about that. 10,000 visitors attended our free day. 45,000 visitors have taken advantage as well as 20,000 san francisco public school kids, and free memberships were offered to public school teachers. i am happy to report we are over budget by 10%, and we are just a few away from reaching those

kinds of numbers. if she does come to the zoo, we will be sure to reward him or her with something special. i want to thank the foundation for sponsoring our first virtual serengeti. it will allow us to make dangerous species with the ones we have at the zoo in the interior area of the pachyderm and building. with that, i conclude my report. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we are on item number seven. good >> good morning. the item before you is discussion and possible action to recommend the board of supervisors to accept and expand a gift of $2.7 million to the recreation and park

department for improvements. in april, we presented the concept plan and the overall project. this is the culmination of a three-part initiative. with me i have the california state director for the transfer of public land and the bay area and a director. good i wanted to mention briefly there has been one minor change. since two weeks ago, we have had to reject the initial round of gainbids. we rebid and will be opening on july 11. i expect to come for recommendation of approval of contract, so we have lost six weeks, but we are confident we will hopefully get better

abeyance -- better bids. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. the trust for public land has been saving special places unbuilding parks and playgrounds -- and building parks and playgrounds around the country for 40 years, but we have been had courted -- headquartered in san francisco, and our first one was here. and the three parks we are here to celebrate represents six years of collective hard work and is the jewel in the crown. we are proud of this partnership, and together, they

are making the city of san francisco and even more remarkable place to live. this effort began with five lead donors, banana republic, levi strauss foundation, and wells fargo, and our partnership has turned back $5 million into over $16 million in three neighborhoods we are working in together. euathis is part of the initiatie with a club house we opened last summer, balboa park, which is under construction. this has been a remarkable public-private partnership. it is evenly split between private and public funding. we raised nearly $8 million, and

public funds included considerable funding from the city of san francisco including $500,000 in community improvement bonds and considerable funding from the state of california as well. i want to acknowledge the san francisco initiative represents only a fraction of our work together. we have been working to build this, and that work has led to the city earning the title of no. 1 park system, in the 40 biggest cities in the country thanks to our efforts that were announced a few weeks ago, and even as strong as our partnership has been in the past, i want to acknowledge that our future looks even bigger still. we are eager to continue our work and a partnership, whether it be for a land acquisitions and continuing finance efforts,

to raise support in san francisco or design and construction work. we continue to work to make sure there is a park or playground within walking distance of every san francisco ian, and i want to welcome our program director. >> thank you. i just wanted to take a quick moment to thank a lot of members of the apartment, because under all of those broad accomplishments, it takes a lot of people doing hard work to get these things done. go these projects have been in the works for at least six years, and there have been many people involved, but a few stand out that have been on this trip with us. they really helped set the goals for this project and helped make

sure they met or exceeded high standards and in some cases helped to set new standards. they provided sheehan political support for our program. tony was the key figure in providing funding. jake has provided management, supporting the unique nature of these projects and bringing in expertise of his other colleagues to make sure project delivery run smoothly. the project managers provided consistent impact from the community outreach phase of the way through construction, attending numerous after hours of meetings to make sure the design improvements were something that could have a lasting impact for the rec and park department, and of course

he has been really committed to this kind of creative partnership and an excellent from day one, and i think his confidence in his methods and relationship with his staff have provided transformational results on the ground. it helps to make sure these public and private partnerships can be acceptable and navigate through the details day-by-day, but i think we are building some great things together. thank you for your commitment. >> i am happy to answer any questions. i do not see any. thank you very much. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> commissioners? moved and seconded. all those in favor? here it is unanimous. >> i do not think it should conclude without a big thank you. this is a two-part $7 million gift, and they were very kind in taking our staff for our commitment to the partnership, but as you all know, on the eve of more public investment, we have $1 billion, and we have been very blessed with a bond in 2000, of bonds in 2008, and hopefully another one in 2012, but that is not enough to address the needs in our community, and without a partner, we would not be the no. 1 park system in america, so we are incredibly grateful for them to sing us and for their commitment to the things that

matter. >> we are on items eight and nine. >> good morning. the item before you is for the discussion and possible action towards two job order contracts for services related to capital projects on various properties. each of these is up to $3 million. one of them is forme an a licene contractor, and the other was for a b license. contractor's bid after to preset

prices. work is accomplished by issuing task orders during three years. contracts are being used by the departments with the contract authority, including the airport, public works commo, th, as well as the recreational and parks department. the recreational and parks department is seeking to reassure three new contracts. one is a $3 million contract valued up to $3 million to an a contractor. the other one would-be up to $3 million for a b contractor. each of them is limited, and any task force exceeding $14,000 may be issued with the approval

of the general manager. they are expected to expedite a relatively small construction projects, particularly those under the city wide improvement program. the recreational and parks department advertised three contracts for competitive bidding in april. for the a license, six bids were received. for the license, eight bids were received. since this item was presented at the council committee, bidders were evaluated, and h r c has recommended the a andb contractor.

for a license contract, which is valued up to $3 million, and the recommendation is to award the contract you're a good -- the contract. i am available to answer any questions. >> as i mentioned the last time, i have a problem with this, item eight, nine, and tan. they are similar deals. where is the money coming from? no. 2, it allows staff to award contracts, bypassing the

commission. it just seems not very cautious, so can you address these issues? >> the funding is not identified because this is a mechanism for a particular contractor, so when there is a need to perform work, they would meet to scope out the work, so the project would have its own funding to bring to the projects, so the funds that have been used in the past includes open space funds. it can even include the general

fund. until the project is identified we do not know which funding is going to be used. >> let me alleviate some funds. this is a standard practice. there was a competitive practices to come up with a pool of job contractors triggered this allows us to move forward with large deferred management project and small capital projects beyond the scope of our own structural maintenance staff. good the scope of work is so significant you're a good you go through a design process

and would approve the design. it allows us to expedite the production and the cost associated with a more formal bid is not worth it. we make sure that we have a pool of contractors that were competitively selected that we are able to utilize. it is as much for large-scale deferred maine's programs as it is for capital. >> i do not have a problem with the idea of having a pool of contractors. it seems logical and expedient. what bothers me is being able to do these things without coming to the commission and at least informing us, having this openness. >> again, there are a number of ways to address that. for some of the projects, they do come before you because you have probably selected them out of the 50% of the contingency

reserve that you annually select that we are going to work on. those types are exactly the types of projects we would use for contracts in. you would have seen those and you would see all small capital projects because you -- you approve the concept design. if we had a project that involved -- give me an example of a deferred maintenance projects that we might not otherwise bring before the commission. >> i wanted to point to a couple of tangible projects that you are aware of. the richmond basketball court, which was contingency funds from the open space. we use a contractor for that. to address the question about sunnyside, president buell

approved funding for the kitchenette program which came before you for approval. the contractor that we will use for that project expires. other projects where we have used contrasting, for instance, campbell part -- kimball playground. i am breaking that into pieces, for instance, replacing sidewalks and street trees. the projects that we do execute through this program do come before you in different forms and fashions. there are small projects that we do on a routine basis. for instance, the structural maintenance. and smaller, non-programmatic projects. this is another habit where we

do that rather than go through a formal bid process. >> i would be more comfortable with this if there were some way of bringing this to the commission and letting us know about these things before they go. >> there are a number of different ways to address that. i think we could probably provide you with an annual report, and maybe we could go through and do it when we come back to you for the next round of deferred maintenance projects. every year, we come to you and ask you for your suggestions. you asked for an update on those. when we come to you for 2012 profits, we will give you an update on the 2011 project.

we could provide you a report on the job order contract that has happened. we could give you a report on it. it is all in there. that way, annually, you are getting to see which products are job order contracts and which are not. otherwise, we are bringing something to you multiple times. the whole point of this is trying to expedite things. projects take a long time and voters and park users have an expectation that these types of projects are going to move quickly. when we have to wait another month to bring them to the commission, there is a trade-off in terms of time for it i would propose that, when we come to you annually with our request that you -- that you approve our list of maintenance products, we give you a look back into the

previous year to show you what we have done. >> there is one other possibility. when we do bring capital projects, we can articulate that in the staff report and highlight that as part of the notification process. >> that would be good. commissioner low: there are also to safety valves on the dollar- size limitation and using existing labor resources. if you could just clarify that. >> most of our capital projects, we checked with our structural maintenance yard to see whether or not they could handle that work. in some instances, they do not have the staff to execute so we checked with them first. once they denied the project, for whatever reason, that is one we move forward for the process.

the limit is a threshold by which we have to fall under. >> if it goes over $400,000, it goes back to the general manager? >> yes. you have to have a notification on what you have exceeded $400,000. you have to have justification for that. >> are strung from maintenance yard is fundamentally worked on and they are an amazing group. but we are under-resource, some of the day-to-day maintenance requirements for the park's construction on the other side. we had a number of conversations about where our yard has the capacity to do it. sometimes, we do not have the right traits or the right bodies. commissioner bonilla: i wanted

to comment that this model of contracting has a lot of positives, especially with regard to not subjecting the department and the public's to lengthy -- lengthy rfp's and also it does not subject the department to dealing with an appeal process with regards to the decision made through an rfp by the commission. it has those positives that i really like about this. also, we have established precedent for doing this type of contract in -- contracting. i have seen it on several occasions during my term here on the commission that we have done this.

>> i have a question. looking at the job order reports, many of them are very low numbers. there is the occasional one that is $100,000-$200,000. only one was over $600,000. i wonder about the $3 million number. what is our practical experience there? >> for those projects that are in the higher range, we have those four products that are time sensitive. >> i understand. maybe i am misreading this. >> i do not think you're misreading it. the cont