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 contract allows us to have the ability to draw down on that contract. we are not awarding all $3 million worth of contracts at the same time. sometimes, we will find one contractor whose specialty for that year, the types of products they are doing, matches really well. we will spend up to $1 million there for a fall contract. another contractor, we might decide that the jobs do not line up as well or their availability conflicts. that is how it works. >> thank you. president moran: -- president buell: seeing no further questions, shall we entertain public comment? >> is there any public comment

on this item? at the very beginning, this was sold to us as an easy, fast, not inexpensive and cost- efficient, and ineffective process of doing smaller contracts. sunnyside park is a perfect example. ours was $150,000 plus renovation. before we knew it, we were down almost $69,000 and nobody could account for it. we were down to the current $81,000 and we have nothing to show for it. what we do have is such inferior work that it is going after be done again. i do not know how these contractors are qualified. i do not know how you become an a because our contractor was an a and he did not get work going

until the contract was due to expire. things undone, doors that do not have frames, things that now have to be done again. if you look at the chart that they gave you for this, the money is gone it i do not know where this money is coming from. they talked about our kitchenette that we got our money through the contingency. from what i am being told, that work is not done by the budget manager. they do not do the design work, the layout. they depend on the contractors to do it. contractors are not designers. they should not be doing this work. how do we know what things really cost? everything we know of is three or four times what we -- what we would consider a high, normal cost. the contractors are naming a price. i could go to home depot and get a " for $200,000 max.

it will cost me twice that to get it through this process. i think that you have reason to be concerned. there are a lot of holes in this. not a lot of accountability. no way of knowing that the product is being done. in the community, we do not know what is going into our project. we have to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. this is completely and unacceptable process. where do we go now? what do we do now? you talk about single contract bidding. that is what this is. i approve you, i like you, and i will let you do this project. this is ridiculous. they want to give you a report. reports are what they want to tell you. if they are not telling us what is going on, then i do not expect there will tell you much more. if they do, why don't they just bring it out in the open from the very beginning and say, we are going to do this for this

amount of dollars. we want the commissioners and the community to know about it and we all want to agree with the contractor. >> is there any other public comment on this item? president buell: i would like to mention something you just mentioned, commissioner bonilla. about the lengthy rfp process. in terms of transparency, i think that -- and i hope to make later this point that the commission is isolated, that we need time to find out what would be a good fit. we need these lengthy processes. all a sudden, a 10-year lease? i do not think that is the way to do things. secondly, the appellate process,

not only is it constitutional but it is a little more human. we need a chance to say, i do not think him and his hot dogs belong. we need a chance to get in there and fight for it. remember, we are the ones bringing our children and our dogs to your parts. thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i do have one observation. we are talking about construction contracts and expediting it to save taxpayer'' money. not rfp's for the use of facilities. we are mixing apples and oranges if we were to perceive it that way. seeing no other comments, i would like to entertain a momentary we opted to item eight and nine separately so we will go on item eight. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? hearing none, it is unanimous.

item nine, can i entertain a motion? moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? none. it is unanimous. >> we are now on item 11. " our -- coit tower, selection of operator for concessions. >> good morning, commissioners. i am pleased to be before you to present the recommended selection of c theoit tower vendor. -- the coit tower vendor. built in 1933, it is one of the

city's most iconic and historic properties. the building and it's beautiful and unique wpa murals is san francisco landmark number 165 and is listed on the national register of historic places. together with the arts commission, the department is honored to preserve this beloved landmark. the department strives to offer a quality experience and looks forward to implementing changes in the concessions to reflect the dignity of this landmark. through its concessionaire, the department wishes to provide friendly and helpful service to the public, respect and honor the historic nature of the building and its murals, and respect and work with the surrounding community to be a good neighbor. i wanted to give you some background on history. since 1992, the department has least the tower to the current

vendor to provide amenities and elevator service to the observation deck. they have continue to operate on a month-to-month basis since 2002, when their lease expired. the department issued 4 rfp's since that time. 2006, 2010, and 2011, last october. there has been quite an extensive community process associated with these rfp's. since 2006, the department collaborated with surrounding neighborhood groups, including the telegraph hill dwellers to develop guidelines. this collaboration included numerous public meetings with interested stakeholders. in 2008, they submitted a principles document which is in your packet. the document outlined a number

of guidelines for the department to adhere to an operating a coit tower concession to rid the majority of goals were incorporated into the 2010 and 2011 rfp's. among those goals are high quality food and beverages to be operated from a cart outside of the tower. no commercial advertising and no amplified sound. and they should sell high- quality items that relate directly to the tower and the history of san francisco. we are also requiring the concessionaire to update the merchandize and traffic flow within earshot. very important, the vendor to provide a mural protection plan with their proposal. they are encouraged to get to the guests -- to encourage their guests to get to this tower in a bus or private cars.

the last rfp was issued last october. prior to issue a -- prior to issuance, the department reached out to the surrounding community. they also contacted over 5000 businesses and every single merchant organization listed as a small business. we received three timely responses. the current vendor did not submit a proposal. the key terms associated with this or that the respondent would pay a minimum annual guarantee or the percentage of gross revenue, whichever was higher. no less than $540,000 per year. the percentage of rent on each revenue stream -- extreme, with the exception of the elevator, which the department has the 90%

gross revenue of. the lease term should be no longer than five years in length with a three-year option to extend. the minimum qualifications associated with this are that the respondent had to have five years of experience in fully managing a business of this nature. sufficient financial capacity to undertake the concession capacity, including the ability to upgrade the gift shop and deal effectively with community issues and act as a -- as an effective caretaker of this iconic landmark. as with all our opportunities, we had a lengthy selection process. as i mentioned, we received three timely responses. the department convened a neutral selection panel to evaluate and score the proposal based on the criteria stated in rfp's. we carefully assembled a panel

to honor and respect the variety and diversity of uses at the tower. we wanted a local community member, a representative of the north beach merchant community, a capital planner, and a knowledgeable public art professional as a member of the panel. here you have the details on the panel. diaz was a community representative. she is a founder and acting member in the friends of joe dimaggio playground. she is a small business owner in san francisco, owning north beach marine campus. she is also active in the north beach boys and girls club and treasurer of s.f. bay. we also have the co-president of the north beach chamber of commerce.

he is a business corridor member of the mayor's center for economic development. allyson is a senior registrar for the entire city art collection and public art program with the san francisco arts commission. tom is a property manager with the department. we also had another member as the capital planner. he is also the planner who is going to be managing the $1.5 million deferred maintenance program at the tower as part of the high-level needs identified issued in the recent report. the selection panel recommendation was for terry grimm to operate concessions. as you can see, he well outscored the other panelists, receiving 88% of possible points.

i wanted to give you a little bit of background on terry n.y. the selection panel thought he was most qualified for the opportunity for it since 1977, him and his wife has operated the oyster bar, a friendly neighborhood restaurant with a loyal following. they received a number of accolades and recognition from distinguish publications such as zagat's and the michlin guide. they also maintain a four-star rating on yelp. as a general contractor, terry grimm designed, built, and operated a spa until they sold it in 2006. kenwood inn and spa has received an award of merit from

the sonoma county historical society, which honored the rehab of an existing building. currently, he operates sorrento imports, a vintage motor scooter company in sonoma. they also have a coffee concession on site that serves high-quality food and beverage to the public on a daily basis. very important was a mural protection plan. the arts commission is currently developing guidelines to best protect the murals. any future concessionaire or visitor or user of the tower will be required to follow those guidelines. in addition, the department will dedicate 1% of revenues from the concessions to the arts commissions for merrill maintenance and protection. this is in addition to the recently allocated $250,000 that

the department gave to the arts commission for mural recommend it -- for mural restoration. in addition, mr. gramm proposes to implement a program to complement the current city walking towards which are every wednesday and saturday. as soon as i was assigned this project, i took it and learned a lot about the murals and had a whole new sense of appreciation for them. if you can, get out there and take a tour. in addition, he will install signed an rules in place to preserve them. i wanted to give you a proposal summary. all terms and all items propose are just a proposal. that will still have to go into negotiations to iron out the details. consistent with the tower principles and goals document, mr. grim proposes to sell high-

quality items. he will install department- approved custom shelving to better utilize the space and enhance the visitor experience. and he will work with his wife to custom build a department- approved food and beverage cart. the oyster bar will provide the food and beverages on a daily basis. they planned offer a variety of fresh food and many of their ingredients are purchased from local and sustainable vendors, such as hog island oyster company, calif. shellfish, and panorama bakery. he will work with the department and his staff -- and supply his staff with knowledge and facts about the tower and the surrounding neighborhood to make the visitor experience more enjoyable and informative.

he also proposes to increase the daily cleaning schedule to better honor and present the tower to the public. in addition, he would require that all employees dress and interact with the public in a professional manner. again, with these proposed financial terms, they are not final. the minimum annual guaranteed for this opportunity was $540,000. i just wanted to give you a comparison -- in 1992, it was a bit over $89,000. the proposed percentage -- i mentioned earlier that the elevator was determined to be a 90% remittance to the department. the respondent proposed to supply the department with 20% of gross revenue on the gift shop, 15% on food and beverage, 30% on special events, and 30% on binoculars revenue. projected rent to the

department, a little over $677,000. that is compared to the last five years, a little over $638,000. in addition to the community outreach, i will note that there has also been a fair amount of press. i am sure you have been reading on this subject in the chronicle, the examiner, the business times, the new york times, the l.a. times, and various new stations. another opportunity for us to spread the word about this process. i will not go through all of the names listed in this line. we did in form number of groups and individuals about not only the opportunity, but about the full commission meeting considering this recommendation today. the slide shows the merchant outreach that was conducted.

i should note that the department determined there is not just one best way. we take the approach of having a broad spectrum of outreach. including hand-delivering materials to various merchants. i mentioned this earlier, but every single merchant organization listed was also contacted and their presidents were encouraged to give information to all of their members for writ we informed san francisco travel, the sentences the chamber of commerce, the union square bid, the golden gate restaurant association, the twitter feed and newsletter, current vendors with the department, and all entities registered at anlbe with the human rights commission called local catering groups, local special event providers. coffeeshops, local museum stores and vendors with the golden gate national recreation area will all contacted.

community feedback thus far -- the support that has been communicated for the selection, specifically of terry grimm, has been from the selection panel. sonoma valley chamber of commerce, the mason center, golden gate restaurant association, san and cisco chamber of commerce, ken bailey, julie christensen, john franklin, john hirsch berger, ryan hubert. the opposition has been from stephen worsley and generally from john gollinger, and otehrs. -- and