welcome to the wednesday, june 20th meet offing the government audit and oversight committee. i'm jane kim, the chair of the committee. joined by supervisor peskin and the president of the board of supervisors will be here shortly. london breed. i want to thank the staff at sfgovtv who ensure that our meetings are made available to the public, both online and via transcript as well. any announcements? >> yes. please ensure you silence your cell phones, completed speaker cards and copies of documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will be in the june 20. can you call item 1 through 6 together. >> six resolutions authorizing the director of the mayor's office to have housing and

community development to execute local operating subsidy program grant agreements. these for services at zygmunt arendt house located at 850 broderick street, in an amount not to 11,787,548. and 871 turk street. 455 fell street. railton place, 242 turk street not to exceed 5,561,543. and monterey boulevard apartments, in amount not to exceed 1,662,342.

>> i want to welcome ann romero to present on these six items. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is ann romero, i'm a senior project manager at the mayor's housing project. first i'll give a brief background on the program and describe the agreements. so as you may know, the local operating subsidy program was created in response to the ambitious goal of the 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness to create 3,000 new units. and while the city could target capital dollars, the lack of federal or state subsidies would keep us from creating at this scale. so it's structured to pay the difference between operating the housing and rental revenue. the department provides tenant

referrals from their coordinated entry system. the proposed six agreements before you today, include one new contract for a new affordable family development currently under construction. 455 fell street. two renewal contracts at the end of the initial loss term which are zygmunt arendt house and 10th and mission for seniors and families. and three new contracts to replace the loss of a subsidy at parkview terraces, for seniors, railton place and monterey for homeless families. approval would bring the agreements to 32 and the totaled supported to 1616. annual subsidies range from 8,000 to $12,000 per unit per year. in 2018, the projected loss funding is $9.4 million. authorization of these six contracts would provide $43.4

million for 172 supportive housing units over a period of 15 years, or average of $16,825 per unit per year. in conclusion all of the existing supportive housing developments among these projects are effective in valued units within the supportive housing portfolio. as outlined in the bla report, there may be a future opportunity for projects to apply for federal based voucher subsidies if it's issued by the san francisco housing authority. we're in agreement with the bla recommendations in their report. i am happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor kim: thank you. and before we go to the budget legislative analyst, i did have a few questions on these items. so, i know that we lost the federal continuum of care grant, or it was not renewed by hud and the explanation was that because

the cost of housing is so much more that they reduced the number of units they renewed. is the overall contract with hud the same amount? but with less units? or i just want -- >> so, structurally, the amount we've been getting from hud through the continuum of care process has increased every year, however, the fair market rent level did increase greatly which is a big support for the projects. and we're trying to add new projects to the continuum of care funding every year because that's a big benefit to the city. because of that, the lowest scoring projects are not funded. so projects which do not follow the model are at a disadvantage in the scoring.

>> supervisor kim: my follow-up question, one of the subcontractors did not meet their reporting requirement and i know you said you were working with this organization so they didn't lose their continuum of care grant with other developments. i believe this is the parkview terraces. >> and i'm sorry, i didn't hear? >> supervisor kim: it said in the bla report they did not meet their reporting requirement. >> so my understanding is that in their application they did not demonstrate some of the benchmarks that hud has outlined and that is the income is increasing every year amongst the ten amounts. in senior housing this is more difficult to do and they didn't have all the requested information in their application. the department has had a meeting with them and gone over the areas where the application was not strong so that doesn't happen in the future, however,

this development is very good job at providing the permanent supportive housing and we want it to continue. >> supervisor kim: seems like a hard bar for hud to expect that affordable senior housing would see growing income amongst its tenants. >> i think one of their goals, they want to make sure that all of the tenants get on benefits, but once that happens -- i don't have all the details about the scoring structure of the continuum of care, but that is my understanding of why they didn't score as high as they would. >> supervisor kim: my final question, this is related again to the bla report, was that the cost, the average subsidy per unit, those started going down until this year and the next year, but it starts significantly going back up again in years following. i'm just curious why the average subsidy per year goes up and down the way it did on these tables? >> so one of the reasons why

there was a big reduction is because we were -- the housing authority did issue vouchers for the units that serve the homeless, so many of the sponsors were able to apply and successful in getting the vouchers and they no longer need the loss funding. that resulted in significant savings in the loss budget. the amount of units that applied were sized so they have the maximum savings, but as we increase and bring on new units and operating costs increase, the budget does increase. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. and we'll move on to ms. campbell. >> good morning, chair kim, members of the committee, severin campbell. i'm going to speak to the recommendations, if you have questions, i can respond. recommendations are on page 11

of the report, for all six pieces of legislation. the first recommendation is preach of the proposed resolutions, to clarify the terms of the agreement. we list a table with the terms of the agreement that need to be clarified as part of the resolution. and then the second recommendation is to amend file 180529, the state that the current agreement between arendt house will terminate on december 31, 2018, prior to the start of the new agreement, because the way it's now written there could be overlap in that area. and then also to amend file 180530 for the parkview terraces agreement, so show its retroactive to april 1, 2018, because that's when they plan to fund the units. the third recommendation to request the director of housing,

to put them to the next rfp. this could in fact change the amount of subsidies that are required by these projects if they in fact qualify for the project based from hud. and to require the contracts themselves to be amended if they do get the funding. and otherwise we recommend approval of the resolutions as amended. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, ms. campbell. we're going to open up for public comments on items 1-6. if members of the public would like to speak, seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a set of amendments that the bla has recommended to the committee. can we take a motion? >> so moved. >> supervisor kim: we have a motion to amend, there were three amendments and so can we take a motion to approve? >> we have a motion to move

items 1-6 forward with recommendation to the full board. mr. clerk can you call item number 7. >> item 7 is resolution authorizing the director of transportation to execute a five year agreement with an option to renew for five additional years to commence following board approval with conduent for citation and permit processing nor a total contract not to exceed 77,200, 000. >> supervisor kim: i want to note that the others are available to answer questions. >> i am with finance an information technology and sfmta, we're here to seek your authorization to enter into the

agreement with conduent for citation and permit processing. we released rfp for the services. the minimum qualification was two years of experience, processing of 700,000 citations. conduent was the only firm that submitted a proposal, although there were about 10 firms attending pre-bid conference, including subcontractors. conduent's proposal was in response to the rfp. the citation processing fee will increase from 2.89 to $3.30. this increase per citation will include improvements to conduent management system and

refreshment of the hand-helds with the current technology based on the smart phone and ois system. it also includes the purchases of the license plate recognition systems and various other enhancements. we arefully concur with the budget recommendations and i'm here to answer any questions. >> supervisor kim: my only question was why our current contractor did not bid on the renewal of this contract? >> we're not exactly sure why they have not bid. and we weren't offered any explanation, so we're not sure. >> supervisor kim: ok. thank you very much. seeing no questions, ms. campbell, budget legislative analyst report? >> on page 15 of our report, we show the budget for this contract. this is a five-year contract

with five-year option to extend. the first budget is $39.1 million. the second term would be under the extension $39.9 million, the total amount would be $77.1 million. there is provisions in the contract for what they call lock box services, which is a process for collected mailed payments. this is going to be the taken over by the treasury tax collector office and not performed under the contract. we do recommend a reduction in the contract amount of $2.2 million, so the contract would be reduced from $77.2 million to 74.9 or almost $75 million as we state in the recommendation. we recommend the contract to approve the lower amount and otherwise we recommend to approve the contract. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i wanted to note to sfmta, i appreciate that the credit card

online service has improved and it's without a fee. that's important to provide to the residents. what is a lock box service? >> the lock box, you pay for citation with a check and they will process the payment. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. at this time, we're going to open for public comment on item 7. if members of the public would like to speak on the item, step up. seeing no public comment, i'll be closing public comment on item number 7. >> supervisor peskin: i would move to amend the resolution to reduce the contract not to exceed amount by 2.208838 from 77.2 million to $74 million. >> supervisor kim: thank you, we have amendment, without objection. do we have a emotion. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor kim: this item moves forward with positive recommendation to the full

board. >> item 8 is resolution approving amendment number 4 to contract number cpt 713, procurement of 40-foot and 60 foot low floor diesel hybrid coaches, with new flyer of america, to change the coaches from parallel propulsion to series propulsion and amend the list of the additional equipment, for an amount not to exceed 428,654,904. >> supervisor kim: thank you, i see the transit division has come up to present and answer questions on the item. >> hi, good morning. gary chang, senior program manager with sfmta. sfmta has been one of the national leaders supporting sustainable zero emission revenue fleet. indeed, we are the largesti

operation of the trolley fleet. thank you to the board support, sfmta has replaced over 90% of our older diesel fleet with cleaner and more efficient electric hybrid vehicles. for the last production of this hybrid order, sfmta incorporates the electric vehicle, the hybrid vehicles with a higher battery capacity that allows for the vehicle to travel significant distance on battery power alone. what that means is, that distance will be traveled strictly on battery and with the engines shut off. with the increased battery capacity that allows stm to run a test program. it will turn off and turn on the engines automatically. the item in front of you seeking for your approval is to hybrid

contract number 4, that includes all the necessary equipment to be added onto the vehicle to enable this green zone program. there are also other changes we have incorporated during the production of the vehicles. let me list a few examples. the air-conditioning unit that we are adding onto the unit, replacing the legacy radio with the harris radio system, adding the g.p.s. to improve the performance. and the lift view ramp, which is a well received item within the ada community. with all that, i'm here to answer questions. >> supervisor kim: well, first of all, i want to say it has been great to see the new buses and the fleet online as part of the muni fleet. and the low floor buses do make a tremendous difference for many of the riders. a quick question, there would be

certain areas of the city where we would geo fence to ensure that only the batteries were operating in those areas, how would we determine the green zones? >> actually, this is something within the talks of sfmta and we have not made the final determination yet, but obviously it will be an area we would like to benefit the public. so as now, it's to be determined, but we'll be happy to come back and keep you informed once the location or how we strategize to come up with a location of the green zone. >> supervisor kim: i assume some of it might be the congestion or busyness of the areas. >> that's one of the criteria that we are looking into, but however, it's still, we have to also worry about and concern about the range, obviously, and since the city itself, you know, we cover a very wide range of areas, so we have to make the selection carefully. so as of now, it's still in the

development stage, but certainly we can come back and provide more information at a later time. >> supervisor kim: great. thank you so much. so at this time, we will move to ms. campbell, director of t budget. >> the original contract is for 124 buses, all of the buses have been ordered, 300 and 16 delivered. this amendment covers the standard buses, the 40-foot buses. 68 of the buses would be changed from parallel propulsion to series propulsion which has been described in terms of benefits. we have a table 3 on page 20 that talks about how the cost differential of the parallel propulsion and series propuls n propulsion. the contracting fees are $14.9 million and we recommend approval. >> supervisor kim: thank you.

i want to note that we have someone here to answer questions. we're going to open for public comment. if you would like to speak on the item, step up. public comment is closed. can we take a motion on this item? we have a motion to move this forward with recommendations and we can do that without objection. mr. clerk, item 9 and 10. >> item 9 is resolution approving amendment number 6 to contract cs 155 opinion 3 for the design of the central subway project. to increase the contract amount from 1,269,472 to redesign the trackway alignment and analyzed impacts to ventilation systems. to provide design and support for communication systems with no change to the term to expire april 27, 2020 for a total

contract amount not to exceed 34,930,020. item 10 is resume lieutenant-governor approving amendment number 1 and 4 to contract cs-155-2 for the final design and construction of the central subway project with the design group to increase the contract amount by 1, 010,600 for amendment number 1 to lower the chinatown station and $6.3 million dollar for amendment number 4, for additional work necessary to provide engineering services through completion of central subway project stations, with no change to the length of the term, for total amended contract amount not to exceed $47 million. >> supervisor kim: we have the acting director of the subway project, before i let you speak,

i want to begin the presentation with supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame clare, let me start by saying better late than never. as the author of proposition a, from the board of supervisors, to the sfmta and its commission, i very, very specifically did not give up the board's powers pursuant to charter section 9.118, which is why all of the previous items on this calendar have been coming to this committee and the board. and i did that so that the board would maintain oversight pursuant to that charter section. and obviously, we're going to vote for these things today, we have to, but i was rather taken aback by the statement in the budget and legislative analyst report and i have to get this off my chest, that the reason these were not submitted to the board of supervisors prior to

june 2014 was due to central subway staff's misunderstanding of the sfmta charter authority. let's be very, very clear, section 9118 applies to the sfmta, any project over a certain period of duration or certain dollar amount comes to this board of supervisors for approval. that's the way the law has been for decades. it has not changed and i never want to see this happen again. >> thank you very much. good morning, chair kim, vice chair peskin, board president mayor-elect breed. i'm acting program director for central subway. i want to apologize on behalf of the program and all the various staff members that are working on these amendments. i do understand your concerns and what you've raised and one of the things that we endeavor to do is not to come back to you, but i do want to make, as i

present this, we have one other element, supervisor peskin, we need to clarify that may need to come in front of the board. because one of the things we did as part of the review, when doing the amendment 4 was review all of the professional service contracts and determine if any of the other amendments are not in compliance. so beyond these two, we have a third that we're in the process of verifying and putting a package to come back, not only to the sfmta board, but this board. and then also going forward, what we plan to do, all the amendments, we have a checklist we need to check off. we're adding this element as verification process to include the charter section. in doing so, our preparer and reviewer can actually then determine whether we've done this check so we do not repeat this. parallel to that, director of transportation mr. ruskin has implemented something parallel

and we're in the process of reviewing all contracts beyond central subway to see if clients compliance issues. i'm hoping this will be the last time we do for a retroactive commitment. again, i apologize for the error. it's on me because i'm the director. but just to quickly summarize the three amendments that you have in front of you, amendment 6 for the cs 155-3, this is actually to redesign the track profile, when we lower the tunnel profile to gain further separation between the bottom of the existing muni tunnels and the top of the central subway

tunnel. and in doing so, we gain greater safety as we board the tunnel under market street and 4th street. and this work has been done. in addition, we have other work beyond central subway related to the main metro for upgrades of the legacy communication system, and that's part of the amendment 6 that you have in front of you. in addition, amendment 1, value of $1 million, this is actually related to the central subway chinatown station. this was put forth to lower the station by 25 feet, so we can gain better floor condition on lower part of the station. in doing so, we can construct the chinatown station safely and more advantageously. since the mining operation has been completed, we have

experienced little or no sediment to the adjacent building which is basically one of the elements of this lowering work. the last amendment is amendment 4 which is currently for approval, not retroactive, but just for approval. this relates to support elements for design and construction as the project experience delay, we need to continue to provide engineering and construction support services. so that's basically the additional extension of years fort central subway project. in addition to that, one of the things we committed to the chinatown station, because of the mining technology that was used, we want to ensure that we have specialty engineers on site doing the mining of the chinatown station. so in essence we provided better coordinati coordination, better direction to the contractor so we have no safety or any other issues during the construction. but part of the element was that because the construction of

these -- the station was slower, we had to actually do construction mitigation, which was to increase the shift. we had one shift ten hours. we doubled that to two shift, ten hours and in doing so, we had to increase the engineering support effort. that's part of the reason we're here. and that's the third element. with that, i'm open to taking questions. >> supervisor kim: seeing no questions, at this time we will move onto ms. campbell. >> so for file 18-063 this is retroactive approval of amendment number 6 to the contract with hntb-b & c joint venture. the original contract was approved by the board for $32.3 million. there have been seven amendments to this contract. six of the amendments came below the charter threshold of $500,000 for board approval, but

amendment 6 was for $1.3 million. because this a is retroactive approval, we consider this to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. and then file 18-046, this is a retroactive approval of the amendment number 1 and approval of amendment number 4 to the contract with central subway design group. the original contract was approved in 2010 for $40 million. there have been three prior amendments and amendment number 1 did exceed the $500,000 threshold set by the charter. amendment number 4 is pending before the board now. it's $6.3 million increase in the contract. we do give the budget details on page 33 of this report. we recommend approval of amendment number 4, we consider approval of amendment number 1

to be policy matter because it is retroactive. >> supervisor kim: thank you. at this time, we'll open up public comment for items 9 and 10, seeing none, we're closing public comment. colleagues, can we move forward items 9 and 10 with recommendations. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor kim: we have a motion and can do this without objection. please call item number 11. resolution authorizing the general manage other of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute professional services agreement number pro, 0068, biosolids commission digesters facilities construction management, for augmentation services for an amount fiat knot to exceed $42 million, for a term of seven years to commence following board approval through july

2025. >> supervisor kim: i see the biosolids project manager is here to present and alan johnson is also here to answer questions. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm caroline chiu. so this biosolids project is the has largest project in the sewer system improvement program. the ssip is a large capital improvement program aimed at addressing our aging sewer system and to ensure a long-term and seismically safe waste water system. so through the project, we're going to address the aging infrastructure and outdated structures. located at bayview hunters point

area, it is critical to our structure of the city. we're going to replace the solid handling portion of the treatment plant, one half of the plant, as shown in the figure in yellow, is the existing system. you'll see that those existing digesters, the circular tanks on the bottom of the yellow square, were built in the 1940s and are located across the street from residential homes. so through this project, we're going to locate a brand new facility adjacent to the existing plant, but you'll see from the outline in blue, it's furthest away from the neighborhoods. so what do we get with the project? well, basically, the project applied best treatment technologies and through that efficient treatment, we're going to be able to provide more treatment with less numbers of digesters for example.

we're going to increase the level of treatment to ensure that we have more options for beneficial use of the treated biosolids, meaning we keep it out of landfills. and we're going to develop a combined heat and gas system, to utilize all the bio gas to support the facility and generate up to five mega watts of power, which is enough to sustain the facility with any left going the treatment plant. we're going to meet our level of service goal, to reduce odoor -- odors in the area. so here's a layout of the new facilities. once again, you'll hear me say that we located the digesters, which are the five tanks on the top, adjacent to the railroad tracks, furthest away. and we located key process

facilities within the center of our treatment plant, providing an adequate buffer from the community. and we strategically laid out two maintenance buildings for our operation and maintenance staff along the edge of gerald, because we felt it to be a friendly neighborhood edge for the community. here's an aerial view of the new facilities. i think we spent -- we made it a priority not just to look at modern technology, but we spent a lot of time in working with the community to really try to make sure visually and architecturally, it is something we can all champion. and once again in the front, you see the two maintenance buildings, providing like an office building setting. so where are we today? we're at 95% design with construction anticipated in early 2019. we are aiming -- delivering this

project through what we call a construction management general contractor approach, in which the contractor is on board now working with our design team, providing review, identifying means and methods and identifying risks early in the project so we can engineer them out now in the design phase, versus construction. the project, we just got that approved and we have the funds appropriated through our controller's office. and lastly, i want to highlight that the biosolid project was selected to receive a low interest loan through the water infrastructure and financing innovation act. this loan is the largest single allocation in their history and for us in the puc and the city,

it translates to overa hundred million dollars of savings in debt service going forward. so, now the approval before you represents really the last resources we need to make the biosolids project go into construct. i think you understand that the project entails a large complex construction effort on a constrained site. the construction work will be led by the puc construction management staff, but given the workload and need of expertise, we did need to add staff. we issued rfp for professional services to augment our construction management staff. and the arcadis team ended up being the successful proposer. the contract before you is a $42 million contract. and here in front of you is a breakdown of the scope of work

for that contract. and you'll see in the last column that at a minimum, if not greater, 50% of the work to be completed is going to be completed by a subconsultant firm under that arcadis prime. so, in conclusion, i'm asking your approval to allow the san francisco puc to enter in agreement with arcadis to augment our staff for the biosolids digester project. we welcome any questions you may have. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. my only question actually is to ask about the committee outreach process for the design of the site in the neighborhood. >> i think even before the conception design, there was a huge level of outreach. even started when we were doing the master planning where we

formed a digester task force. so a lot of that was the first metric we walked a way was move the digesters farther away from homes which you can see. that has continued. we do updates to the southeast community group and as we approach construction, we see more on the ground coordination and information sharing with the local community as we begin construction. >> supervisor kim: what are the potential environmental impacts to the neighborhood? i know that these are systems and infrastructure we need to have, so i'm not protesting the actual construction of them, but in terms of the siting, are there any environmental impacts to neighborhood beyond odor and smell? >> no, that's a very good question. i think because it's a large construction, we're going to be

proactive and pre-emptive, and we plan like a traffic control plan. we will have to close streets adjacent to the site, but we're starting to work to develop that traffic control plan. since the southeast plan has multiple construction, it's not just coordinating with the neighbors, but the other construction jobs. so to help us, we did a procurement to brung on what we call -- bring on what we call a oversee program so there is overarching umbrella to make sure we're not just coordinated within the fence line, but the outer edges of the site are informed to minimize those impacts to the neighborhood. with respect to odors and i think, the other thing is, one of the reasons we need the cm augmentation, because we plan to have a lot of inspectors on

board, not just to inspect the job, but to meet our requirements we laid out as part of the eir, to make sure for example, there is no idling cars, or that traffic is minimized or efficient. so all those tools are already being built in to hopefully negate issues that -- i mean, construction elements we know exist, but sort of soften the impact all around. >> supervisor kim: will there be a site that the puc will maintain so neighbors are aware of the construction schedule? >> turned out we've implemented -- it's basically a construction website where we e-mail to inform biweekly. and obviously that can ramp up depending on the effort, but there is also a call-in number, that people can call in and say, what is going on?

>> is it a voice mail service? >> depending on at the peak construction, i see it a live voice during the work hours. and our lead of the projects will be in the front line of answering a lot of those calls. >> supervisor kim: great. thank you very much. this time, we'll move onto ms. campbell, budget offices. >> the contract with arcadis is for approximately from august of 2018 through july 2025. this is for construction management staff augmentation services for the biosolids digester facility project at the southeast water pollution control plant. this is part of the sewer system improvement program. the contract budget for $42 million is shown on table 1, page 38 of the report. for this budget, $36 million is direct labor cost and we show

overview of the labor costs in table 2, page 39 of the report and we recommend approval. >> supervisor kim: at this time, we'll open for public comment. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion on item number 11? move forward with recommendation and without objection. thank you, can you call item number 12. >> resolution authorizing the general manage other of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute an amendment to the memorandum of agreement with the united states department of the interior, national park service, yosemite national park for comprehensive management of watersheds, for an amount not to exceed 27,004,364 and total duration of four years from july 12016 through june

2020. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i see the deputy assistant manager with the pc is here to answer questions. >> sure. thank you for having me. i appreciate the opportunity to present on the item. so as you heard, we're asking for an additional two years of duration of our memorandum of agreement with the national park service and to increase the funding request by $14 million. could we have the slide pulled up, please? this shows the part of the water project, watershed that lies within the national park services yosemite national park. the watershed is 459 square miles and controlled and managed by yosemite national park. by way of background, the act of

1913 authorized the city of san francisco to construct the water project in yosemite national park. under the raker act, san francisco is required to reimburse the national park service for the cost of inspection necessary to secure compliance with the sanitary regulations that are cited in the act. as well as the cost of roads and trail maintenance and expenses incurred to the park service. they also have an exemption for filtration of water delivered from the project to the customers. and these activities are things like stock management, waste water treatment. the park service developed a

memorandum of understanding to cover the costs of the requirements in addition to funding, to enhance water quality in concert with the filtration exemption. in 2016, the board of supervisors approved a resolution authorizing a memorandum of agreement between the puc and the park service for a comprehensive management of water sheds within yosemite national park. it included not exceed $12 million for a two year term ending june 30, 2018. the proposed resolution before you authorizes a two-year extension to june 30, 2020. and increase not to exceed now amount of $27 million. the table that you see here, shows the categories of activities to be performed and

the associated cost of the initial mou, which is the first column and the second is a cost of program activities as proposed in the next two-year period. to date, they've paid the department of interior, $12 million. this amount is $100,000 less than the initial moa. it had included a contingencies that wasn't needed. the most significant area of increase is in special projects. on the next slide i'll address those increases. but in general, in the other program areas, the increases that are seen are to cover cost of living and also to restore a level of spending in program areas that didn't receive appropriate funding during the initial moa period. the sfpuc was in a drought and

it reduced spending. this next slide is the slide that enumerates, the special projects and what we intend to do with the money. the projects were initially identified during the initial moa, but because we didn't have funding because of the drought, they were pushed off. these projects benefit both puc and park service. and the costs are shared with a few exceptions. what you see is san francisco's contribution on this slide. the composting toilet, the design funding would be funded by the puc and we believe replacing the flush toilets will reduce the waste water discharged. the park service will be responsible for program

management and environmental requirements. the wilderness stock framework helps to determine the capacity and understand stock behavior, build monitoring terms and determine baseline conditions of the camps and meadows. those are the two most significant projects you see here. just to note that the puc is the sole beneficiary of the raker boat replacement. i'm happy to take any questions. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. seeing no questions, we'll move onto ms. campbell. >> much of the information has been covered by the puc representative, there is an increase in the contract recently approved in 2016, so for the next two years, it goes from $12.2 million under the original two years, to $14.7 million for the remaining -- or

the two years under the proposed modification. this is 20% increase. and much of the increase is driven by the special projects. there on page 44 of the report, table 2, it does list the special projects. there was a contingency for the first two years of $100,000 that was not spent and we recommend a reduction from $27 million to $26.9 million and we recommend approval as amended. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i'm sorry, i did not know if the puc agreed to the amendment? >> we're fine with it. we didn't have any emergencies in the last two years and hopefully don't have any coming forward. if we do, we'll find a way to reallocate. >> supervisor kim: seeing no members of the public commenting, public comment is

closed. can we take a motion to amend as articulated by the budget office? we can do that without objection. we have a motion to move this forward with positive recommendation to the full board. mr. clerk? >> item number 13, resolution approval the 4th amendment to the contract between the city and county of san francisco and the tides center to provide supportive housing property management under the delivering innovation, to extend the contract term from july 12008 through june 302019, and to increase the contract amount for a total contract amount of 47,734,035. >> supervisor kim: thank you. the deputy director of administration and finance of the department of homelessness and housing will be here to present and answer questions on this item. i also see doug gary, codirector

of dish also available to answer questions if members of committee have it. >> thank you. good morning, madame chair. i'm deputy director for administration and finance or the department of homelessness and supportive housing. the item before you is a resolution to approve a fourth amendment to a contract with tides, which is the fiscal sponsor for developing innovation and supportive housing for dish. dish provides management services, totalling 449 units. the amendment includes a combination of state, federal and general fund resources. the resolution before you asks for a one-year extension to the existing tide dish contract. so that we can continue services without interruption. the increase in the contract was

proposed to be $7.2 million, we're in agreement with the budget and legislative analyst recommendation to reduce that amount in line with current you're expenditures and what we project going forward for the next budget year. oca has approved a onetime full source waiver for the contract extension and this will allow the department to rfp out the services next year. with the rest of our permanent supportive housing portfolio. many of the projects as you know, we inherited from either the department of public health or the human services agency. those contracts and agreements had bearing expiration dates and that will allow a comprehensive rfp process. that concludes my remarks. if you have questions, i'm happy to answer. thank you.

>> supervisor kim: thank you. i just want to note that hsh has state thad they were not able to take on the competitive rfp process because of staffing. i just wanted to ask if hss was prepared to take this on as stated in the budget legislative analyst report? >> we are, thank you for the question, as you know, we're still a relatively new department and inherited hundreds of contracts in various degrees of expiration. we also had a huge financial system transition, along with a lot of staff turnover, and rapid increase in new work, new navigation centers to get into contract, new supportive housing units. so unfortunately, we did need to request a one-year extension. i do feel confident that my staff can take this on and we have additional resources coming through the budget process to

better support the contracts team, so we can align our contracts with the expiration dates and do the competitive selection process we're required to do. >> supervisor kim: great, thank you very much. we'll move to severin campbell for the presentation for the budget and legislative analyst office. >> the original contract with tides was for $7 million, there have been two amendments approved by the board to increase the current contract amount to $40.5 million. this contract expires in june 2018. and as talked about, there has been request for sole source waiver to extend the contract for another year, to july 2019 in order to go through rfp process. so the budget being requested, the increase in the contract is $7.2 million, increasing the total contract amount to a little more than $47 million.

we do detail the budget on page 48 of our report, table 2, the $7.2 million increase. based on actual expenditures of the contract to date, we're recommending a reduction of 1.3 million nods the total contract amount. so the contract will be reduced from the proposed amount of $47.7 million torques the revised amount of $46.4 million, otherwise, approval is recommended. please stand by.

>> i also understand that henry gong is also available to answer any questions for the community members today. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you very much for hearing

this. the sheriff's department is asking to approver marked for services. a four-month extension. this proposed extension is here because we've awarded a new food service to aramark. there's time allowed for the scope of service for the new jail food contract around the good food purchasing requirements. it was passed yesterday out of the board of supervisors. it was determined that this legislation will have no fiscal impact and then back to the good food purchasing program, when the center for good food purchasing program spoke on the legislation that was passed out yesterday, they mentioned that

we have been working with them since november of last year, and, in fact, they were part of the panel for the rfp evaluation panel, and we continue to work with them initially in the scope of the contract. we set a 12-month time line to complete a baseline assessment, but yesterday, as resolution urges us to move forward in four months, and we're working with a aramark to meet that. >> you also spoke about coffee services. does that mean we don't provide that today wrn t-- within the current contract. >> we do. we have current feedback from the inmates about what they like, what they don't like