amendments to the contract. i understand what you are saying, it's just not clear to me why it took an entire year for it to come to the board even if you stayed within the dollar amounts. >> we will certainly try to be a little quicker to the board in the future. supervisor chu: thank you. to follow up on that, it sounds like in the past, the department received a master lease approval through the board from 2010 through 2015 with a not to exceed amount and during the course of several years, some of the actual locations might have changed or there were things that moved around a bit. going back to supervisor kim's point, if people were beginning to occupied hotel in july of 2010, it seems like there was a lot of time that passed --

>> 2011. excuse me. the reservations were finished and it was occupied of august of that 2011. it still has been almost 12 months since the hotel was occupied. supervisor chu: so there was a time when it seems like you could have come back quicker. i'm wondering does the department see this is an issue? would there be a challenge coming back to the board more frequently to update us about where things are changing or do you perceive this as within the contract authority? help us understand that. >> the code says we need to come back when we modify the contract in excess of $500,000. at the time we were doing this, we were not quite at that threshold. i do agree that threshold has passed during the past 12 months and it was just a matter of taking a number of resolutions, some of which you saw yesterday and bundling them altogether and bringing them at one time.

we can certainly take these individually as changes come up and we would be more than willing to do that. supervisor chu: i think there is a balance -- you don't department to be coming back all the time and there is some level of efficiency, so i get that but i'm just wondering what the department will be doing to implement changes such that you will be seeing when it's an appropriate time. a year seems like a long time. >> i agree and i can probably apologize for that. it's just one of those things we kept putting off during the course of the year. we will adhere to it strictly and as soon as we reach the $500,000 threshold, we will bring it right back to you. supervisor chu: thank you. to the budget analyst. >> madam chair and a supervisor kim, on the bottom of page three, we point out the master lease budget includes an annual 3% cost-of-living adjustment for

each of these residential hotels. but those moneys were not appropriated for the 3% in the past three fiscal years, unlike this fiscal year or the board of supervisors has appropriated it. as a result, the actual nine- tend through a 11-12 please of expenditures are about $2 million less than budget. our recommendation as stated on page 4, we recommend you approve the proposed resolution and specifically for the items cited on page 4 of our report, which includes a reduction by $2 million from $93 million to $91 million for the cost i just referenced and you approve the resolution as amended. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim: i have one

question for the budget analyst. and of the board was unable to allocate a call for any of our nonprofit contract in this year we were able to allocate to the mayor's budget a 1% cola starting in july of this year and another 1% starting in august through the board. does that mean the coal being approved for this contract mirrors that 1% or -- the cola being approved for this country mayors that 1%? >> what the recommendation is doing here is simply taking out something that was never allocated as a cost of living. what the board did in this new fiscal year is across the living increase in the next year's budget and this recommendation doesn't have any impact. i'm not sure if i fully responded to your question. supervisor kim: you are saying this contract allows for a 3% cola increase?

>> it provided -- department -- the department anticipated moneys would have been appropriated for a cola but the moneys were not appropriated by either the mayor or board of supervisors. >> perhaps i can help clarify -- >> it does continue to have the 3% increase. supervisor kim: the contract will have a 3% -- >> that is not correct. when we take a multi-year contract, we put an escalator on a of 3% for the outgoing years. should we not have the budget to fund it, it does not going to the contract. it only gives us the authority to go up to the not to exceed amount. in fiscal year 12-13, the increase would be 1.9%. in the outgoing years, we still have 3% should the board, mayor or should we have the budget to fund it. we always put these escalators

in the contract's going forward in case things change. supervisor kim: the budget analyst did it recommend a $2 million reduction? we have not allocated previously -- does that include 1% less -- >> it is just for the prior years. it has no impact on the fiscal year beginning july 1 of this year. supervisor kim: would have been appropriate to include the 1%? we are only allocating 2%. >> what we are reporting is that as a matter of fact, funding was not appropriated by the mayor and the board of supervisors for any cola increases for the fiscal year increases preceding this fiscal year. ours is just a clean up amendment to make the budget

consistent with what the mayor and board of supervisors has previously done. it just cleans up the actual situation. there was no cost-of-living increase. supervisor kim: i completely understand the previous three years. i don't think there's any disagreement about that. my question is shouldn't the decrees also include a 1% reduction for this year as well? seeing that the board has already allocated only 80% increase. >> this legislation before you today only goes through june 30 of 2012. that's all it is applicable to. supervisor kim: i thought it went through 2015. >> we were very conservative and not recommend a reduction and not to exceed amount for the years going forward.

for instance, this year's budget, a 1% of that -- that would be about $150,000. >> if i could get a clarification -- the 3% escalator we have is for the cost of doing business increase and could be for other increases. a lot of the actual leases have built in escalators each year. even though we are only funding 1.9% of the cost of doing business, we still have other escalators that could cause the contract to go up but it would not exceed 3%. supervisor kim: i actually support escalators in all of our leases. especially the nonprofit building owners. i don't squabble with that. but if we are doing an amendment in light of the fact -- the previous three years -- my question was merely why we would not do that this year. but that's fine.

supervisor chu: why don't we open this item up for public comment? are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number six? >> ♪ sing it to the city world, but the housing come in ♪ thanks supervisor jane can, and singing to the city world ♪ everybody's caught in a span ♪ we've been budgeting at day after day, covering clouds, losing our money away ♪ it could be budget daybreak. it's time to believe it can be daybreak and led it shine, shine, shine all around the city ♪ around the city right now thank you.

supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to comment on item number six? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendation? we will do that without objection. with regard to these amendments come are these amendments we can authorize you to make or what we require these to be made by the department? >> i can make these amendments. supervisor chu: why we modify the motion to accept a budget analyst recommendation and authorize a clerk to make the amendment on the legislation that appears on the tuesday agenda. >> so moved. supervisor chu: we will send the item ford as recommended. without objection. -- send the item for word as recommended without objection. item #7? >> item #7 -- a resolution authorizing the san francisco

public defender's office to accept and expand a grant in the amount of $117,819 from the state correction standard authority for the purposes of implementing local juvenile justice accountability measures through the juvenile accountability block grant. supervisor chu: do we have a representative to present on this item? why don't we skip over this. call item no. 8, please. >> item #8, a resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of a multifamily housing revenue note in a principal amount not to exceed $20 million for the purposes of providing financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 101-and multifamily residential housing project known as review terrace apartments. supervisor chu: thank you. do we have a rep for this item? >> i'm from the mayor's office of housing. we are requesting authorization today to issue a mortgage

revenue bonds for the rehabilitation of a bridge to perish in the bay view neighborhood. an existing development that would be used to renovate the property including accessibility upgrades, new kitchens, landscaping, exterior improvements and to refinance the existing development. the project was built in the early '70s so it is in need of reservation -- in need of renovation. the city is not responsible for repayment of the bonds but it would be repaid it through the financing of the project itself. i have larry hollingsworth from rich point, a nonprofit, if there are any questions about the development. supervisor chu: with regard to

these items were there is not a general fund impact with repayment of any of the debt, even if the organization were to default, do we ever take a look at the budget and whether it is appropriate? >> our office would actually underwrite the deal as part of our due diligence. we take a close look at the budget in the overall financing as well as the rehabilitation. supervisor chu: on this item, i don't believe we have a budget analyst report, i would like to open this up to public comment. supervisor avalos: this has appeared before us before in another way. >> was a ruling to authorize the issuance of the bond and -- the scope has a kind of change and

the financing is a little late, so we got an additional authorization to request authorization of the overall indebtedness. supervisor chu: why don't we open this up to public comment? are there members of the public which to speak on item number eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to send that forward? we will do that without objection. on the items one through six, do we have a motion to rescind them so that a supervisor avalos can vote on those items? we will do that without objection. on items one and six, we amended those items to reflect the budget analysts recommendation. do we have and i it -- do we have a motion to send this forward as recommended? we will do that without objection. items four, five, and to we sent as is. do we have a motion to send this

to the full board? we will do that without objection. item number three, we sent that for word without objection. do we have a motion to send that forward without -- and without objection. going back to item number seven, is someone here for item number seven? we'll go to item nine. >> the resolution approving an amendment to the contract between the treasure island and authority and amec geomatrix to extend the term through june 30, 2013 and increased the not to exceed amount to $2,037,400. >> i am here on behalf of the treasure island development authority. the item before you is an amendment to a contract with amec geomatrix to provide environmental oversight services of the treasure island and yerba

buena island. it would require approval by the san francisco board of supervisors. this amendment was approved at its april 19, 2012 meeting. amec geomatrix was initially selected by the department of public works through process as part of the pool as needed consultant to provide environmental and remediation activities. in 2003, the authority authorized execution of the contract for an amount not to exceed $5 million to provide services related to monitoring the navies of environmental remediation activities at treasure island. the contract has been amended nine times and currently has a budget of $1,799,000. the contract consists of both oversight of the navy's remediation program as well as the -- as well as assisting the authority and property negotiations with the navy.

this is an increase of $238,400 from the previously authorized amount. amec geomatrix is expected to work on items related to oversight of the navy's remediation program at a cost of approximately $20,000 per month. the contract will continue to be paid on time and materials basis and turmoil be extended through june 30, 2013. the budget analysts has recommended approval and pointed out in the report that the contract was previously governed by titlist purchasing. in january 2012, the board of supervisors rescinded titus as a development agency and they're bringing it back into compliance with the city purchasing policy.

we're asking this committee to approve this amendment now as it's critical for the service and oversight of the navy activity go on uninterrupted as we are fast approaching the first substantial transfer of property from the navy to the city. furthermore, the importance of retaining continuity of the navy's environmental program, the potential problems associated with a learning curve inherent in bringing a new engineering firm up to speed as well as understanding there would be a more logical point at a later stage to engage in a subsequent selection process for continued engineering services were policy considerations taken into account when deciding to bring this amendment for you. they intend to conduct a new solicitation process for this scope of work with the contract after the first substantial transfer property currently scheduled for april of 2013. i'm happy to answer any additional questions the committee might have. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't go to the budget

analyst report? >> we recommend you approve this legislation. supervisor chu: de thank you very much for the brief report. why don't we open this item up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item number nine? >> ♪ and if i can't find my treasure island way back home ♪ please do give them a loan because they are precious and island you and i know they can use it from you ♪ and in the water is awfully blue and around the island to you ♪ please give them the money they knew and the island of precious and island treasure island few supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of

the public who wish to comment on item 9? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. we will do that without objection. item 10. >> item number 10, resolution approving amendments to the refuse collection agreement to the treasure island development authority and golden gate disposal and recycling company to extend the term and a just a collection fee for refuse collection services at treasure island. supervisor chu: can you call item no. 11 also? >> item number 11, a resolution approving the fourth amendment to refuse collection agreement between the city and county of san francisco, recalling the san francisco car college going gate and a sense of scavenger in the total not to exceed amount of 28,059,006 under $29 to $33,142,175.

supervisor chu: we have to people. >> i am here before you to ask approval for the extension of the term ended just the collection fee for refuse collection services at treasure island. the co-op agreement dated march 12, 1997 as amended is between the navy and city and county of san francisco. it requires tight as to provide -- titus to provide -- refuse collection on treasure island is adopted by the city's health commissioner in 1999. in august of 1999, after a four month solicitation, the board approved a contract for services

with: date. amendments were subsequently approved and the prior month extended the term and allowed for an adjustment to the collection rates consistent with the consumer price index. the current agreement expires this month, july 31, and the proposed amendment extends the term for the earlier of the navy's a transfer of treasure island to the city or november 30, 2013, the term of the co-op agreement. the transfer is scheduled to happen within the next nine months. upon your approval, the because of living adjustment to the collection fee. the proposed adjustment would increase the rate from 28 million -- $28,000 to $33,000 per year -- i'm sorry -- effective august 1 next month. these amendments were approved

on june 13 of this year. i would like to say that recology has been an outstanding partner and pilot that a composting program for the island which brings in tons of compost and meets the ever- changing demands by the operations staff. because the contract term extends to 10 years since the original agreement, i seek your approval for this the 11th amendment. supervisor chu: thank you. i believe there is no budget analyst report for item number 10. why don't we move forward to item number 11 and the purchaser. >> i'm with the office of contract administration. i and the purchaser and director for the office of contract administration. the resolution before you

request an increase in the not to exceed amount of approximately $5.1 million to the agreement between the city and recology. they provide disposal and solid- waste disposal for the city. the agreement as previously approved by the board remains essentially the same. this is the last year of a contract with recology and refuse collection has already been approved by the board in the annual budget process. we're simply requesting the board approval to increase debt cap of the contract to allow a user departments to pay for collection services through fiscal year 12-13. the original agreement, the term lasted from april 1, 2007 through june 30, 2011. that was approximately four and

a half years. the agreement allowed for 21- year options to extend the agreement which could be exercised at the sole discretion of the purchaser. a not to exceed amount was initially set of $23,037,527. the agreement has been previously amended to exercise the options to extend and increase the spending cap. the proposed amendment increases the not to exceed amount from the current $28,059,629 to $33,142,175. this includes a 5% contingency for fluctuations in usage. we wanted to mention that recology has agreed to waive the

cost of living increase they are entitled to this year, resulting in a savings of $150,000 to the city. the budget analyst has recommended a small reduction in the amount of the contingency, the amount of the reduction they are recommending is $21,913 and we're willing to accept that recommendation and can certainly work with that. supervisor chu: thank you. to the budget analyst. >> we made that recommendation to reflect the 5% contingency amount as opposed to what was included as 5.45%. our recommendation is to amend the resolution by reducing the requested not to exceed amount by $21,913 to eight not to exceed amount -- we recommend

you approve the resolution as amended. supervisor chu: thank you very much. why don't we open these items up for public comment? are there members of the public who wish to speak on items 10 or 11? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send item 10 court -- tend forward and accepted budget analyst recommendation on item 11 to authorize the clerk to make the amendment and send that item to the full board with recommendation? we will do that without objection. why don't we return to item seven? we all recall that item, do we have a representative from the public defender's office? >> i'm from the public defender's office and. we request to accept and expand a grand for a grant amount of

$117,819 from the state corrections standard authority. this is a reoccurring grant we have been receiving since 1999. this grand does not require an amendment. this project addresses the backlog of public defender cases while working to identify community-based alternatives and a home placement for youth who would otherwise remain in custody and necessarily. the block grant would be used to send the system program, the public defender would represent clients in juvenile court, obtain a proper assessment of clients, including educational and mental health assessments. and identify and build a partnership with community-based alternative through detention and other supportive community- based services. that is the grant. supervisor chu: thank you.

there is no budget analyst report on this item. are there any members of the public to wish to comment on item number seven? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send that for word without -- ford without recommendation? we will do that without objection. item number 12, please. >> item no. 12 -- resolution approving the sixth amendment to the agreement between the city and western states loyal increasing the total not to exceed the amount of the contract from 78,000,003 and a thousand dollars to $107,000,000.500000 -- the resolution before you is asking for an increase for the contract for gasoline, diesel, and a biodiesel fuel. this contract began in 2009,