. >> okay. thank you. anybody else wish to comment on items 4 or 5? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. we have both items in front of us. >> all right. through the chair, i would like to make a motion then to forward out items four and five to the full board with a positive recommends. >> okay. great. supervisor tang, we can take that without only. madam clerk, item number 6. >> item are is the pass 700 development project. >> okay. thank you. welcome back. we got them together this week. >> yes. thank you. i appreciate that. >> supervisors farrell and tang, this item is more

official than last time. the bonds of capital and improvement projects at the airport and placed the funds to our plot 700 project on funds and committee reserved. last week, the committee reserved the planning of this project is category exempt from see ka. so the airport is here today to request the release of the city reserved. the plot includes the new construction of a grounds transportation unit as well as the bus community on 6 acres of the north ka go area of the airport right behind the united maintenance space that you can see adjacent to 101. for plot to hundred, the full board was improved by this committee as well as last year. this was part of the physical

year 20145-year capital plan which was approved by both the committee and the city's capital committee in february of this year. it's the release of the reserve, if the request is approved today, the airport staff will begin the award of the process through a competitive bid process and completes in november of 2015. i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you ms. wagner. seeing no questions at this time, mr. rows, why don't we move to your report police. >> yes mr. chairman, on page 18 of our report, the 700 development project is estimated to cost [inaudible] and that's shown on table one. on page 19 of our report, we note that plot 700 budget for

the airport's grand transportation unit and bussing facility of 35.2 million is 16.4 percent more than the original estimated budget of 30 million 204,000 and $900. that budget is driven entirely by an increase in the utility cost and the grand transportation budget. the airport plans to reward a contract subject to the process. and the airport expects the project to be complete in november of 2015. we recommend that you do release the requested reserved funds. >> okay. thank you mr. rose. seeing no questions at this time, why don't we open this up to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item 6?

>> (indiscernible) >> all right. through the chair, i thought we were releasing the $30 million last time. so i have no questions. at this point, i would like to request that we do release the reserve. i will like to file a hearing. >> okay. we have a motion by supervisor tang and we can take that without objection. madam clerk item 7, please. >> item 7 authorizing the department of technology to increase for approximately 34 million for the remaining term of september 31st of 2017. >> okay. so we have the department of technology to speak on this item. >> hello, jake to speak on the behalf of the department of

technology. we're here as a joint effort on behalf of the police department, fire department and sheriff's department. we will continue to perform our due diligence. d t will be back next year with the radioactive project. we will be transforming over to the new radio system. we would like to thank mr. rose and mcdonalds for working with us on this resolution. if there's any questions, michelle, with the department of emergency management is here. >> okay. thanks very much. >> why don't we move to a budget analyst report and then we can have questions because i believe there is some disagreement here right now. >> mr. chairman, supervisor

tang, the proposed increase on page 22 of our report and the proposed increase of 9 million, 11, 959, the agreement between the department of technology and mote rola will pay for replacement radios through 16 and 17. the budget totals 9 million and 33 #1k38 that's shown on page 2 of our report. that shows an increase under the seventh amendment of 321, 787. on page 23 of our report, we note that the proposed resolution provides for an increase in the agreement not to exceed the amount of 9 million, 11, 959 going from 25

million to 33 million and 11, 959. this is to the purchase as i stated of 737 replacement radios of related equipment and services. we report to you supervisor, that because the 2016-17 budget has not been approved or admitted to the board of supervisors, the replacement radios and equipment services the fiscal year is not yet known. the amount budget in the fiscal year of 2016-17 is shown in table one. and from 33, 11, 959 to 30 million, the budget is 2 million 633, 225

less than the requested increase. if you approve that, that will still provide expenditure authority for the requested amounts to purchase radios and related equipment and services for both fiscal year 14/15 and fiscal year 15/16. so we request that you amend this proposed agreement for the requested amount we understand the supervisors of the department con curse without our recommended deduction >> okay. is that the case? >> yes, we will accept the board analyst recommendation. >> okay. great. and just to be clear, this is because on principle, we haven't submitted or even seen a draft of the 16/17 budget and we would be

putting a marker in that. >> exactly. >> all right. i got it. thank you very much. thanks d t. supervisors tang, any questions? >> thank you. i'm glad there's an agreement. if you hadn't come to an agreement, i think there's a really good breakdown of the fiscal years and being able to purchase the radio equipment and i think that's mostly what this is funding. i hope that after it's issued, there will still be an opportunity to come back before the board and request another amount. >> okay. thank you very much. we'll open this up to public comment. 2 minutes maximum.

>> (indiscernible).

>> okay. anybody else want to comment on tuck 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion, a recommends by a budget analyst. >> all right. through the chair, i would like then to amend this to reduce the amount requested not to exceed the amount by 2.2 million, 632, 625 as the budget analyst recommended and then approve the underline to the full board with a recommendation. >> okay. we a motion by supervisor tang and we can take that without objection. madam clerk, item 8, please. >> [inaudible] increasing the agreement amount by one million to approximately 2.9 million

with no change to to contract. >> i'm david here to speak on the behalf of the public utilities commission. i'm here on behalf of the green man amendment for u r s corporation contract. the engineer services are to support this project which is 97 percent complete at this point in time. the additional service are to provide engineering repairs to unrepaired buckle sections of the tunnel and the field lining and to support immediate grounding levels. the integrity and safety and to provide engineering support the contractor claims are related

to the expenses and repairs. in this photograph, i show you two buckle failures inside the steel lining. the contractor spent several months taking this section out and the buckle sections have since been repaired. we put lining into the steel liner and placed the tunnel february 27th. the requested action is approved amendment 25 with your cooperation of increasing the contract by $1 million not to exceed the total of 15.8 million. and the consideration remains at 10 years. amending this agreement will allow u r s

to continue the engineer workers and support of the construction activities to complete this project. thank you >> okay. thank you very much. supervisor tang. >> okay. i know we're going to get to the budget analyst report after this but i do have a couple of questions on this. this project is now 58 percent more than the original approved budget. is that this kind of liner failure that we are addressing today? >> no. . >> what are the issues? >> no. it includes over 10 years of project history. it includes multiple redesigns to get the tunnel right for the contract. and also more recently due to grounds what we

anticipated. >> the second question has to do with the contractor, the issue with the tunnel liner failure which is why we have this item up for us in the firt place. so from my understanding, the contractor is supposed to be incurring the cost of the redo, is that correct? >> that is our current position. we believe that the line of failure was due to not inspect grout that was too soft and was contaminated by ground water draining which should been been taken care of as part of the contract. >> so 250,000 is going towards engineering support? >> yes. >> so i guess what i'm

confused about is should this engineering support have been provided along at the begin or why was it not? >> the engineering report is related to the engineering review of the repairs. in the independent analysis to check the repairs to give a second opinion so to speak and also to review the expensive grouting program that was done in 3 and a half miles of tunnel. so those services were crucial to our clients and water supply and treatment in order for them to accept the tunnel. >> so was there engineering support on the original, i guess the original construction portion of the work then? >> that was originally budgeted for. >> okay. and this one is solely for the actual redo portion? >> yes. >> okay. and i also see here that 500 -- half of this

million dollar allocation would also go toward the review, so does the city believe that we're going to be able to, i guess, recoup the cost in terms of what we're going to have to be able to redo and all the extra time and delays that this has caused us? >> well, we hope. so we hope so. we recently just started discussions with the contractor in terms of what they feel is cost that they incur for the repairs and grounding program. and we're talking in the millions of dollars here and so we're trying to avoid those claims right now. >> okay. all right. so it sounds like the department is going to be pursuing action against the contractor. so we hope that you're able to come to a good resolution for this. with that, i don't have any other questions. >> thank you supervisor tang.

supervisor mar. >> thank you for the report mr. see you the. i just ask the 58 percent over the projected 2005 budget, how does that cheng? it seems like a significant increase over what we projected 10 years ago. it seems like it to me. >> yes. it was. it seems like the project was greatly underestimated. roughly s-projects like this cost a quarter billion dollars just in construction cost alone. and you have to add saw cost, engineering cost, project admission cost. administratoration cost. >> so do we have a better

analyst under what you think is the amount? do we have an analyst questioning that now 10 years later? >> we have the design process and checked the estimates and the latest estimate was done just prior to bid and they were very consistent with the bid, the contractor bids that were turned in. >> and just continuing from supervisor tang's questions, i see that half of that, up to $1 million is for disputes reviews, claims, ordinance and services, are we getting a lot of disputes and claims from the area? >> yes. this contract has had a history of cheng orders request from the contractors and it is a joint venture from

south land and the spreems. that team has a reputation for submitting claims. >> but it's possible that what we're approving is up to a million. >> we hope to not spend the half million dollars that's set aside. >> thank you very much. >> okay. seeing no other names on the roster, we'll move on to the budget analyst report. mr. rose. >> on page 20, we report that the funds and the contract between the s r c and corporation for design and engineering services has requested one million for the fifth amendment for a total not to exceed contract of about 15.9 million are included in the new project budget with the water revenue funds and by the board of supervises. the debt services is paid for revenues

you see by the f s c for the customers. the project is 339 million, 4,000, $999. that includes the expenditures up-to-date shown on table 3 of page 48 of our report. we note on the bottom of page 28, if the additional cheng orders are claims by the contractors that exceed the existing project which is now 026, that reserve receives projects under budget. it currently has a balance. we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> okay. thank you mr. rose. any questions for mr. rose? supervisor tang? >> sorry. not a question.

included in the packet, i was looking at the history of all the various amendments and i want to acknowledge the frontage of this size and scale and nature, it is very difficult. but just look at the history of the other previous four amendments, there was quite a bit in terms of providing for ongoing engineering support, to provide engineering services for rye vicements or review. i just want to make sure in the future that hopefully this department has learned where there may be some troubled issues to try to address that in the beginning. but again, i do express this is a shared nature of then credibly big project. >> okay. all right. at this point, we'll open up to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item number 8? we're on item number 8.

>> (indiscernible). >> speak in the podium. >> (indiscernible). >> sir, do you have any comments on item number 8? okay. thank you very much. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i would like to send forward item number 8 with a positive recommendation. >> okay. we have a motion from supervisor tang. we can take that without objection. madam clerk, item 9, please. >> item 9 is the assures and deliver on the housing

development not to exceed approximately 61 million for the purpose of providing financing and the acquisition of a two hundred multi rental housing project located in the city at 588 missionmission boulevard north. >> good morning supervisors, i am tap la sims and i'm in the office of the community development of infrastructure office. at 588 mission boulevard north, we respectfully request that the non-substances have changed to remove lines 12 through 14 on page one from the resolution. this reads ratifying and approving and taking action with a note to the general authority to the city officials

to take action necessary to implement this resolution on related matters. the sponsoring team for this project includes chinatown development center and related california as the owner and general partner. wells fargo will serve as an investment and partner. mission boulevard north will be a 200-unit small housing development. 129 two bedroom units and the rest of one bedroom units. so for 2015, that is 61, $160 for a family of four. mission bay is one of three former redevelopment project areas approved to move forward by the department of finance. these financings do not require

the city to have any repayment of the bond. the construction will begin shortly therefore with construction completed in early 2017. here with me today is a sponsor representative from related california. we appreciate your support and looking forward to seeing you at the grand opening of 2017. that includes desk presentation. thanks >> thank you very much. any questions colleague? seeing none, okay, we have no analyst budget for item number 9. we move on to public comment. seeing none for public comment, item is closed. >> i move on the proposal of this item. >> would you like to adopt it? >> so move the amendment and then move approval as amended. okay? >> i'm sorry. do we have a copy of that amendment? >> i do not believe you have

a copy of the amendment but i will be sending one to the clerk. >> ah, okay. supervisor tang. >> sorry, i must have missed that. >> sorry, can you restate for the record what that amendment is. >> sure, it's removing lines 12 through 14 on page one. it reads ratifying and approving any action heretofore taken in connection with a note and a project as defined here in. granting city authority to take action to implement this resolution as defined here in and related matters. >> so let me withdraw my motion so we can have a conversation about that. >> through the chair, i just wanted to follow-up. can you just elaborate us why we're removing this? what is the emphasis on removing that? >> this is at the request of the madam clerk of the board. my understanding is that it has

to do with just general approval of matters. specifically, the clerk will like to have matters come before the board for approval. this just takes out the general language. >> okay. ms. wong, do you have any other clarification here? >> mr. chair, it is our department requested the department of mayors' office of housing to provide our office with a copy of all the actions previously taken by employees of the city and there were no list provided. therefore, our office requested that the department remove that language so that the board is approving the amendments without that language. it's a standard request from the clerk of the board.

>> supervisor tang. >> thank you. so for example, regarding the portion that says authorizing collection of fees, to ratifying and approving any action with a note and a project, so it seems these are pretty subsequent items removing from this, do we need to remove anything else from the rest of the resolution? i understand that potentially there may be other items coming before the board related to this. >> this will be the final action before the board. >> this is the final action. okay. so i guess from the city attorney, is there anything else from this that we would need to remove? >> the chair and supervisor tang, as i understand this is a deletion start -- i can probably get some clarification on this point as well. but it's a request for deletion in line 12? >> correct with the ratifying start.

>> okay. so super visions from the long title would affect sections 8 and 9 as i see it and the under lying actual rumgz before you. those sections 8 and 9 respectfully address ratification of the prior actions taken as well as the general authority. so i wasn't quite sure if the clerk also wanted the department to delete sections 8 and 9 in terms of their desired amendment. >> through the chair, again, unfortunately, i was going to ask the city attorney if we should delete it but it seems like we should in the rest of the text. if it's not in the