>> good morning, everyone. welcome to the san francisco budget & finance sub-committee for april 8, 2015 my name is mark farrell i'll be chairing this committee i'm joined by supervisor tang and want to thank the members of sfgovtv jennifer lowe and

charles kremenak and clerk linda wong madam clerk, any announcements? completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the april 14th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay. thank you madam clerk call item one. >> item one the realize of board of education as of puc in the amount of 4 point plus million dollars for the retaliation project. >> - i'm a project manager at the puc steve richie is usually here to present but he's in skament dealing with drought related issues i'm here to request the amount of $308 million for the gun club

the board of supervisors approved a supplemental appropriation of 9 and a half million dollars for the clean up of contaminated soil at the gun site site has been occupied by the gun club since 1934 they've indicating conducted - they are containments of carbon that resulted in soil contaminated by lead and carr gimmick carbons the project will entail cleaning of the site and replacing it with clean material the funds were put on budget and finance committee reserve for the incarcerating we have substantially received the bid and selected a contractor to do

the work we request the funds to be realize i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> i want to conform you were okay with the budget analyst recommendation. >> and mr. rose your report please. >> yes mr. chairman commissioner chan on page 4 of our report we note that is shown in table 3 the puc included a 5.4 cost escalation 10 to 20 percent for puc staff support for the design construction and federal land inclusion that totals all of the contingencies total $5 million plus that represents 60.3 percent of the base construction contract bid of $9 million plus and we

certainly recognize that the environmental clean up and retaliation is can come up with you think anticipated contamination and related costs but we believe that factoring that amount of 4 e $5 million plus is 60 percent and excessive a total of $2 million 63 thousand dollars plus are 32 percent of the $9.2 million construction contract should be sufficient for the excavation is the $2 million plus less than the 12e789d costs shown in table 3 of the $5 million plus so our recommendations on page 5 of our report we recommended you realize $2 million of the

$5. million of the liquid site and continue to reserve the balance to continue on reserve i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. rose supervisor tang. >> actually, i have a question for the puc in light of what the budget analyst pointed out their typical for large projects but it did seem especially on the chart on page 4 there were quite a few of them in the portion mostly in the construction portion why are there so many june turns. >> we're looking at two major things a 10 percent contingency is difficult the other contingencies are higher than normal because this is an

environmental regeneration we're trying to remove the soil to get to a point it's clean typically when you open the ground you don't know what you're going to find we want to figure out what's on site basically, we're able to take a sample every one hundred by one hundred site it is a huge site that is over 2 hundred and 50 samples even with that only one dock in one hundred by one hundred so there's no way to know until you dig up the materials how expensive to dispose of it that's why we say quite a bit of contingencies if we find a material that is more costing than anticipated we have the funds. >> thank you. >> i see the puc is again agreed to the reduction in the

amount and in reserving the other portion that's fine if there is needed to be on cognizance we'll feel more comfortable with that. >> okay seeing no other questions open up for public comment anybody wish to comment on item number one seeing none, public is closed. >> like to make a motion to accept the budget recommendations of the $3.8 million and continue the balance of the 6.2 on reserve and then forward to the full board i'm sorry we don't need to do that. >> supervisor would you like to file the matter. >> oh yes. i guess so. >> so another motion to accept the recommendation and approval of the line item okay we'll take

that without objection. mr. richie two. >> the approval of the modification for the terminal maintenance and operating agreements between the san francisco terminal company and the city to support the documents for the services in the amount not to exceed $21 million for the term of 2031. >> welcome back. >> good morning supervisor farrell and supervisor tang kathy with the san francisco airport this seeks your approval for the first modifications to the airport contract with the international equipment operating agreement not an agreement but a contract with the san francisco equipment company the item before you would increase the total by $3 million for the airport to

add staff to the assistance program as long as the wheelchair pusher assistance as well as to provide new staffing for the airports recently smallest 43 passport installations this staffing request will last through june of 2016 the original sfo agreement was approved in 2012 under the existing agreement sf o operates the equipment on behalf of the airlines that is in agreement with the lease agreement as well as providing for various patron documents and services as a needed basis the proposed modification adds additional resources to help the staffing in the amount of $668,000 to add new staff for the auto matted

international terminals customs progressing areas for 16 months in the amount of $2.2 million at the end of the time the airport will precede with a request for the proposal in order to select a contract for the key those the recommendation is positive but i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, ms. wagner. >> okay seeing no other questions mr. rose your reporter. >> on page 10 of the report the increase of $3 million that is payable to by the airport to the san francisco terminal not to exceed $18 million not to exceed fwi under the proposed moiftsdz agreement is 2 hundred plus for the auto matted control in shown

in table 3 and the balance of 768721 for the increased passenger services we recommend you approve that resolution. >> thank you, mr. rose seeing no questions open up for public comment anyone wish to comment on item number 2 seeing none, public is closed. >> i'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution and send it forward with with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> thank you we'll take that without objection. >> i do not from real estate okay madam clerk call item 3. >> did resolution arthur's the realize of $3,000 thousands square feet for a 5 year term to expend the monthly with the remaining of 2014-2015 of 39

thousands. >> good afternoon claudia the director of real estate for our consideration authorizing a new lease for the did you want southeast child family therapy center the center has been occupying 3 thousand square feet at blank 2001 the proposed new lease as a term of 5 years with a one year option to renew on behalf of the real estate they see negotiated with a rent of 7 thousand 8 hundred per month or $2.60 kent per square feet per month for the adjustments of no more than p than 5 percent and no less than 3 percent for the year the areas were peel $37 plus per square feet per year as a side note for clarity

co-star is used by the real estate department is an informational data tool and website it is a database of existing commercial building information from the areas like san francisco and it includes various types of classes and pub sub market bigs biking like the sub market that was used by the nexus of our office many this particular office co-star researchers varies information regarding buildings and has adequate information that delineates data and provides calculated statistics like rent something the real estate department couldn't do with its limited resources and time the map is in the vicinity of

lincoln from the beginning of this year when the resolution was originally submitted and co-star used 89 buildings r with an annual rent of 33 dmrrs telling you plus with the rate we negotiated was that $1 plus it's lower city is going to be a paying for utilities and janitorial services for the remaining fiscal year of $39,000 which is what did resolution asked for are available in the resolution recommendation of the budget analyst report is to approve the resolution there's another recommendation regarding that no city lease is extended beyond 6 months from a month to month from the original term real

estate didn't agree with this recommendation for a variety of reasons although the director of property and all of us in real estate urge that all departments enter into long term leases there are instances from from when month to month leases are more economic and necessary with clinics and thing that need to be moved where they're more necessary or mandatory under federal requirements short term leases can be a more substantial and economically investment for the city and so while we agree with the current state of the law section 23 plus in the administrative code allows the city to enter into month to month we only want to do that in economic situations for the city we're working with the dph throughout the year to find

another location other than obtain another lease they were looking for another plays it didn't workout for the staffing and purposes the month to month continued to go forward certainly this is a unique situation and we don't recommend that that be done for all departments or resources with that if you have any questions i'm here to answer them. >> yeah. you know, i appreciate your comments i think from our prospective as a budget committee and as the board of supervisors it becomes challenging if we think our departments are going to for multiple years go month to month leases and that kind of absolves the jurisdiction of ability to really function as we should be doing as a budget committee he

appreciate certain times but in my opinion this should be brought this this board of supervisors not for the departments without coming back to us that's a problem here and circumstances may have been what we were i be we can talk about it i understand that was a discussion mr. rose can talk about that dph has staffing shortages to deal with that issue but the espouse of why this happened in the past we need to look at going forward the legislation or other remedies i think legislation in particular to make sure that and happen and you know what if staff says this is the best thing but under the radar and under the rug for how many years that's not acceptable that's the policy struggler supervisor tang. >> thank you. i really to build i had similar concerns

especially given this and probably more a dph issue of real estate they've been on a month to month since 2007 in terms of the budget analyst recommendation and i wanted to you know we don't need to amend the budget analyst report but i suggest in the future going forward that the city and we may want to embody this in the legislation by in the future if there are departments under month to month services for two years or more that the two year junction comes before the budget committee to evaluate the situation formally what the long-term goals and the solutions what steps to get a more permanent solution i understand in some cases the month to month is more

advantageous but we think i want more public hearing of that to make sure that you know something like that didn't go on for 8 years again, it didn't have to be included in the legislation but - >> mr. rose can we go to your you are report. >> on supervisor farrell and supervisor tang's comments i would challenge the department to show us other leases that have gone on a month to month basis as supervisor farrell indicated 8 years we totally agree there should be a provision in leases to go on a month to month leases but to go for 8 years and give us the statement as a matter of fact the real estate department stated they've attempted to get the department to negotiate a

new lease and the department said they have staff limitations and working on consolidations but for 8 years is literally ridiculous there should be information provided to the board of supervisors it was never the intent of the administrative code that was adapted by this board of supervisors that when you go on a enemy was not for 8 years having said that mr. chairman on page 14 of our annual based rent will increase as a matter of fact that is on a interesting lease it is in terms of costs to the city the annual based rent will increase in the current rent 72 thousand up an increase of $21,000 or 20 percent based on at least the 3 percent ami

adjustment and supervisor farrell i remember several years ago when you were looking at leases you requested and it was a good question why did i have this 3 to 5 percent i don't know if you recall that. >> i do. >> this is from 3 to 5 percent we used a 3 percent the total costs of this lease over a 10 year cost is 1 hundred plus thousand dollars over the 10 month period on the bottom of page 14 it is extended since 2007 on a month to month basis and extension basis of 8 interests or years this is 3 years along the original 5 year lease itself this is ridiculous while the lease lout the city to hold over on a month to month 8 year period their revenue increased one hundred percent

from 36 thousand in 2002 when the lease commenced to 17 thousand we've left the annual rent of 7.7 percent a year 7.7 percent is the average increase incidently we don't challenge the real estate division we're not the desert appears in terms of fair market value they use co-star as the department stated for the quote of the fair market value i asked the real estate division of a specific location they can show us this the fair market value they couldn't show us an address within the vicinity we're recommending the approval not challenging the department but our conclusion regarding the month to month basis we agree with what supervisor tang stated we believe that the board of

supervisors should get information if a lease goes beyond an extraordinary length of time like this. >> thank you, mr. rose. >> for comments i mean, maybe you can talk about from our prospective or i'd like to hear if you don't agree with the elements from a policy prospective moving forward here we've already started working on drafting legislation no more than 6 months on a month to month lease unless approved by the board of supervisors. >> we don't agree with 6 months as supervisor tang said two years i mean, we ago that month to month is not usually the most economical situation there are times whether staffing or waiting for location but certain negotiations for new locations take up to a year there's

instances when the department is not procrastinating we're working with them diligently there are times when certain things are worked on whatever the reason. >> that's precise the times i need things in place. >> that's why we're in agreement for month to month for 2 years we come back both the department and real estate have to show basically, the reason compelling reasons that should continue or something entered in by the department. >> okay okay more to come. >> this time we'll open up for public comment anyone wish to comment on item number 3 seeing none, public comment is closed so we have a recommendation to move this recommendation forward. >> through the chair i would say we probably need to take

this up in a separate perspective request as indicated we'll discuss it off lion but in terms of the flying resolution i'll make a motion to approve that and move forward with a with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> we'll take that without objection. >> madam clerk four. >> the occasional exception from the quality act for the international airport. >> thank you, ms. wagner we'll call you up in a row. >> thank you very much supervisor farrell and supervisor tang kathy with the san francisco international airport this seeks our approval the resolution affirming the accordingly exemption from the california environmental quality act ceqa so for the airports plot project last year the

finance committee as well as the board approved an ordinances for the precedes for the sale of airport bonds for the capital project and placed the plot project on finance committee reserve with the finding to second since this time the san francisco planning department has determined the plot project is accordingly accepted pending our finding i'm return next week to get the reserves for the project after the board contemplates this item there is in budget analyst report not a fiscal analyst report because of the release. >> thank you very much ms. wagner i don't believe there's any questions so we'll open up for public comment anyone wish