awarded the second grant we continued where we left off that minimized delays in the procurement process. >> okay. thank you. colleagues, any further questions. okay mr. rose can we go to your report on items 50e67 >> regarding the condition of the boats first of all, the fire departments all those years have had two boats is reason they've applied for the grant is those boats are 60-year-old the fire chief says their port fund that's about $600,000 in maintenance we didn't say that for the sake of saying it it didn't make sense for the fire department to maintain a third boat when they've never had 3

boats area they're playing for the grant because the functionality of the new boat for explodes the old boats that's the basic of our recommendation regarding the grant we certainly recommend approval of on page 3 of our report on the bottom of page 3 the fire boat in the amount of 11 thousand polluting plus on the same page we note as show that in table 3 on page 5 of our report in order to fully pay for the fire boat they anticipate 2 hundred 77 thousand that's not secured so we points out on page 6 supervisors just to make this very clear this could result in a request and again, we're

recommending approval we want the board to know the facts this can result in the request for the board of supervisors to appropriate in general fund be money in the 2014-2015 money and fallout if the fire department doesn't talk about the grants for a balance to pay for the fire boat this could result in the board of supervisors giving more money in the general monies in the fire departments 2015- 2016 budget we recommend i've already states about the deconditioning of the one boat for the reasons i've stated we recommend you approve the $706 million federal grant and we recommend you approve the contract workplace the city and the companies vigor fab to

purchase the fire boat not to exceed the $11 million plus. >> thank you mr. rose. >> supervisor breed comments. >> i have a question for clarification. so since the port is technically responsible for maintaining the boat is that why operating through won't be additional operating expenditures for this new boat. i'm trying to understand why there won't be >> you're correct the port is responsible for the maintenance of the vessel. >> so they're responsible for the additional operating he expenses in in addition they'll be responsible for any necessary matching grant funds in other words, to pay for building the

boat in the first place or will that be from the general fund. >> i'll let mr. co-sponsor so speak about that one. >> just for clarification on your first question with regards to the increasing costs there's not an increase in those costs there could be potentially an increase in the maintenance down the line but the requests if the fund outside the federal donated did you understand u funds the port is not responsible for the match the fire department is the matching award. >> but the port can potentially provide the match. >> if they have funding the match yes, if they want to allocate funding for the boat. >> as the city we're paying for

the capital costs out and they're paying for the maintenance. >> correct. >> okay. any further comments colleagues. iceland open this up for public comment on item 6 and 7 >> you had your speaker card from a long time ago. >> mime todd robert representing the california bay shipyard we were one of the bidders i'm here to ask you reflect this to on the unfair slaengs of the bids. regarding the price having anyors appraise are bond and selected opening statements is $11.6 million and marina groups price is $10.8 million a

difference of 8 hundred and 40 thousand taxpayers. dollars but if that's comparing apples to apples the price we're proposing to the document for more expensive boat that was to be awarded to vigor and it is less cost equipment and a variety of modifications which is different rfp than what we bid on its possible our price would have gone down if the other bidders could have remodified their prices. this is the most troubling the city is buying a basis boat because bond for $10.3 million plus the cost of that oepgdz for

expended warrant all price by manufacturers we did the math $1.3 million and the value in the arena groups is based on the fixed stellar prices from vendor very the material being instead of. if i were in our shoes i'll wonder how to get from a $3. million boat to a $10 million virtually no labor to a as a matter of law what an additional cost of $10.3 million it costs the city in xeesz of one million dollars >> thank you very much, sir appreciate it. anybody else's wish to comment on items 6 or 7.

the seeing none, public comment is closed. chief any comments on this process >> thank you chair farrell we'll have oc comment on the process. jackie fong. >> hijacking write fong i'm the purchaser and the director for the contractor administration. wooech we'll say we stand by the recommendation that is on rfp process. and included in the escalation was points for american people executive summary and it's work out 15 points and the qualifications that's work out 15 points and there were quite a bit of points award for the experienced of the firm and the

sub consultant and an additional 5 points for the technical support and then the fee prospering proposal was thirty pots for a total of one hundred. so undertook the fee proposal was important not all of the criteria. it was separate elevation panel that consisted every two people from the fire department and one person from the port and one from outside the city. the selection of that panel was actually confirmed and approved by the contract monitoring division. the 4 panel i was unanimously ranged is he ignore fab as the top selection that's where why we entered into negotiation.

occ is confirming the recommendation >> thank you supervisor breed a question. >> i have a question under the whereas clause on page 2 line 16 it says the san francisco fire department is budgeted for this purchase of a new type two boat and the majority of the funding is grant funding. i was wondering where it is coming from is it budgeted if the current budget. i'm going try to get clarity open where the fund how are they budgeted >> mr. chair. >> mr. rose. mr. chairman supervisor breed on page 4 of our report we point out that a million 5 hundred thousand plus is generally to be proposed by mayor this is

according to the fire department and in the fire departments 2014-2015 budget with our appropriation budget and another $1 million plus in not identified grants or fund is to be obtained by the fire department 2015- 2016 and the mayor's office has pledged to fund the balance in the fire departments 2015- 2016 budget but again that is subject to the board of supervisors you approval and this will be in fiscal year 2015- 2016 >> so is the language appropriate based on the fund not being yet approved? >> mr. city attorney correct me if i am wrong but we're voting on to accept this amount. >> correct. >> right. >> and so the question from

supervisor breed is whether the whereas clause in the contract approval correct me if i am wrong supervisor is appropriate. it that right >> is it appropriate to apply we will be providing the additional matching fund necessary because i'm not familiar with the request i don't know the details of what's required of us we don't have a budget and budget analyst report report for the fire department i don't want to put the board on the hook for the fiscal year until the fund are actually persuade to the whereas clauses is not doing that. i suggest you amend the whereas close that anticipates the requesting in the budget fund for the purchase of this boat,

etc. >> okay. >> supervisor breed did that work for you. >> i want to make sure it doesn't jeopardize the proposed grant funds as well. >> i will defer to the department as to whether there's a particular form that required by the founder those are for recital in the resolution inform approve the contract. >> so to the fire department staff i'm assuming it's in the whereas class you can let me know f know if different and it won't be a problem. >> so supervisor can we make a motion to accept the city attorney's objection. >> supervisor avalos. the matching fund are for the

2015- 2016 budget; is that correct >> 2014-2015. >> there will be substantial yes. so my other question is what is being proposed in terms of the city's keeping the executive operating agreement is they're going to be a major outlay of general fund dollars for maintaining the o a before us that's a question for the mayor what's happening in terms of the fire department budget >> so we're going in active discuss with with the mayor's office we're continuing to discuss the infusion into our ems division given the reason it was redisorder in january 2012

and in order to get up to the translator we're up to 73 percent we have a in question request before the mayor's office to discuss that proposal with them. >> the mayor's office budget office respond to that as well? >> we have two budget director i can confirm we're working closely with her as well as the controllers offices and the csa division to determine the correct amount we'll need to budget that's a top priority to determine what's needed. >> but that's the goal of mayor's office to close it gay gap with additional funds on 73 percent to was it 85 percent.

>> a minimum of 80 percent one thing we're also awaiting an audits that's nearly completed with the ems staffing i would say not indirectly but directly plays into the budget season. i know that i believe we were going to get a draft today, i think a lot of elements of the e o a are going to be addressed but some of the topics your bringing up up b will be addressed in that report >> my question is what's itself goal from 73 to or maybe do that? >> i think the mayor's office goal is to do everything we can to create the conditions in the fire department we're able to meet the requirements of e o a.

you've seen a lot of analytic work that needs to be looked to figure out what the correct levels of increase could be that's absolutely we'll be looking at. thank you for responding and so do you have a sense of the range of costs i heard earlier about $10.4 million >> it was the request for $10 million. >> i think the goal is to find the minimal level of the increase possible to allow to those us to meet the requirement so we're going going to refine it number and make it more acceptable for resources. >> i want to get a handle on what to accept expect from the fire department it's significant

so i understand the need but it's important we consider today's resolution based on what else t is happening with the budget of the fire department. >> i definitely share our concerns about the potential costs we're absolutely working to make sure we can find a smaller number as possible. >> a question in terms of the mayors commitment to fund if there's a shortfall from other grants the remainder of the boat purchase i want to confirm. >> my understanding is that the fire department is firmly committed to doing fundraising and we're hopeful if they're not able to raise the money that's for next year. >> i believe they can fund. >> supervisors that's why i say

the total fund have not been secured again, we're recommending approval. >> the mayor was committed to funding if f that doesn't happen. >> yes. but we're making progress in getting the funds. >> colleagues, any further sdrugs discussion off the top one amendment for supervisor breed there are other amendments recommend i'm not sympathetic this is besides this port those are city funds i'm caution but i'll say to you know, i appreciate that you need flexibility in determining operational plans i don't want to up front especially the population down south one other thing to suggest what you be

opposed one the boat is gotten mr. will you come to the board. >> and talk about the commission planning for that boat. >> yes. and i think my understanding is there's about 3 hundred thousand for the boats for maintenance and whether or not that will need to increase if we were to keep the third boat online meaning it's about one hundred and 50 thousand per vessel with the new boat to maintain the boat with the port instead of one hundred and 50 thousand to maintain the 3 hundred thousand there's no net increase but happy to come back and have that conversation. >> let's assume the fundraising goes well, when will the boat be delivered. >> the agreement we need to have it by august of 2015.

>> so colleagues i'll suggest moving the budget analysis one and 2 and recommending the 3 to fire department to come back upon the delivery of the boat to continue the operation. but i'll entertain any other motions. supervisor avalos wants to ride in the new boat >> i fully understand that's a guarantee supervisor but i fully understand. >> i want to be there. >> the difficult choices i'll say we want to get it right this thinning time and a huge benefit to our city and region and we're appreciative of your support on this item. >> okay. colleagues unless no objections can i have a

recommendation to approve. >> mr. chairman just to clarify the first recommendation is the one about the deconditioning so agree with numbers two and three and your correct thank you for clarifying. so motion by supervisor wiener and supervisor avalos without objection? any issues from the sfoofs before i hit the gavel >> this is a motion to forward both items as amended by sdmooedz to the full board with recommendations. >> any additional recommended amendments only recommended amendment was the deconditioning. >> correct so we have one amendment by supervisor breed and the one amendment i suggested kind of apple amendment to mr. roses amendment

having the fire department could be about the delivery of the boat. >> we'll take that without objection. and then the underlying item 6 and 7 and so we don't have a temperature to do the budget analyst first recommendation my we do from my understanding just for clarity mr. chair we're actually inserting on additional clause that will give us the ability to allow this you once the new boat is delivered the fire department is required to come back to the board of supervisors so we'll have to agree with the commissioning of the new about boat. >> that was my recommendation or what i'm suggesting is per mr. rose's recommendation to amend it to say instead of

decommissioning it today but upon delivery the fire department will come back to us. >> we're adding that in the new resolution. >> is that clearly stated or i can live with that. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. it was clearly stated to clarify when it comes back to the board it will not be asking the board for the recommissioning but the additional accuse is requiring the fire department to come back to the board with a report. that's the amendment >> i'm fine. >> just for clarity. i do think that and this may need to be done separately it's appropriate we voluntary that

discussion when the new boat is basically open it's way and delivered and being used and the kings being worked out that's an appropriate discussion we the board of supervisors as to whether or not it's appropriate to maintain 3 boats or reduce it to two maybe we need to do that as a separate item and i'm happy to work with the city attorney's office to draft the legislation in order to bring that before you at the later date >> we'll have our budgetary progress to approve that when the time is right. so we have one amendment passed by supervisor breed it's one more amendment saying to the fire department will report back upon delivery of the third boat and to continue the operations. can i have a motion to accept

that. motion and second we'll take that without objection. >> so moved. >> so can i have a motion to send those to the full board. >> mr. chair, i'd like to request that the board have the motion before tomorrow morning. >> okay. thank you. mr. clerk >> can you call item 8 please. item 8 is declaring the city for certain expenditures authorizing the mayor's office to submit an application to the allocation committee to have the mortgage revenue bonds nationwide to 14 million for the mission bay block west. >> okay. thank you very much.

please come on up >> good afternoon chair farrell i'm pam. i'm the development specialist in 9 community development and infrastructure it will have the bond precedes related to the mission bay south 7 west on 1301 mission bay lp xheepd of the chinatown community development center is the project sponsor. when complete that will be a 2 hundred unit single-family homes with two bedroom and one bedroom unit the unit will be targeting to houses with no more than 50 percent of the medium area

income. those translations don't require the city to pledge reup to that time of the bond we anticipate getting giving those to the committee in just like if awarded we'll return to the board of supervisors to issue the bond with the construction anticipated to begin shortly thereafter, n either in early or late 2016. i have whitney jones here we appreciate our approval and that that concludes my presentation. i'm available to a answer questions >> thank you very much colleagues, any questions for the occ staff anyone wishing to comment on item 8 seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can i have a motion to send this forward we'll take

that without objection.. okay mrshlg item 899 is >> the the resolution authorizing sfmta for the, llc for a term gossiping in 2018 and ending in 2019 for 85 million over the terms of the contract. >> welcome back mrs. reiskin the floor is yours. >> thank you edward reiskin director of transportation. if this is for turgdz on vehicles and real estate it's a result of the competitive process much the same terms asia the contract we have in place and the winning contractor is the same the minimal guarantee

so the guaranteed revenues to the mta is greater than than the previous agreement and one difference i think go of interest is our current distract allows up to 15 contracts that will allow up to thirty wraps with my approval. i guess i'll say and i know there's been concern on the issue is generally those revenues are extremely important to the agencies there are things people want us to address the affordability issue this is a way to not go into the pocket of san franciscans whether people paying for parking or other means it is our responsibility to use our assets to be able to generate revenue when they have that ability.