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, and we plan to re-bid this contract. last year, we spent an amount that we expect to be on par with this year, and we have requested a small contingency amount in the event that fuel prices increase iraq the year. the budget analyst has a report. the apparent decrease was the result of data being polled before the june books had fully been closed, so the updated systems show that the average monthly spend was as we projected, about $2.30 million per month, and we have discussed

this update with the budget analyst and have requested that the original not to exceed amount be $107.50 million. i am happy to answer any questions. chair chu: thank you very much. to the budget analyst. >> madam chair, members of the committee, as she just stated, we were advised this morning that based on the latest invoices received that the requested authorization of the not to exceed amount is justified. we concur with mr. brown, and we recommend that you approve this resolution. we are withdrawing our recommendation to reduce the amount. chair chu: thank you very much. why do we not open this up for public comment? are there any members of the

public who wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection. and then finally, item 13. clerk young: item number 13, exempting a limited number of special parking events with non- profit corporations for the sole benefit of the san francisco public school, earning less than 10,000 dollars in gross revenue per event from rent, from the requirement to pay parking tax and other requirements, he issued by the tax collector, and making findings, and an amending the san francisco police code by amending section 1215 to exclude from the definitions of parking

garage and parking lot special event parking. chair chu: thank you very much for reading the item. colleagues, this item was heard last week. we had to continue this. the presentations were done, and we heard public comment at that time, but i know a representative from the mayor's office is here, should there be questions. to mr. rose, i think there is nothing you would add. given that, i would like to open it up one more time for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item 13? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will do that without objection. do we have any other items before us? clerk young: adjournment. chair chu: colleagues, i wish

you a very happy week. we are adjourned. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> i have been a cable car grip for 21 years. i am a third generation. my grand farther and my dad

worked over in green division for 27. i guess you could say it's blood. >> come on in. have a seat. hold on. i like it because i am standing up. i am outside without a roof over my head and i see all kinds of people. >> you catch up to people you know from the past. you know. went to school with. people that you work with at other jobs. military or something. kind of weird. it's a small word, you be. like i said, what do people do when they come to san francisco? they ride a cable car. >> california line starts in the financial district. people are coming down knobbhill.

the cable car picks people up. takes them to work. >> there still is no other device to conquer these hills better than a cable car. nobody wanted to live up here because you had to climb up here. with the invention of the cable car, these hills became accessible. he watched horses be dragged to death. cable cars were invent in san francisco to solve the problem with it's unique, vertically challenged terrain. we are still using cars a century old >> the old cable car is the

most unique thing, it's still going. it was a good design by then and is still now. if we don't do something now. it's going to be worse later. >> the cable cars are built the same as they were in the late 1800's. we use a modern machinery. we haven't changed a thing. it's just how we get there. >> it's a time consuming job. we go for the quality rather than the production. we take pride in our work and it shows in the end product. >> the california line is mostly locals. the commuters in the morning, i see a lot of the same people. we don't have as tourists.

we are coming up to street to chinatown. since 1957, we are the only city in the world that runs cable cars. these cars right here are part of national parks system. in the early 1960's, they became the first roles monument. the way city spread changed with the invention of the cable car.