>> chair: this meeting will come to order. this is the september 22, 2021, budget and finance committee meeting. i'm matt haney. and i'm joined by committee members saf clerk, do you have any announcement? >> clerk: the minutes will reflect that committee members participated in this remote meeting through video conference to the same extent as if present. we invite public comment in the following ways. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda, in channel

26, 78, or 99. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speaks. comments during public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 24855346023 and press the symbol pound twice. you will be muted and in listening mode. when your item of interest comes up, dial *3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. you may also submit public comment in the following ways: e-mail to the budget and finance committee clerk. if you submit public comment via e-mail, it will be forwarded to the supervisors. written comments may be

sent to city hall, 1doctor city hall.items acted on today e expected to appear on the board of supervisors' agenda on september 28th. mr. chair, thi concludes my announcements. item 1, ordinance authorizing the municipal transportation agency to set parking rates at the parking lot, golden gate underground parking facility and marina small craft (indiscernable) on park property, making conforming edits (indiscernable) and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental equality act. members of the public who

wish to provide public comment, call 415-655-0001. if you have not already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. >> chair: great. thank you. you have ms. ketchum from the department of rec and park to present on this item. >> good morning, supervisor. dana katchem from rec and park. i'm joined by my colleague, ted grass. the legislation before you allows us to modernize the pricing structure at the music concourse garage and the parking lot. it enables to implement or demand responsive pricing. in 2009, the park code was amended to add section 6.14 to allow the m.t.a. to allow the department to

set new rates for parking and park property. at this time, other provisions were also amended to allow sfmta to adopt rates at city-owned garages and parking lots. the purpose is that m.t.a. is the expert and parking and traffic management, and this provision, 6.14, would give them the same power for all city garages and parking lots. it acquires the board of supervisors to approve the locations of paid parking areas, but provides for the implementation of restrictions. parking rates are done by the commission. the park code rates for those two facilities were still in the park. as section 6.14 has never been implemented to apply two kisar and the music concourse, as a result those parking lots have

had flexed rates that increase each year. this ordinance will clarify that 6.14 should be used to set rates at those parking rates going forward. kisar, its primary purpose is for events at kisar stadium and pavelium. it provides monthly parking for residents and those working in the neighborhood, including ucsf, and it validates parking to merchants in the neighborhood. the music concourse garage is actually owned by the music concourse partnership. under a lease of the underground land for the department. m.c.c. p. was a non-profit that built the garage in 2004using debt financing, and currently has debt

outstanding of more than 25 million. historically, that bond debt expense has exceeded over 50% of their revenues, with the remaining expenses to cover the expense of the garage. the lease between the department and m.c.c.p., that was adopted at the time, provides rates cannot go below an amount sufficient to maintain debt payments and maintain certain reserves. the commission requires that any changes to the rates of the m.c.c.p. garage would have to be approved by the music concourse community partnership as well to ensure debt coverage. please note that the mayor's office has submitted an amendment to remove general paid parking at the marina from this legislation as we need to conduct further outreach at that site. but we are still proposing to increase the rate for annual berth holder

parking passes. they will continue to receive two free parking passes, but the annual rate increases from 156, to $600, which is comparable to other marinas in the area. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> chair: thank you so much, ms. ketchum. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, nick bernard from the b.l.a. we do not have a report on this item. >> chair: i know that vice chair safai, did you have something you wanted to add or say on this? >> yes, thank you, chair. simply, supervisor chan has reached out to me and asked if we could duplicate the file? >> chair: sure. before we do that, can we take public comment on this item. >> clerk: yes,

mr. chair. d.p. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. any members who wish to provide public comment, please press *3. are there any callers who wish to comment on this item? >> there are five callers. >> clerk: thank you. please unmute the first caller. >> good morning, members of the committee. my name is parker day, and i'm calling in to ask for your full support for this ordinance. and hopefully management under sfmta control. it is pretty clear that the current pricing management does not work for many people. there are conflict of interests with how the pricing is set, and the rates. an indicator that we could be doing a better job managing this public investment. it is obvious that the

garage has the ability to increase the parking and provide parking for employees. [inaudible] managing pricing would be a step towards removing or reducing conflicts over management of the garage. i think it would be a step forward to finally making sure that the garage lived up to the intentions of serving our park patrons. garage pricing and management (indiscernable) in golden gate park as well. but with the current fragmented administration and out of sfmta's control, we rely on the government's influence to act beyond the museum's interest. so passing this ordinance today allows sfmta some

control, and the transportation plans for golden gate park can become a little less fragmented, and in the endmore people will have access to the park. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: i oppose this legislation. [yelling] >> caller: these increased parking spies fees area conspiracy! >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is dave alexander. i live in direct 1, and i fully support this ordinance. i want to thank the mayor's office for introducing this ordinance and legislation. it's long overdue that sfmta take over pricing,

and eventually the management of this very important garage on public land. that's the music concourse garage in golden gate park. in 1998, voters approved the garage as part of prop "j," in exchange for creating a pedestrian oasis. the pandemic has showed us how good that oasis could be. we have the opportunity to uphold the prop "k" by making eighth avenue an entrance to the park. if you've never checked out the garage, check it out. it is actually amazing. i recommend you hop on a bike and check it out. the sfmta can put the garage to its best use on public land, including lower parking rates, and affordable parking for police. the board has been governed by using trustees and contractors for the

entire existence. today six of the seven garage floor members are from the two museums. three years into the garage's life under the governance of the board chairs, $4 million was embezzled by the garage c.f.o. he was put in jail, but left an ever-increasing debt and increased parking rates for garage visitors. the garage only averages 20% occupancy. in a 2019 rec and park study, they found only 50% capacity over the busiest parts of the day. this conflict of interest has never been disclosed in the i.r.s. filings. we must end this conflict of interest and get this garage out of their control. next, let's get this garage fully into m.t.a.'s control. >> the time has lapsed. >> clerk: thank you for your comments.

next speaker, please. >> caller: my name is josh kelley. i'm calling in from district 4. i'm happy to voice my 100% support for this ordinance, and echo what some of the other callers have said, that this taking over pricing should be the first step to sfmta fully managing these garages. this is public land. the garage is clearly being mismanaged between the embezzlement and the low capacity rate. i think it could be a lot better utilized to increase a.d.a. access. so, yeah, i'm in full support. them so much for putting this forward. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is jody mendarese, and i'm the main director

of walk san francisco, which we advocate on behalf of anyone who walks in our city. yesterday the full board of supervisors unanimously approved a resolution for a bay to beach community route. thank you to all of you for voting in support of this resolution. the ability for the sfmta to set dynamic parking rates, especially in the music concourse garage, will get us closer to our call of an inviting destination for all. we believe the 800 park garage is a viable solution in making golden gate park is more equitable space. having the flexibility to lower rates for zip codes with historically low income and underserved residents, especially for children and their families from the bay view, chinatown, o.m.i., imitation valley -- they should all be able to easily come and enjoy the park, and all of the glory the park has to offer.

thank you for voting yesterday to move forward with these changes and for voting today to make these edits to the park code so we can all move forward with a safe and accessible golden gate park. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> caller: hi. my name is jay bain. i'm a resident of district 1. i'm calling in to voice my support of this measure and legislation. and i also wanted to say that i agree that it is extremely important that the operations of the garage work as hard as possible to pay off the bond and the money owed for the construction of the garage, and also that we minimize vacant spaces in the garage as well. there is a framework for capturing capacity data or

available space data called the parking data guide published by sfmta in the city. while we also adjust parking, i ask that the available spaces at any given time are available on line and on the sign out front so that people coming to the garage know how many spaces are available and the likelihood of them being able to park there. thank you so much. it is an important part of our tool kit in making sure -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. my name is shay -- hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: hello. my name is shahin, and i live in district 7.

i'm calling in support of the item to put pricing under control, pricing and management to public parking as a component of our public transportation system. and it should be managed by the agency accountable for public transportation. better management is needed. thank you for putting this forward. please pass this ordinance today. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> caller: hi, this is lisa church. i'm a resident of district 3. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. i fully support sfmta having the ability to dynamic pricing on all of these spaces, including the berth parking increase that was mentioned as an amendment. what i wanted to bring up was included in previous comments, which i thought were great. so i'm not going to repeat that, other than to say i believe sfmta is the best

organization to serve in this role, especially in line with some of the other ongoing positive changes we're making to make this city more accessible to people not in private vehicles. fully utilizing, in particular, the music concourse garage will actually help make all other forms of getting around, whether it is on muni, on paratransit, walking, biking, whatever, much more accessible to people in the city. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: thank you, supervisors haney, mar, and safai. i'm one of the leader organizers of kids safe s.f. i want to thank the mayor for putting this ordinance forward, and encourage you all to pass the ordinance

unanimously. it is long overdue for sfmta to take over pricing and management of this garage. in 1998, voters approved the prop "k." the pandemic has showed us how good that pedestrian oasis could be. we have the opportunity to uphold the premise of prop "k" by keeping s.f. kid-safe. and directing car parking and dropoff to the giant, underutilized garage. the m.t.a. can put the garage to best use, including providing ample a.d.a. parking and affordable parking for employees. unfortunately, the garage has been governed by trustees and contractors. six of the seven garage board members are from these two museums. three years into the garage's life, under the governance of the deyoung and chair, $4 million was

embezzled by the garage's c.f.o. he was put in jail, but it led to increasing debt and increasing parking rates. the garage only averages 28% occupancy. they found it barely 50% capacity on the busiest days on weekdays. it owes more than $2.5 million in loans. this conflict of interest has never been disclosed on their i.r.s. filings. we must end this conflict of interest and get this garage out of their control. today is step one. please allow m.t.a. to set pricing, and let's get this garage fully out of m.t.a. control so we can best serve the public. >> clerk: thank you for

your comments. are there any other speakers in the queue. >> we have one more speaker in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. to the callers who have dialed in and would like to comment on item 1, please press *3 now. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. mike chen, district 2 resident, calling in support of the legislation. the garage seems to be underutilized, and allowing m.t.a. to set the rates would allow better access to all people, including folks who are disabled, and to have more accessible parking. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other speakers in the queue? >> there are no more speakers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair: all right. public comment is now closed. colleagues, any other comments or questions? i know there was -- do we

have to make a motion to duplicate the file? >> no. >> clerk: you do not. >> chair: you do not. okay. all right. well, then i want to duplicate the file and i also want to make a motion to move item 1 to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote, please? >> clerk: yes. on that motion: [roll call taken] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: great. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you to ms. ketchum and everybody who called in. madam clerk, can you please call item 2. >> clerk: mr. chair, before we do that, we need to take action on the duplicate version of this ordinance. just to continue the

matter -- >> mr. chair, i think we just want to have it continued to the call of the chair and committee. and supervisor chan will follow up with this committee. >> chair: okay. great. i want to continue that item to the call of the chair. >> clerk: on that motion to continue the duplicate version to the call of the chair: [roll call taken] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: great. thank you. we continue the call of the chair, madam clerk, can you please call item 2. >> clerk: item 2: resolution approving a professional services agreement between s.p. park corporation for a three-year term with one-two-year option (indiscernable) to commence on november 1st, 2021, through october 21, 2024.

members of the public who wish to provide public comment, call 415-655-0001. if you have not already done so, dial *3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. mr. chair? >> chair: great. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. the airport is seeking your approval of the curbside management for a term of three years with one-two-year option to extend. it manages and coordinates commercial ground transportation operations at s.f.o. the contracted firm monitors and dispatches taxi services, monitors curbside limousine, and monitors the shared ride and limousines. they are contracting with

s.f. parking a 100% latino-owned company for administrative services provided in this contract. the airport is in agreement with the b.l.a.'s recommendation to reduce the contract not to exceed amount by $600,000, for a total not to exceed $20,100,000. the amendments were provided to this committee for your review. the contract is funded by fees charged to ground transportation providers. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have, along with my colleagues from the inside operations. >> chair: great. thank you. could you clarify a bit what exactly the services are that -- a $20 million contract is a large contract. what exactly is their role. >> i would like to call on my colleagues to further talk about those services.

>> chair: welcome. >> hi, this is daniel wu from the san francisco international airport. i can speak to the services. so the services provided by the contractor will be for curbside management at the terminal curbside for the transportation modes that dianna has just specified. the limousine, the transportation companies, and the taxi modes, as well as the operation of the staging lanes towards those vehicles, while they wait prior to their dispatching to the terminal curbside. we have five staging laws. a few four taxis, a few for the t.n.c. modes. so there are staff at the staging laws who have a dispatching of those vehicles to the terminal

curbsides. >> chair: got it. and what is the -- you said that this is paid for by charging the ground transportation companies. what does that fee structure look like? are they, you know -- who pays and how much? >> correct. so right now our fiscal year '21/'22 fees for each trip made by the modes are 450 for t.n.c. vehicles -- i'm sorry, i misspoke, 550 for t.n.c., limousines, and taxi vehicles for each trip they make to the san francisco airport. >> chair: so you charge each individual driver, not the sort of companies themselves? is that how it works? >> so we charge the -- the amount goes to the

t.n.c.s for the t.n.c. rides, and also to the limousine, and for the taxis. and those fees are subtracted out of the revenue collected by the individual operators. >> chair: okay. got it. and we charge taxis the same amount that we charge ride share? >> yes. >> chair: why? >> perhaps abu, would you like to explain that a little more? >> sure. supervisors, taxis get charged only for pickups, and transportation companies get charged for dropoffs and pickups. and this works on a cross-recovery model. the airport takes all of the costs of ground transportation, including roadway costs, maintenance costs, staffing costs, and that goes into a model where it is divided up between the ground transportation modes that operate at the airport.

each specific mode has a percentage that is allocated from that pool of money, saying this is how much you used our system, and that's how the trip fees are calculated at a cost recovery model. >> chair: it's a cost recovery model, except we're charging the ride shares twice and the taxicabs once. is there a difference in costs that they -- is there -- how does that reflect itself in a cost recovery model if -- is it more expensive for us to support the operations of the ride shares? >> yes. ride shares, charters, and vans, those type of vehicles are regulated by the california public utilities commission. they set the rates for these vehicles, and we collect for -- for

c.u.p.c., we collect for dropoffs and pickups. taxis are regulated by the san francisco sfmta. there is a regular rate for the taxis. and taxi drivers who decide to come and pick somebody up -- first of all, only s.f. taxis are allowed to come. when we have a shortage, we allow others to participate. each driver that participate in the program, they get charged we tha go up to the curb to pick somebody up. the reason we don't charge for dropoffs is because taxis come from all different jurisdictions, not only from san francisco. and they drop off as well. so we don't charge san francisco taxis because that would be a disadvantage to the san francisco taxis. no taxi company that

operates from different municipalities get charged for dropoffs. and the only ones that get charged for pickups, and that is the san francisco taxis. we have staff monitoring them and staff dispatching them. this contract does the monitoring, the dispatching, and coordination of rides for passengers requesting a taxi. >> chair: so the role of this company is -- if you're coming out of the airport and you're going to get a taxi or ride share, they are the ones who are standing there at the taxi line and making sure that the taxi is coming, and making sure you know where to go and all of that? they're providing those services? and on the other hand, with the ride share, there is sort of a whole other process where you have to go to get the ride share. i don't know if you have to get a bus or go to a

certain part of the parking lot where you get the ride share. and then they're operating all of that? are they the ones helping to transport people to get the ride share? what is the specific role that they're playing with it comes to ride shares and taxis. i'm a little confused. >> for ride shares, this particular contractor monitors the staging lots where the ride-share companies stage their vehicles. we have currently one staging lot open. but during the peak, before covid, before the pandemic, we had three separate lots open for ride-share companies to stage. these vehicles stage in that lot, and the staff there monitors the lot to make sure there are no disruptions, and there is customer service provided for the drivers that are waiting. if they have any questions, we provide facilities for them, such as restrooms and things like that. and then once the vehicles are dispatched, they're automatically dispatched by the transportation

network companies through the application. so once they're dispatched, they go to level 5 of our garage in the domestic terminal. that's where we've done extensive roadway work for them to create a zone for pickup. and so all of that money that was spent goes into the cost recovery because this is a ground transportation service and is spread around through the different modes of transportation that operate here. >> chair: just so i'm clear on the cost here that we're charging them, so for our -- for the taxis, the sfmta is actually setting the level that they can be charged? that then is given to the airport, and then in the case of the ride share, the c.u.p.c. is setting the level they can be charged at our airport and

then the money goes to us? do we have any say in the level that they're charged? i just think our taxi industry is struggling, and one of the only spaces that they have where they have some consistency in their business is off in the airport dropoffs and pickups. i think we should be support them and not putting a ton of fees and things on them and putting them at a disadvantage. what is our role in settling those fees? or is it entirely done by the sfmta? >> let me clarify. the m.t.a. does not regulate the ground fees, including taxis. the fee is set by the airport. the taxis have an advantage because they're only being charged for pickups. and they 100% pass through

that to the customer. so the taxi driver is not paying anything. they're not paying anything to the system besides that it comes out of their account, but then they get reimbursed by the customer. so that is already zero. as far as t.n.c., transportation network companies, or any other regulated mode, it is up to that company if they want to pass that cost on to the customer or not. for sfmta, we have allowed the taxis -- the m.t.a. has allowed the taxis to pass on 100% of the cost to the customer. >> chair: got it. okay. i understand that it doesn't have a cost directly to the driver of the taxi, although if they're passing it on to the customer, you know, it could create a situation where the taxi is as expensive, or more expensive in some cases, than the ride share.

i wonder if there are ways to give them an even greater advantage here so they can keep their costs lower and, you know, and i wonder if these fees are helpful with that? i realize that is not exactly what we're voting on here. we're voting on a contract to support the administration of these folks, so this is, in some ways, a different conversation that i would like to continue at some point. supervisor mar? >> thank you, chair haney. i just have some questions about the workforce and labor issues with this. so this will be a new -- there will be a new contractor taking over this work, it looks like in the fall or early november. and it looks like there might be, like, 40 to 50 employees with the current contractor doing the work.

so i just wanted to see what the plan is around retention of the jobs for those current employees with the current contractor when the contract changes over in november. and then it looks like there is a projection of increased -- or some hiring or expansion of the workforce for this contract over the coming three years. so what -- yeah, what provisions are there for the workers that have been laid off to be able to offer access to those jobs? >> supervisor mar, let me take a stab at answering that. we have a 90-day retention policy. so the employees that are here will are retained for 90 days by the new company. they will do their own background checks for the 90-day period. and then the employees that were laid off, they are on a list. and that is the list that the new employer will tap

first to see when they do any kind of new hiring. if those employees are not available or they're saying they don't want to work for this company, then the new employer will be able to insurer other higher otherstaff that are not f the list. the company that is leaving and the company that is taking over negotiated with the same union, so these employees are part of the same union. so there is a lot of protection built in for the employees that are here. >> chair: great. thank you for that explanation. i understand. thank you. it all sounds good. thank you, chair haney. >> chair: thank you. i know there is a b.l.a. report on this item. >> nick manard. good morning, committee members. so this proposed resolution would approve a new contract between the airport and s.p. plus to staff the airport's

curbside management program. the proposed contract has an initial three-year term through october 2024. the total projected caught for the services provided by this contract is $20.1 million funded by ground transportation provider fees. we recommend a $600,000 reduction in the resolution not to exceed amount from $20.7 million to $20.1 million. we recommend approval of the resolution as amended. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair: great. i know we have an amendment that we'll move in a minute. but is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: d.p.is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. for those already on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have

been unmuted. are there any callers who wish to comment on item 2? >> you have two callers. >> clerk: thank you. please unmute the first caller. welcome, caller. >> good morning. in my 20 years of watching this, i've never seen a longer airport contract. through the public health examination, and considering the amount of international travel, this contract will lead to more circulation (indiscernable). >> clerk: thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning. thank you for your service and the opportunity to speak this morning. my name is patty, and i'm the owner of s.f. parking l.l.c., a latino-owned parking company.

i'm excited and honored to be serving as a subcontractor on the curbside management contract program. over the last decade, it has enabled my company to grow. it has allowed me to not only provide amazing union jobs for my community, but has been there when needed beyond the scope of work relationship. for instance, when the mission food hub needed us to pack food items at the onset of the pandemic, s.b. parking immediately jumped in and existed. it is an example of the program working and how in collaboration we were serve our community in many capacities. it is truly an honor for me and my company to be able to serve s.f.o. and represent our great city, where i grew up and continue to live with my family. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other callers in the queue? >> there are no more callers. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair: great. public comment is now

closed. supervisor safai? >> thank you, mr. chair. my question to the airport is: what is the size of the subcontract? i'm happy to hear about the subcontract along with the local l.b., and i'm really happy to hear that this company has been able to mentor her business and help it grow and then help to establish local union-paying jobs. but what's the size of the subcontract out of this? i was reading through the contract and i didn't see what size it is designated as. >> i can answer that question, supervisors. so the subcontract would be as dianna mentioned, for the administrative staff. so roughly 5%. >> so 5%. and what are the retention

policies of the subcontract? it sounds like they have a long relationship, so i'm not as worried about it in this instance, but i just want to know what provisions of retention do you have for the subcontractor? at times primes will get to the point where they say they have met their needs, they don't need the subcontractor anymore, and they're able to let subcontractors go and perform the work themselves or no longer perform the work. can you talk a little bit about that in terms of the subcontract protections that are written into the contract? either you or dianna. >> dianna, would you have any input to this? >> well, the 90-day retention policy is there. so the employees that are there are not going to be laid off for 90 days for sure. as far as protecting the subcontractor, that is an agreement between the prime and the sub.

we basically provide the contracting mechanism to contract with the prime, and if there is a sub they decided to use as an administrative support contract for that part. we don't retain any controls over it, as far as i know. >> i know when we worked on other contracts with the p.u.c. and other entities, they have a certain amount of time that they have to notify the subcontractor if their services are no longer required, to allow the subcontractor to either appeal or to work with the agency to ensure. so there are usually provisions written into the contract to protect the subcontractors so that they're not just hired on a short-term basis to win the awarded contract and then let the subcontractors go. >> i'm personally not aware of any such provision in our existing contract. if cynthia is on the line,

perhaps she can share. >> she isn't, but, supervisor, we're happy to followup on that information and see if that is part of the contract and get that information to you. >> this contractor did not have this contract before? they were the one that responded? but it sounds like they have done work at the airport before in some other areas. what are some of the areas that other contractors have done work at the airport. >> there has been a subcontractor managing the s.f.o. airport garages. >> so this is the first time they're getting into the curbside management. who was the vendor before? >> a.b.m. and p.p.m. it was a joint collaboration between pacific park

management and a.b.m.. and they were here for almost a decade. >> did they apply again? >> they did. but they were not successful in this current round. >> got it. got it. it would be good, dianna, for this committee to know, one of the things we care about -- obviously we care a lot about the l.b.e. program, ensuring that local vendors are protected, what kind of provisions are written into your contract to ensure that. i'm prepared to support this today, but definitely want to know that those provisions are in there going forward. and if you could follow up with our team, that would be great. >> will do, supervisor. and we'll also follow up with supervisor haney in terms of his questions regarding our taxi rates and charges. >> thank you. i appreciate that. we've got to take care of our taxi industry. they're having a tough time, and i think the

airport is really essential for them. >> chair: all right. with that, i want to make a motion to accept the b.l.a.'s recommendation to amend this item. can we have a roll call vote on the amendment, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion: [roll call taken] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: great. i want to make a motion to move item 2 as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes, on that motion: [roll call taken] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: great. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> chair: thank you. madam clerk, can you please call item 3. >> clerk: yes. item 3 -- >> chair, i'm sorry. before you call item 3, i

think if it's okay with you, we can rescind the vote on item 1. rec and park has some amendments they weren't able to get in. it is up to you if you want to wait and do item 3first and then come back to it. i wanted to alert you they have some amendments they need to make to item 1. >> chair: let's come back to that after item 3. >> clerk: item 3: resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept an in kind grant of up to $200,000 from t. f. studio for design services (indiscernable) for a project term beginning upon the approval by the board of supervisors, and until the notice of substantial completion. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 24855346023 and then press pound twice.

and then dial *3 to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair: great. thank you. and we have... >> good afternoon. i'm abigail mare with the recreation and park department. and i am sharing my screen just to show you a quick presentation about this in-kind donation for filmore park renovation project. this is an in-kind donation of $200,000 for design services. located in the western addition neighborhood on filmore street, between turk street and golden gate avenue, it is nestled by a three story landmark brick building to the north, a three story private housing building to the east, and a one-story restaurant parking lot to the south.

a small stage is at the central area that is surrounded by benches and game tables, which encourages neighborhood gatherings, sitting, and picnicking. it includes new community leadership foundation, san francisco beautiful, and t.s. studio. [inaudible] >> the new community leadership foundation, they, you know, of course allow the use of the park a lot, however, the park does suffer from some poor drainage and could really use some upgraded seating and park amenities. so they partnered with s.f. beautiful and went through a community design process. and then they applied for

and were awarded a community opportunity fund grant, which is a program of the 2012 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond. and these photos show the existing site. the existing lawn, often muddy and inconsistent, keeps park users from gathering informally. and the existing landscape does not provide a sense of peace and relaxation. t.s. studio has offered pro bono design services to do new landscaping, drainage, and seating within the park. i would like to thank our partners on this project, and if anyone would like additional project information, please consider visiting our s.f. park project page for the renovation. that concludes my presentation. and please let me know if

you have any questions. thank you. >> chair: great. it looks wonderful and exciting. colleagues, any question or comments? not seeing any. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> no, chair haney, we do not have a b.l.a. report on this item. >> chair: is there any public comment on this item. >> clerk: d.p. is checking if there are any callers in the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any callers who wish to comment on item 3? >> there are no callers. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair: great. public comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to move item 3 to the full border with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call, please? >> i put my name in the

queue. i don't see to be recognized that way, so i just waved my hand -- just kidding. i only have one question for rec and park: when will the trees at the mini park grow as big as they are in the photographs? >> oh, that's a good question. [laughter] >> think some of the trees in these renderings are some of the trees that are there. and then we'll probably plant smaller trees and they'll grow over time. >> okay. good. i hope you -- i hope you have some flowering trees so we can get some cherry blossoms or something that is going to bring some nice, good energy to that mini park. i know it very well. i started my career one block away from it and continued my career there. so it is a very important mini park to me personally.

thank you, chair haney, for making that park a priority. and thank you for all of the families and children in that neighborhood. >> thank you, supervisor safai. that is great to hear. i will definitely share your comments and input with the project team. >> thank you. >> you see why i hesitate before calling on you, vice chair safai -- i'm just kidding. i agree, bigger trees, flowering trees, the renderings look amazing. so we will -- can we take that motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion: [roll call taken] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: great. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you so much. all right, can we return to item 1, please?

>> clerk: yes, mr. chair, would you like me to read item 1 for transparency? >> chair: yes. >> clerk: ordinance authorizing the municipal transportation agency to set parking rates at the key parking lot, the golden gate underground parking facility and marina harbor, provision to authorize sfmta, making confirming edits, increasing parking rates for the marina, small craft harbor (indiscernable) under the california environmental quality act. public comment has already been provided on this item. mr. chair? >> chair: great. just to be clear, i -- are -- de

amendments to the version that we sent to the full board? >> to clarify, the version we submitted this morning has some non-significant amendments that were moved, charging for public parking at the arena, from the original version that was submitted to you because we wanted to do more outreach with the marina. so that is the change. so my understanding is that we needed you to specifically approve that amended version submitted by the mayor's office. and that we just missed doing that in the first go-round. >> chair: got it. okay. are those amendments clear? i guess first we have to -- i want to make a motion to rescind the vote. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on that

motion: [roll call taken] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: all right. and now do we have our city attorney here? are those amendments clear, what we're adding to this? >> yes, deputy city attorney ann pearson. the legislation had originally proposed to make some changes with respect to the parking fees at the marina. they're proposing to remove the changes that were part of the original legislation to restore the status quo while they consider what amendments, if any, to make to those fees. did i get that right, ms. ketchum? >> there are currently no fees to park at the marina. the original proposal included adding fees for public parking at the marina. that part has been delete

pending public outreach. we're still asking to increase the fee for annual berth holder parking at the marina, but the changes that were given to the clerk delete the sections that would have added general public parking at the arena. and that is the only change, per the city attorneys. >> chair: all right. i want to move those changes. give me a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: for clarification, would you like to amend both the original version and the duplicated version or just the original version? [please stand by]

>> supervisor haney: great. thank you. welcome, adult protection department. >> thank you, president haney. this resolution is to retroactively extend a contract

term with northpointe. this amendment language was forwarded to your offices yesterday, and i'm happy to read it for the record right now. so resolution, the amendment that -- that we are proposing that we need to make and hope that you could approve to the resolution is as follows. resolution retroactively approving a fifth amendment to the agreement between the adult protection department and northpointe software, inc. for maintenance and support of the correctional offender management profiling for alternative sanctions system, to extend the performance period by 12 months for a total term of 11 years from march 7,

2011, through march 7, 2022, with no change to the total amount not to exceed $752,488. the amendment doesn't change the total amount of the contract. and i understand that -- excuse me, introducing this amendment requires the item to be continued for a later meeting, and at that point, i'll be happy to introduce the matter of the contract, and if you'd like, i'm happy to do so now. >> chair haney: thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> chair haney, we are still

working on the report on this item. we will have it ready to present next week. >> operator: there are no callers willing to comment. >> chair haney: all right. public comment is now closed. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yes, thank you, mr. chair. i know this item will be continued, but it would be good to have someone that can come and answer questions that actually manages the performance of this contract, what it does, and the evaluation. i have a series of questions with regard to the algorithm, how it affects bipoc

communities, and how bias is implicit in how this particular contract is utilized, so if you could have someone from your team prepared next week, we have a series of questions that we want to get on the record with regards to this particular software management tool. >> absolutely. we'll be here with the right team members to respond to any questions you may have. >> supervisor safai: and then just quickly, even though i know we're going to be here next week, but why is this retroactively? this is the fifth amendment to this contract? >> right. honestly, we had every intention to get this item approved through the right channels and on time, but we had to do a number of reviews by the department of

technology, department of o.c.a., office of contract administration, and all the channels that it needed to go through, so that took a considerable amount of time, and i hate to just say this, but we are very thoroughly understaffed in my unit of finance and contracts, so it just takes longer to do everything, so it took us this long. and then, we got the whole packet submitted just before the board went on summer recess, which i know was already late. >> supervisor safai: if there's a problem with the department of technology, we need to try to anticipate that because otherwise, you're doing the work out the approval of this body, and it causes some

issues, particularly for our approve authority. >> absolutely. i understand. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. we'll talk about it next week. >> yes. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. >> chair haney: so i want to make a motion to accept the amendment. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes, sir. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: okay. great. and i want to make a motion to continue this item to september 29 as amended to the budget and finance committee meeting. can we have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. we'll see you next week, miss

martinez. madam clerk, can you please call item 5? >> clerk: yes. item 5 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the office of the district attorney to accept and expend a grant in the amount of 914,000 from the california department of insurance for the worker's compensation assurance fraud program for the grant period of july 1, 2021 through june 30, 2022. members of the public wishing to make public comment dial 415-554-0001, meeting i.d. 2485-534-6023, pound, pound. if you wish to make public comment, press star, three to

enter the queue and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before you begin your comment. >> thank you. chair haney, supriya [inaudible] and we are asking for this amount to [inaudible]. >> chair haney: okay. is there a b.l.a. report? >> there is no report from our office. >> chair haney: sorry. not seeing any questions or comments. is there any public comment? >> clerk: yes, mr. hear, d.t. is checking to see if there are any caller in the queue. members of the public who wish

to make public comment, press star, three to enter the queue. >> operator: threw no callers. >> chair haney: yes, and did you give any explanation for why it's retroactive? >> yes. it's actually part of the regular budgeting process and it doesn't require a separate process, however, as part of the grant making requirement does require the separate resolution, and we don't receive confirmation of the grant amount until typically this period in the fall, and then we have the resolution.

>> chair haney: all right. okay. i want to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. it will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, can you please call item 6? >> clerk: yes. item 6, ordinance retroactively authorizing the office of cannabis to accept and expand a grant award in the amount of 1 million from the board of state and community correction for the proposition 64 public health and safety grand program for a term of may 1, 2021 through october 31, 2024 and amending ordinance number 1 ##

-- 166-20. members of the public who wish to enter public comment, call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2485-534-6023, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to end the queue and wait until the system prompt indicates you have been unmuted. >> chair haney: okay. thank you. >> thank you for your time. [inaudible] the purpose of the legislation before you is to fund projects addressing public health and safety associated with the implementation of the control regulate and tax adult use of marijuana act. the grant term is may 1, 2021 through october 31, 2024, an

award amount of $1 million for three years. programs include facilitating an educational campaign [inaudible] additionally, funds will be used to create a new position, an 1823 senior administrative analyst to be completely funded by the grant and terminate at the end of the grant term. they will oversee complex matters in the cannabis space, including on-site inspections for permanent operators and following up regarding cannabis complaints. thank you again and i'd be happy to address any questions. >> chair haney: great. thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> no, chair haney. we do not have a report on the item. >> chair haney: is there any

public comment on this item? >> clerk: d.t. is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. for those who have already done so, please star, three to enter the queue. if you have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before you begin your comments. >> operator: there are no callers. >> chair haney: public comment is now closed. not seeing any other questions or comments. i want to make a motion to move this item forward with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you so much for your time, mr. short. madam clerk, can you call items

7 through 9 together? >> clerk: yes. item 7 is resolution approving for purposes of internal revenue code section 147-f, the issuance and sale of revenue obligations by the california enterprise development authority in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 17 million to finance the acquisition and renovation of educational and related facilities to be owned and operated by chinese american international school. item 8 is a resolution approving for purposes of internal revenue code the issuance of tax exempt obligations in an amount not to exceed 35 million for the

purpose of financing the abri significance, construction, renovation, equipping and furnishing of senior residential and care services. item 9 is resolution approving for purposes of internal revenue code the issuance and sale of revenue ablgss in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 9 million to finance and refinance the acquisition, construction, renovation, rehabilitation, improvement and/or equipping of educational and related facilities to be owned and operated by presidio hill school. >> chair haney: thank you. and we have [inaudible] with us. >> good morning, supervisors, chair haney. i apologize i was not able to

[inaudible] my name is [inaudible] describe each of the proposed financing, the terms. representatives from each of the nonprofits are also available. if there are questions, they can speak more in detail about their organizations if needed. [inaudible] by nonprofit organizations through joint powers authority. these resolutions [inaudible] federal tax law requires that the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the project is located approve the financing of the project after providing an opportunity for a duly noted public hearing before the bond can be issued on a tax exempt basis. the jurisdiction, which of course is the city and county of san francisco is not obligated for payment on the biopsied. the first resolution before you is for chinese american international school or cais,

which is a federal 501-c-3 organization. the debt will be issued through california joint debt authority. this hearing was published on the city noticed website on august 18, 2021, and public hearing was healed by the [inaudible] on august 30 [inaudible] proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be a total amount not to exceed 17 million [inaudible]. some background on the

borrowers. cais opened in 1981 in the basement of a downtown building and has [inaudible] a faculty of 80 and a staff of 27. as a dual language emergent school, it seeks to build white powder -- build upon a -- the stated core values, and the legislation is being sponsored by supervisor melgar. approval of the legislation [inaudible] to the city and county of san francisco. the second resolution before you is for [inaudible] also known as san francisco home for jewish leaving [inaudible]

hearing notice is published on the city's website on august 6, and a public hearing was held on august 16. no comments were received through the public hearing process. the proceeds from the sale of these bonds will total 35 million [inaudible] in connection with the provision of senior residential and care services. the project is located at 302 silver avenue in san francisco. the owner and operator of all capital improvements to be financed with the bonds will be [inaudible] doing business as jewish home of san francisco. per its website, apologize for the background noise, jewish home of san francisco traces its roots to 1871 when the business was organized to establish a home for orphaned

children. over the years it has expanded to provide high quality care and services for its residents [inaudible] this project is located in district 11, and that legislation is being sponsored by supervisor safai. [inaudible] approval of this legislation will have no physical impact to the city and county of san francisco. the third resolution is [inaudible] this debt will also be issued through c-debt, the california enterprise debt authority. the information was published on the web [inaudible] via teleconference on august 19. no comment from any members of the public were heard or

received through this hearing process either. proceeds from the sale of these obligations will be [inaudible] in a total amount not to exceed $9 million to refinance a 2014 tax exempt bond [inaudible] located at 3839 washington street in san francisc [inaudible] of additional educational facilities through 3839 washington street and san francisco [inaudible] it was established in 1918 as the oldest of record school in california. in keeping with the heritage, presidio hill continues to offer students a challenging curriculum, and the school

instructs students to be critical problem solvers with a commitment to the whole child. the school has an enrollment of 220 students in grades k through 8 on their website. approval of the legislation will have no physical impact to the city and county, with that i'll end and take any questions you may have about these resolutions, skm as i mentioned, representatives -- and as i mentioned, representatives are here from the three institutions, as well. >> chair haney: thank you for that detail. supervisor safai, do you want to be heard of your district? [inaudible] >> chair haney: okay. somebody needs to mute.

>> this is sfgovtv. i believe you are unmuted. >> chair haney: i was able to mute them. i actually have super powers. >> that actually muted the p.c. line, and we'll have to rebridge. if you could give us a moment, we need to fix it. hold on. >> chair haney: okay. >> clerk: would you like to take a two-minute recess? >> yes. could we take a two-minute recess to reestablish the

bridge line? >> chair haney: and could >> chair haney: welcome back to the budget and finance committee meeting. madam clerk, do we need to call the items again or can we just continue? >> clerk: we do not need to call the items again. >> chair haney: okay. because that could take ten minutes to call them alone. do we have any public comment. >> clerk: yes.

members of the public who wish to make public comment, dial star, three to enter the queue. >> chair haney: seeing no public comment, i'm going to close public comment and make a motion to move the items to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you for that, and i have learned my

lesson to never mute that item. madam clerk, call item 10. >> clerk: yes. item 10 is a resolution leveeing property taxes at a combined rate of 1.18 cents on each $100 valuation of taxable property for the city and county of san francisco, san francisco unified school district, san francisco county office of education, san francisco community college district, bay area rapid transit district, and bay area air quality management district, and establishing a pass through rate of.07 sents per 100 of assessed value for residential tenants pursuant to administrative code chapter 37 for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2022. members of the public who wish to make public comment dial

415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2485-534-6023, then press pound and pound again. then press star, three to enter the queue and you may begin your comments when the system indicates you have been unmuted. >> chair haney: thank you. and i believe i see my colleague, jamie [inaudible]. >> yes. the property tax rate, the secured property tax rate will be applied to about 210,000 real properties assessed values as determined by the assessor-recorder and will be -- this rate will be applied to those values to produce property tax bills in the

treasurer and tax collector's office in about a month. the 1% portion of the tax rate is set by prop 13, the california voters approved in june. the .114% is san francisco voters general obligation bond tax rate factors. that raises the [inaudible] on general obligation bonds approved by san francisco voters, and the remainder is for voter approved general obligation bonds approved by voters issued by the school district, college district, and b.a.r.t. for a comparison year over year, i used the median taxable

value of a single-family home in san francisco, $628,289. this is just for the ad valorem project tax. there are also typically parcel taxes or direct charges that are on the property tax bill, and those are extra. that is it for my presentation. i'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> chair haney: great. thank you. appreciate the information on this. is there a b.l.a. report on

this item? >> yes. as mr. whitaker just mentioned, we do show the change in property tax rates on page 9 of our report, and we recommend approval. >> chair haney: great. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair haney. i just had a question just to try to understand this a little bit better. so the proposed -- it looks like it's about a 1.3% decrease in property tax rate from the prior year, and that's really based on the debt service -- my question is, where's that really sort of 1.3% decrease

come from? >> sort of a combination -- thank you for the question, supervisor mar. it's a combination of the assessed secured value and the assessment role is, so it grew about 4% year over year, and also how much do we owe, what do we owe the investors that bought the general obligation bonds from the various taxing entities, and it turned out that the growth and the assessed values, the tax rate, what we need to charge to cover the debt service, the rate is a little bit less than it was last year. but there's two values: the assessed value and how much we owe -- what we need to generate from property owners. >> supervisor mar: got it.

and then i don't know if there's a raw estimate if how much that 1.3% reduction represents in total with property tax collection in the city? >> well, i would say that the rate itself is what the reduction is. the total being collected is going up, and i believe that's $1.3 billion, and that's for all counties, not just the city and county of san francisco. i want to say that last year, it was probably in the neighborhood of $3.2 or $3.3 billion, but i believe what we're collecting overall is increasing as the assessed value went up year over year, if that helps. >> supervisor mar: yes.

thank you. thanks, chair haney. >> chair haney: for sure. thank you. i don't see any other questions or comments. can you open this item for public comments, please. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, please press star, three to be entered into the queue. for those already in the queue, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. mr. cooley, please indicate if there are any callers wishing to comment on item 10. >> operator: there are no callers. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. thank you so much, mr. whitaker. appreciate it. i want to make a motion to move item 10 to the full board with a positive recommendation. may i have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you. appreciate it, and thank you

for being here for your work, mr. whitaker. >> yes. >> chair haney: madam clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> chair haney: great. if there's no further business, this meeting's adjourned. thank you.

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love.

like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and

there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally.

[ ♪♪♪ ]

this is the regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure for tuesday, september 21, 2021. i'd like to welcome members of the public who are streaming or listening, and staff and other commissioners will be participating in today's meeting. following the guidelines set forth by local officials, members of the commission are meeting remotely to ensure the safety of everyone, including members of the public. thank you, all for joining us this afternoon. madame secretary, please call the first item. >> the first order of business is item 1, roll call. commission members, please respond. >> commissioner bycer: here. >> commissioner ransom-scott: here.