andissues i have withthis lease agreement and i think they have not been resolved . however though , with the nonresident the ordinance i really appreciate supervisor mar for making sure we have additional support to the veterans especially during this pandemic in terms of green space and i really am very supportive of that amendments. i would urge you to allow me the opportunity to really work with the department and work with the mayor to think about the language that meets the needs for managing the fee. and that's including again, i already have language and i think we can come to an agreement with discounted tickets. i would love to work on language that allowed them to

decrease the pricing due to weather, due to facility conditions. i would love for them to figure out a way to increase the nonresident fees according to cdi and possible other unexpected expenses. and go through the budget process. so i would love for you to consider the motion to continue the item number two to the chair or even allow it to abate certain to ease off some pressure for myself to work harder to come to anagreement . i would look to director ketcham and the mayor's office for a date that they think we could actually come to an

agreement. >> chair: we still have to go to public comment but supervisor safai thank you supervisor chan. what we do in these situations it makes sense to me. it sounds like they are in disagreement with flex pricing but i think it would be wise to move this conversation forward. we have the ability to duplicate the filewe can have you continue to work on these conversations . i just feel like we're spending a lot of time talking about non-san franciscans. i appreciate what supervisor mar has done for nonresident veterans. i think we've done a lot for san franciscans. this conversation is revolving around non-san franciscans. not to say they're not important. their visitors to our city. i think we spend a lot of time andthe department has put forth his concerns .

it's made theirarguments . you made your argument but it seems like there's a lot more work and conversations to be done. it seems like it would make sense to duplicate the file. allow thisconversation to move forward and see if there's a way you can work itout . i don't think you guys arethat far apart . i think we're getting stuck on the word flex pricing . it sounds like at the end of the day there's not that much difference but i do think it's important to move the agreement forward and allow this process to begin . there's work that needs to be done at the sites. there's renovations,there's new updating . i think there's just a lot of work that needs to happen and i think it would provide the time tocontinue that conversation with the department . ithink that you've done good work . you. and on the prop j requirements and checked in on looking for conflicts and decks with regard to other organizations. but this seems to be a well

thought out proposal other than the fact that it seems like you just don't like flex pricing and i understand that and respected but really think that at this point we should move this conversation forward personally and respectfully. >> chair: supervisor chan. >> i want to quickly respond to that nonresident aspect of it. i think that for this reason is this, to think about economy recovery that is equitable, that we have talked about a lot and we also are thinking about tourism andbringing back tourists . i have expressed that to the mayor's office and i have even expressed that in my most recent conversation with desktop sf is that you've got to have a different price point

for different kind of price points for recreation and attractions throughout the cit . and in order for you to bring back tourism at all levels. and in sanfrancisco it's not just about, it isalready getting very expensive . you have a different price point , i appreciate director ketcham showing how can you compare and the question isn't how exactly do we compare not just on a recreation and park department level but also seeing downtown and other places, do we have all levels of pricing for entertainment and recreation and for a department that is supposed to provide services to our residents first and foremost. obviously that's why we have these residents but also to think about in terms of providing support to our local

tourism is that you've got to have some kind of affordable recreation and attraction also. that is perhaps not in competition with other institutions that are actually in the city so i have different philosophies and value thinking about how do we provide recreation and especially in a green space. to just people, not just san franciscans but will that are adjacent to us and i think that it also means a lot of previous san franciscans that were being priced out. that's the reason why i am guessing let's rethink that but i am not again charging a fee. i'm all aboutincreasing a fee . i would just like to have accountability for the increase of the fee and where isthat going and what is it spending for ? so in that sense, my question back to the existing language is that why 50 percent?

where is that increase coming from if you'realready doing it ? why do you need 50 percent ? and my question also is besides 50 percent, you have never shown. i see history of decrease so you'll go ahead and increase 50 percent and why not coming to the board on an annual basis or even the budget process? why does the wreck and park department have the flexibility to increase not just on top of pci but again another 50 percent and not have to come back to everybody else in the budgetcommittee . idon't understand that. why do they do an exemption ? back to you chair any. >> chair: supervisor mar. >> i wanted to share my thoughts on this on the flex pricing issue and you know, i

do really appreciate supervisor chan and her attention and focus on this. i feel like this all flex pricing for the gardens is a relatively new thing . we justauthorized that a few years ago . and the department has implemented it and it's been a little complicated because there's sort of weekday, weekend and seasonal differences in resident, nonresident andseniors and all that . i think we've given the department the flexibility to figure out what you know, at least from their perspective the best way to implement the flex pricing. we do have a decision to make whether we want to continue that or we want to continue to have it work through a public process that sets the pricing

for the gardens. so i have to say i think given how much is involved in figuring out and how many factors to consider i think it is better. i'm not sure if it makes sense for the board to be getting into the weeds so much then i really appreciate supervisor chan, belinda park and your district. you're paying a lot closer attention to all issues related togolden gate park that all of us and i want to respect that . i think there's ways to create more public oversight to implementation of flex pricing. you proposed reporting requirements that the department would have to make to the board and i agree with you on the need for more

justification around the 50 percent allowable up to 50 percent increase. and i guess i support like supervisor safai's suggestion of duplicating the file and allowing the ongoing conversation and work particularly with supervisor chan and the department on these issues to make sure we get the details righton pricing . >> chair: can we go to public comment? i'm sure there are folks who want to weigh in just checking to see if there are colors in the queue. members wish to provide comments these press star 3 and for those on hold please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been onmuted and that is your cue to

begin your comments . are there any callers ? >> caller: good morning supervisors. can you hear me? good morning. good morning supervisors. my name is karen newport and i'm ceoof historic housing gardens located in woodside . i have a degree in botany and horticulture managing and i'm a board member for the public gardens association and i'm speaking in support of the resolution ordinance being considered for the golden gate park. the gardens of goldengate are serving a critical access need to nature for the local community and this proposal strengthens its position by expanding the access for all three gardens. a proposal positionsthe gardens

biodiversity and plant conservation efforts . moreover the japanese tea garden attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors and the structures porting services and horticulture requires substantial variable investmen for public use . it is one of 27 site for historic conservation independently managed by the nonprofit which i run so i understand how complex these kind of partnerships can be. the standard rate is $25 for adults and in the current market flexibility allows organizations like ours to serve our visitors . flexible pricing and programs have allowed us to increase diversity.it's from this perspective i support the proposed resolution for the gardens of goldengate with the

particle and research process is a balance continuing to provide free access to extraordinary public spaces while identifying resources of maintenance, plant conservation and improvements and historic preservation . this plan will allow the gardens of goldengate to beone of the top gardens in the country and i think that's importantand will also further advance the goals of the garden , the park and city of san francisco . i hope you'll consider moving forward with the proposed plan thank you for your comments. next speaker please . >> thank you to the committee. my name is lisa. and i'm on a chair for san francisco gardens botanical society and it's in that capacity i want to reiterate for this committee there is financial and fiscal oversight from parks andrecreation . our financial statements are

audited and publicly reported. we operate under nonprofit practices with a separate finance and audit committee managed by atp and the partner in the city and our financial and operational metricsare publicly available on our website . i've spoken before on both agenda items that i wanted to offer my support with a flexible pricing ordinance which was well researched and offers enough revenue for the improvement plan . as a community-based board member who volunteered my time to the society and the city i want to reiterate that these gardens are living museums, not just green space and like animals, plants and prior knowledge care and maintenance so do our historic buildings. san francisco's climate means we are uniquely able to grow and conserve plants from aroun the world that might otherwise be lost due to climate change . we want these to be fully accredited as the best

botanical gardens in the country. our current nonresident admission pricing is low compared to other botanical gardens and does not provide the stable revenue the gardens require . we participate in museums for all and support making the garden free for all residents and veteran nonresidents and agree enteringthese gardens should be equitable . thank you 's next speaker please . >> my name is harry paris so and i'm calling a third time. i have environmental credentials in including costa rica and belize. this is apublic garden. we pay for those gardeners . the fees do not cover even a small portion of the expenses and ensures quite plainly that our society will have if you look at their expenditures they

buy from the same people who also get in-kind donors. it's everyone for corruption and if you walk in there i don't know what supervisor chan voted but there used to be a great place called the demonstration gardens. hundreds of thousands of dollars waitingwithout any discussion whatsoever to destroy that . it was a very corrupt contract facilitated by sam boucher to put a large complex on top of the hill in an area which remains unused and would be a great part for us. that's also that area, that was not built and instead think about these othergardens. what sort of museum smashes its pottery plants ? moreover we pay for a guest which was outrageous. and also, why are these being

audited to show how much money they are producing and kept the money coming from outside lands or other ideas in the park. finally i resent this enterprise model of our public spaces being farmedout for profit . that's outrageous. we pay taxes and we shouldn't be prohibited from using cheapskate gardens as a wedding and they should not be renting out the chief garden which they will be doing for private $300 sushi parties toraise money. theyhave $20 million in the back . what's that going for ? there's a 3 billion, sorry, $12 billion project. we used to get all this for free. >> i do apologize for cutting anybody off but we are timing each speaker at 2 minutes. next speaker please. >> caller: i've been listening tothis discussion and it's all

over the place . if i tell you that way back in the year 2000, maybe 2002 bayview gave a donation of 500,000 to the botanical gardens. so i see that you are trying to do something, trying to consolidate three entities and it's very convoluted. but the reason why i am giving you my input is that you all do not know what the hell is happening at mclaren park you have enjoyed in san francisco but you are focusing on the golden gate park. it belongs to the citizens and i know you supervisors represent the citizens you are not educated on issues. you do not know big donors have

given $80 million to the botanical gardens. but you don't know about that. and even though big donations are given to the botanical garden and to the museums and to the japanese tea garden, even seniors have to pay now that there like four dollars or seniors who are on a fixed income. it's something, you know? so sure, the residents should get some amenities for sure. but we must also consider like one of the supervisors is considering the veterans. that's a very good thing because we can use our gardens for their health. what i want you all to do is to get an audit on all the bigger

donations that are given. >> thank you for your comments. mister akins, next speaker please. >> caller: my name is del maxwell and when i first moved to to the city the botanical gardens was one of the first places i discovered and i was enchanted and for 21 years i've been a volunteer for the garden and serve as board chair of the san francisco botanical garden society. board and i support the amendment at the conservatory of flowers for the lease and management agreement with san francisco botanical garden society and proposed ordinance to wave admission for sanford to go residents and veterans at all three locations and to fund

these changes by reauthorizing wreckand parks department to set admission fees for adults through flexible pricing . it's a win-win for all parties because it's a great opportunity for a more comprehensive educational and cultural experienceof these three unique locations. these gardens have extraordinary plant collections and contain significant disparate structures that all san franciscans cherish and be proud of . this is a chance to consolidate and remind management functions and residents and veterans will be able to enjoy all three without cost and flexible pricing allows the gardens to generate critical revenue for the garden improvement fund which helps maintain our infrastructure and keeps all three gardens beautiful, safe and inviting. i'd like to emphasize flexible pricing for nonresidents does not impose an undue burden on

our visitors and our fees are quite lowfor botanicalgardens across the country . in closing i thank you for your consideration . >> thank you delmaxwell for your comments . it looks like we have five members of the public dialed in with 2 left in the queue. if you have not provided publi comments, please dialá3 now otherwise we will take these two. mister atkins, next caller . >>. [please stand by]

. . . . as has been said, putting the three public attractions under one umbrella will allow the gardens of golden gate park to become one of the top 10 gardens in the country, and that is something that san francisco deserves and will increase access for all san francisco residents and i urge you to approve the measure and resolutions without further delay to show san francisco values can create walkable, accessible, well funded and world class outdoor public spaces that we can all be proud

of. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> i have been a resident of san francisco for 30 years and listed cole valley with the conservatory of flowers and a biologist and conservationist and member of the botanical garden. i spent countless hours enjoying the peace and beauty of the gardens. i have been working from home in a tiny studio since march 6, 2020 and during this time the gardens are a refuge for me. i have been in the botanical garden and i don't know what i

would have done without it. and i have seen that san francisco gardens needs this more than ever. i support three resident mission and pricing for nonresidents. the living museums and incredible plant collections need more investment and resources, not less. the flexible pricing would allow for the stable revenue to support critical infrastructure to preserve them, keep them beautiful and safe and world class. the nonresident admission price is really low compared to other gardens i visited. and resources and events give so much back to the community and makes a lot of sense to unify the gardens and increase efficiencies and nimbly and quickly manage the pricing as needed. thank you for letting me express my support for the resolution. >> thank you for your comments. do we have anymore speakers?

>> mr. clerk, there are no further colors in the queue. >> public comment is out and thank you so much for everyone who called in. public comment is now closed. and i know there are a couple of different things and different options here. i know supervisor safai spoke about duplicating the file. i know supervisor chan requested that we handle this a different way. and i didn't hear any motions from committee members. but supervisor chan, i see you on the roster. what is your request here? >> thank you, chair haney. i want to confirm and have city attorney pearson confirm what couple of things -- colleagues, you are the members of the committee. you do what it is you decide to

do and i wanted to say that, of course, you can decide to make a motion or not or however you want to do this. respectfully, it's your position. i want to confirm with city attorney pearson about file and amending it and we had the conversation being that it's not quite -- that did not make sense for us that we end up separately to introduce our own ordinance which announce in 30 days as part of the agenda that will be out of 30-day loop officially on february 24. there's no reason to duplicate a file. but i will let city attorney pearson speak on that. >> deputy city pearson, this is a mayoral budget ordinance. under the charter, the board may

approve an amendment but not -- the board may make amendments at the mayor's request. if the file were to be duplicated, the duplicate may be a mayoral ordinance. and that would require the approval of the mayor. >> it is the reason being why i was going to ask for a continuance to be collegiate to allow a space where we can have the conversations with rec and parks department and with help from tom and from the mayor's office. however, you do you. you make your decision. mine is going to come. i would ask that you be able to review it and schedule it and allow us to have that discussion. and move mine forward perhaps as

a committee report. or not. but it will come -- and allow it to come to the floor and for a vote. thank you so much for your time. i really appreciate your indulgence today. thank you. >> is there a representative from the mayor's office here? is tom here? >> chair haney -- >> i know that you aren't going to be adopting the amendments as proposed, but there is additional things that you are going to try to work out on this. if we continue to bring it back for a fourth time, we would then hope those issues are resolved at that point. is there a perspective that you

have on how you as the sponsor, mayor's office sponsoring this want to proceed with it? >> thank you for the question, chair haney and good to see you all. just wanted to clarify as far as our preference here would be to move the item forward to the board next week. the amendment that could possibly be included to address supervisor chan's concerns and we confirmed that would not be a substantive amendment to be made at the board next week regarding a reporting requirement. but that would be our preference to move it out of committee today. >> got it. and supervisor chan, you have another ordinance that you are working on that will -- it would be one that you could amend and draft as you like as well.

colleagues? supervisor safai. >> awe i have another idea for consideration. it seems like one of the concerns also was setting a ceiling. you are shaking your head. hear me out and you can respond. but through the chair, if we said you have the language in there, and 50% above the base price you can't exceed and could be adjusted at any time. and then that ceiling is implemented in there and then there is a conversation about the ceiling and still flex pricing. but there is kind of a not too exceed amount. if that needs to be adjusted going forward, we can have the conversations with rec and park and achieves what you are trying to establish which is to insure

that your last question was where the 50% come from and cpi goes up and goes up to 15.50. i feel like if we were to find a number and madam city attorney, i don't think that would be a substantive amendment and is setting to adjust and set a ceiling on the amendment along with the adjustment and flex pricing. would that be a substantive amendment? >> i'm sorry, one second. i am hearing from the drafting attorney. that is not an amendment today that would require a continuance because we have to prepare the legislation. i don't want to advise on whether it's substantive and consumers who want to enter the park as well as on the park and

their access to flexibility in the budget. >> could we work on that in the convening time? i am not asking you to make it today. and make the adjustments at the full board and we could dill do that, correct? we don't have to do this in committee. >> if the amendment is substantive, it would require referral back to committee. if you set the price and just through the chair, i wanted to hear what supervisor chan's response would be to that. it seems to me like what i have tried to hear from what you were talking about today, if we were to set a ceiling in saying it could be adjusted at any time, we set the ceiling and do away with the 50% and setting at $15 and could be adjusted at any time, then you still have flex pricing and they need to adjust it with colas over time, that would be something that would -- it seems to me like get at what

you are trying to do and what the department is trying to achieve to be able to cover the cost of subsidizing the other things that we're subsidizing for free. >> through the chair, supervisor safai, currently as it exists the adult fee is at $7. so to cap at $15 you are giving the department -- >> i was only going on what the $10 and the 50%. just stating as they currently exist. i saw the presentation as well. it is actually saying that between 10 to 15 -- i am a little confused about the presentation but i just got the presentation today. trying to digest that information. as it currently exists, the adult fee is at $7. >> for nonresidents.

maybe we can go back to ms. ketchum. and the fee schedule said $7 and we were saying 50% of $10 would be $15. >> the fee set 10 or 15 years ago and cpi is the current fee set by the controller's office is $10. >> that is what i thought. i knew you were saying 50% of the 10. trying to get at, supervisor chan, and cap that amount and say they have the ability to adjust that price. then you are kind of having a not to exceed ticket amount. and supervisor safai, i think in good faith, i want to say that i would like to have the support and verification from bla. i truly am -- to be honest, i think i said it already and i'm going to repeat that. i am in support of nonresidence

fee increase. i really am. i am not against it. what i am asking is a data driven and clear threshold of how do we increase those fees. that is all and the s the reason why the set proposal was how about let's just have, like anyone else, have a bla report about why you -- however many dollars or percentage of fee increase on an annual basis. that is all i am asking. i don't know why there's this push back. it is the reason why i just thought that perhaps with the technical of amending mayor's legislation that i just introduce mine separately so have that language for you. to understand that please go ahead and increase your fees accordingly. not determined by me but

determined by bla. with some objectivity and ways to create a threshold. that is all, supervisor safai. >> i get it. we have heard from a lot of people in the industry that the dynamic pricing is helpful and where we started this conversation through the chair is this conversation started around, here's the pie. here is how much revenue from san franciscans, from veterans, from nonresidents, and this is what it takes to staff up. this is all this deferred maintenance because of previous agreements and whatever rec and park don't have a lot of money for those kind of things. now we have this option bringing in a new operator that will provide a lot of support, a lot of experience, a lot of expertise. we're going to reduce the san franciscans and reduce the veterans and reduce the non-san francisco revenue and we have to

increase revenue somewhere. what i hear them saying is some days they will need a little more and some days they want to be competitive and drop it. if i go on tuesday afternoon with our kids and your kids, we are not paying the -- well, we're san franciscans, but pretend we are not. they're not going to pay that high amount, but then on the day where is there is tremendous demand, they can capture more revenue to subsi died that cost and we know once it's free for san franciscans, in particular, veterans probably not as much. not going to be as much. there will be uses. the san franciscans for free will see a dramatic increase to put more wear and tear and more time and create more deferred maintenance. it seems to me, i heard them articulate and the callers articulate why the flex pricing is so helpful. there is a philosophical difference between your position

and still the flex pricing but a not to exceed amount. it sounds like, i don't know, i don't want to speak for the department. is that something you could work with through the chair? >> if she is still there. >> yes, sir i am still here. >> thank you. i think that if we wanted to talk about a $5 maximum increase i didn't go into some of the other details. we talk about an increase and talk about wanting to have special events and displays and activations. this gives us the flexibility which is why we have the higher amount to be able to increase that. we want to have more things like flower piano and more special displays and all those cost money and require extra staffing. >> like a special exhibit at the

museum to increase the price for the special exhibit. when i showed you the pricing and also we want to be able to have the big exhibits and encourage people to go certain times and days. don't go on saturday and sunday. lower pricing. we want that nimbleness and that flexibility. if adding a cap on it is helpful to move them forward, i think we other happy to entertain that conversation and try and make it work. but i think i also think that the cpi is built into every section of the park code. i am just not sure that it makes sense not to have the same cpi that applies across the park code apply here. you asked about the 50%.

can i finish? we did a tremendous amount of work and studying talking to all of partners and we went down and met with the tourist boards, they were shocked with how low the costs were. we have done that work. the bla also asked us questions and we discussed with them as well. anyway, it seems odd to not follow the same thing that exists throughout all of the park code, but we can continue to talk to the supervisor about this over the next woke and try and move this forward. it is important to move this forward. >> thank you. all right. supervisor mar. >> so it sound like we're all

supportive of moving the item 1 forward that gardens at golden gate park and management operating agreement and item two around the flex pricing and it seems like it would be good to allow a little more time for discussion about particularly some of the ideas coming up in the hearing today. i would actually move that we continue that item. item 2. for a week. and allow more time for supervisor chan to try to work with a department to come up with some ways to address the concerns around seeing more details around the flex pricing. >> all right.

that was a motion to move item one to the full board with a positive recommendation and item 2 to be continued for one week. is that correct? >> yes. >> all right. can we have a roll call vote on that please? >> yes, chair haney. [roll call vote]

through january 31 the extend for march 1, 2022 for 11 years to correct the contract and amounts and increase the contract amount by $3.5 million starting total contract amount of approximately $46.4 million. item 4, to retroactively approve contract sfmta to 11/12.9 with imperial parking llc for

management of the group a with the civic center, lombard street and performing arts, pierce street, mission bartlett and 16th and hoff streets garage and the 7th and harrison parking lot with the total expenditures of $60.3 million. to extend the contract year from february 1, 2022 to 11 years from february 1, 2012 through january 1, 2023. to contract the contract amount and increase the contract by approximately $5.2 million for a total contract amount of approximately $65.5 million. item 5, retroactively approve a contract with imco parking llc for the management of the group b with st. mary's square,

portsmouth square and golden gate garage and kezar stadium parking lot for $42.4 million from february 1, 2012 through january 31, 2022 and approving a seventh amount for the total term to january 1, 2023 and contract the correct account and increase by $3.4 million for the total contract amount of approximately $45.6 million. item 6, retroactively approve a contract with laz parking california llc for the management of the group c garages comprising the union square, moscone and

ellis-o'farrell, poke bush, north beach, and vallejo street garage. and approving the fifth amendment to extent the contract term one year for a total of 11 years from february 1, 2012, to january 31, 2023 and to correct the contract amount 6.6 million for the total contract amount of $92.3 million. members of the should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2490 054 9875 and press pound twice. if you haven't already done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt indicates you have raised your and and you may begin your comments.

mr. chair? >> rob malone, sfmta. >> i don't have any further presentation, but i am here to answer any questions members of the committee may have. >> is there a bla report on this? >> a we have no update to the report. >> colleagues? >> public comment? >> do we have any callers in the queue? if you wish to provide comment and added to the line to speak. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates and if you have been unmuted,

that is the queue to begin your comments. do we have any callers in the queue? >> can i be heard okay? and in house and staff and report on that to the mta board and to the committee as you passed last week that the director of transportation contracts to identify to that require the retroactive board of supervisors under the charter section 9.118 and provide a written report to the board on mta consideration about the parking garage management in house in the future.

minutes from last week and that rob malone was misspell and the recorded vote was missing. i would ask the items to support the resolutions before you relay this. thanks for listening. >> there are no further callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment is now closed. and i want to make a motion and with the positive recommendation. a roll call vote please. [roll call vote on items 3-6]

we have two ayes with vice chair safai absent. >> great. and with the positive recommendation. mr. clerk, please call item 7. >> a third amendment to an emergency agreement between the human services agency and sf americana llc for the continued use of 143 hotel rooms with the associated services on 121 7th street for a total amount not to exceed $16.4 million and extending the public areas for a potential total term of march 24, 2020 through october 9,

2022. and to authorize the executive director of hsa to enter amendments or modifications to the contract that do not materially increase the obligations or liabilities to the city and will necessary to affect wait the purposes of the contract or resolution. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2490 054 9875. press pound twice. if you haven't done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. indicate the system has been unmute and you may begin your comments. mr. chair. >> great. mr. wall ch from hsa to present on this item. >> good morning, chair haney, co-chair safai, supervisor mar. i am robert walsh, the director

of facilities and while we want to acknowledge this contract as reck ro active, we want to -- we were under the impr exthat we were going to continue this item. i am happy to present to you. >> we can continue and have it present when you return. >> supervisor safai. >> i was going to make a motion to continue for one week. >> awe can you open for public comment? >> checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish provide public comment and for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and as your queue to begin the comments first caller please.

>> caller: just tuning in on this discussion to say that we're happy to hear for a continuance and support and are available for any questions if you have any. >> thank you for your comments. >> next speaker please. >> supervisors, i would like to know what type of accommodation is provided to the people from the hotels? are they sros and i want to know this because of the current pandemic. we want to do something and something has to stop because i want to know we the citizens want to know whatever

shenanigans are happening here that is being continued. i am for giving people, those who have fallen on bad times, good accommodation with a shower, kitchen, and with mobility. they are from a different era and those buildings should have been torn down a long time ago. and better buildings should have been built. and where i do get the information about this continuance and why is this continued. and is it going to be accommodated in this building situated at 121 7th street.

i will take a picture of the building and get your comments. >> there are no further callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment is closed. there was a motion from supervisor safai to continue this item for one week. can we have the roll call vote. [roll call vote on item 7] >> great. this will be continued to next week. thank you so much. >> can you call item 8?

a fifth amendment to the emergency agreement twoou between the human services agency and 1231 market street owner llp for the city's continued use of 459 hotel rooms and associated services located at the hotel wickham on 1231 market street. for the total amount extending the booking period which expires on march 1, 2022. and to authorize the executive director of hsa and do not materially increase and members

of the public and meeting i.d. 2490 and 9875. and dial star 3 to line up to speak and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. you may begin your comments. >> all right. mr. malone. >> mr. walsh actually. >> thank you. sorry. >> hello again, chair haney. vice chair safai and supervisor mar. and i am robert walsh, the director of facility and operations with the human services agency. and i am here for you today to

seek the emergency contract with shelter in place hotels and require the board of supervisors approval for charter section 9.118. i am joined by colleague emily cohen and the deputy director of hsh and she will be available to answer any questions related to the system and i will be happy to answer any questions related to the hotel, the contract and that kind of thing. these are straightforward amendments and in april of 2020 as our response to covid-19 that is meant to provide the temporary noncongregate shelter

for people experiencing homelessness and provide things like food, linen services and towels and the private restroom for guests. as the city moves from response to recovery, hsh is housing guests and winding down the shelter in place hotel program through september 30 of 2022. given the extended wind down timeline, some of the emergency contracts held by hsa with shelter in place property hotel owners are being extended to provide adequate time to house guests, wind down the program and return properties back to their owners. as of february 2, 2022, 1,057 guests have been housed in the shelter in place system. 1,163 active guests are in the system and there are 14 active sites.

the extension before you today is for hotel wickham as previously mentioned and this is our largest hotel in the portfolio and has 459 rooms. it is located at 1231 market street. already mentioned that. for the financial details, this would approve a fifth amendment to the emergency agreement between hsa and 1231 market street owner lp for the continued use of the 459 room at the property. this fifth amendment would extend the total term through december 1, 2022, and even though we expect full wind down of the system to be complete by september 30, we felt it prudent to add additional time onto the contract in case we have rehousing slippages and to also perform repairs at the close out

of the contract. and for dollar amounts and this increases the contract by $24,456,076 for a total not to exceed contract amount of $79,257,440. however, after working with the bla who we very much appreciate for their work on the report, they found a calculation error in the food cost for 285,161 dollars which would reduce the total amount not to exceed down to $78,972,179. if you have any questions, emily and i are happy to speak. >> great. thank you.

>> can you describe more what is included in the contract? and food services and what is all that we are paying for within this contract? >> food, linen services and three square meals a day that you and i would be happy to eat. i have eaten it before myself. it is quite nice. and linen services which we all need. and appreciate. that also includes towel service and things like that. cleaning and helping people clean their rooms and really just shelter in place and stay out of really dense environment with a lot of people to stay and stay safe. >> i was at dsw at the site. is the contractor for the food

outlined? or is it -- it is a nice thing and comes from the hotel itself. they prep it in different hotel and not sure it is open or closed. they have a large kitchen that they use i think local members to prepare and get meals to hotel way for guests. and we have, of course, standards for protein and vegetables and all the healthy food things that you would expect to have. great. and obviously this is a program that i am supportive of. and to extend and maintain the size of the huge hotel and i think it's real run and is an ideal site for these types of

services and meeting needs of people who are there and glad we are able to move many of them into permanent support housing. can we hear from the bla on this? mr. menard. >> thank you, chair haney. nick menard from the bla and item 8 is a resolution that would approve an amendment to the existing agreement between the city and 1231 market street for continued use and hotel rooms and services. increasing that agreement from 54.8 million to 79.3 million. the amount also extends the term from march 1, 2022 through december 1, 2022. the agreement being extended beyond the current wind down of the shelter in place program which is currently expected to end at the end of september 2022

to provide capacity in case of a new covid surge in late 2022. the contingency is amount 20% with the restoration of the hotel rooms to the prior condition. as mr. walsh mentioned, we did identify a calculation error in the food budget. and therefore, recommend a reduction in the not to exceed amount of about $285,000 and the detailed recommendation on page 29 of the report. and with the exact numbers. i am happy to answer any questions. >> we recommend approval of the resolution as recommended. >> great. can we open this to public comment please? >> operations is checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment press

star 3 to be added to the line to speak. for those already on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted to begin your comments. do we have any callers? >> supervisors, our city has a population of 840,000. and we have population of 12,000 homeless. this hotel will accommodate about 450 plus homeless people which is good. i want to know where to find information about the strength that cost $80,000 to $90,000 a b and the those

who can get good shelter, food, nutrition and hopefully wrap around services. where can we find all the information. and the chair of the budget and finance committee, i am asking to provide the information to get a real good picture of how we have those who need help most. >> thank you so much for your comments. do we have further speakers? >> mr. clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> public comment is now closed. and i want to make the motion to except the amendment offered by the bla. can we have a roll call vote please. [roll call vote]

>> we have three ayes. and i want to make a motion to move item 8 to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. >> to forward to the full board as amended, vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. we have three ayes. >> great. thank you so much. with the full board. mr. clerk, call item 9. >> item 9 is a resolution approving modification number 2 to the contract number 50178

with covenant aviation security to exercise the last two-year option to extend the term through june 30, 2024 and increase the contract amount by approximately $7.9 million for a new contract amount not to exceed approximately $19.6 million pursuant to charter section 9.118, subsection b. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2490 054 9875 and press pound twice. if you haven't done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. mr. chair. >> awe great. the item before you seeks

approval for modification and the airport and covenant aviation security for llc and general services and exercises the second option to extend through june 30, 2024. this is a general aviation security contract service with covenant for tsa for internal operations screening and goods entering airport terminals and the security check point. and this contract provides security of airport exit lanes when check points are closed and not staffed by tsa. and this contract kuz not perform passenger screening. and to train provided security guard throughout airport terminals and exits to comply with requirement of the tsa approved airport security program and tsa security directives.

and covenant has performed satisfactory. and approval to answer any questions with the acting manager of aviation security and regulatory compliance. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you for this presentation. i am certainly going to extend the contract with aviation. i noticed in the bla report on the budget projection there is appears to be no increase in wages nor an increase in health care costs to the two-year extension. given the annual increases in cpi and the current inflation rate and i think it is workers don't deserve an annual wage increase to keep up and

especially with the challenges of retention and hiring. also just hard to imagine what the company won't see any increases in medical over the two-year period. i wondered if you could speak to that. >> the modification is attributed to the direct labor costs and speak more thoroughly and what that thorough estimate is. >> thank you for that presentation. >> i have that factor in the increment based on the mca ordinance with an assumption of 3% per year based on the previous years operating. we have adjusted for that and

maybe we did not fully address that but just based on the mco pay. on the medical costs event out there, and expects accounted for within our cost and brings us to about 400 -- one second. increase of roughly 408,000. i believe that is a slightly below with the trends of the medical costs. increase in that field. with the integration. saying that the contract extension to the contract extension does increase

projected wage increases and increase in health care. in the bla report exhibit to show no wage increases for guards and no increase in medical costs. >> apology. that may be a note we may have missed. to the increases based on current trends and increases to be great to see. >> thank you. >> thanks, chair haney. >> is there a bla report on this item? >> this resolution would approve the second amendment to the

airport contract and covenant aviation security to extend the agreement through june 2024 and exercises the option to the agreement. the contract provides the security screen services for nonpassenger entrances to the airport. not to exceed the contract and 7.9 million and in response in response to the conversation and the number of the contract and i believe they are correct. and the contract provides a budget and maximum not to exceed amount largely spent on staff. and the actual range of rates that the contract provides. that may be somewhat below

budget that has a contingency to pay for unexpected costs. and the rates and the budget are directly from the agreement to cap the financial activities. and the performance metrics and does report that the contractor has delivered the service adequately and that forms the basis of the recommendation to approve the resolution and happy to answer any of those questions. >> chair haney, can i ask a follow-up question? >> what you have in exhibit two and in your report where it shows no increase in that hourly rate and supervisors and no increase in the medical

expenses. those are actually from the contract. >> that is correct. >> that is the maximum amount that they are -- that is like their budget for this for two years. >> exhibit b to the amendment before you. >> then if the contractor negotiates a labor agreement that includes increases. should that be covered by the contract? >> i would refer that back to the airport and increase in programming wage and how to slow down to the existing contractor.

>> that adds 1.4 percentage on to the mco and range in negotiation. in the calculations that we play around with and the two-year modification and step forward in the control that we have right now. i am a little confused here. according to the bla, the contract extension shows no increases in wages over the two-year period. and that there is an increase based on the mco and included in the contract extension.

we have the programmer if for the wages with the numbers that we have here to allow them to increase up to that level. that is really what guides those fee and airport position on it based off the mco. to accommodate those labor negotiations as well of the contract. >> thank you. i would like to follow up with you guys about this issue and how the wage increases are -- and health care cost increases are included particularly in the contractor extensions for airport service contracts. >> happy to do so. we will follow up with the office.

thank you. >> great. thank you for those questions. supervisor mar. can we please go to public comment? members of the public, press star 3 to be added to the line to speak. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. mr. atkins, do we have any callers? there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you, mr. chair. public comment is now closed. [please stand by]

amending ordinance 109 21 for fiscal years 2021 to 2022 in 2022 to 2023 to provide for the addition of one grant underclass 1820 junior administrative analyst for 2021 through september 30, 2024. members of the public who wish to provide comment should call 415-655-0001.

if you haven't already done so dialá3 to line upto speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand . you may begin your comments mister chair >> president: we have director ellis present on this item. >> good afternoon chair, committee members safai and mar. i'm here to request your support for an ordinance. our department has been awarded a three-year $1 million grant by the department of justice, office of violence against women. this grant builds upon the work of our previous approving

criminal justice responses to domestic violence grants which expired this year .our prior grant allowed our department to convene staff from the san francisco da office, sf pd and la costa de la mantras to implement a domestic violence pilot program as the bayview district station and to reestablish san francisco's domestic violence staff review team. they will revalidate a program that has proven to be effective at increasing service connection and providing new pathways for survivors to access community-based advocacy and resources which reduce subsequent victimization and risk of homicide. this grant award funds but allows agencies to expand to validate program citywide and generally collaborate to correct gaps in victim services. specifically this grant funds a bilingual victim advocate and prosecutor in the domestic violenceat the das office. special victims unit .

the advocate at la casa de la madres and this grant will also fund one fte position at our department to coordinate objectives and staff the review team and managing the grant. this resolution is retroactive simply because we introduced it as early as possible in our prior award from the department of justice was granted a no-cost extension through the end of january with that i am happy to answer anyquestions about this important opportunity , thank you. >> sound like a very important grant and i appreciate your leadership in seeking it and implementing it. before we move on i need to make a motion to excuse supervisor safai if we could have a roll call vote . >> yes on that motion to excuse

supervisor safai. [roll call vote] we have 2 aye's. >> i support this, thank you chair all this is great thank you so much colleagues . >> you. is there a bla report on this item? >> we did not report on this item. >> can we openthis for public comment please ? >> yes mister chair, operations is checking to see if there are colors in the queue. members who wish to comment press door 3 to line upto speed. for those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you have been on muted and that is your cue . first caller. >> director, i want to thank you very much for your hard

work and your great representation. keep up the good work. and we have supporters advocates who are going to back you up. it's good to have a black woman likeyou, black history month . so many leaders in the black community will show what a good person can do your tenacity andfortitude is appreciated . god bless you . >> thank you for your comments mister atkins, do we have any more colors ? >> thereare no further colors in the queue ? >> thank you mister chair. >> public comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to move item 10 to the full board with a positive recommendation ifwe

can have a role call vote . >> onthat motion to forward this itemto the full board , member mar . [roll call vote] we have 2 aye's, vice chair safai excuse. >> chair: thank you mister ellis,good to see you . could you please call item 11? >> item 11 is a resolution approving amendment number two to the agreement between bayview hunters point foundation for community improvement and department of public health for behavioral health services to increase the agreements by approximately 3.6 million for an amount not to exceed 13.4 million and extend the term by 15 months from march 31, 2022 to june 30, 2023 for an agreement term of july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2023

and authorized dph to enter into agreements ormodifications to the contract prior to its final execution by all parties that do notmaterially increase the obligations or liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the contract . members of the obligor wish to provide comment should call 415-655-0001 . meeting id 2490 054 9875. then press pound twice. if you haven't done so pressáthree to lineup to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted . >> chair: thank you and we have missed michelle from dph to present on this item. >> i have acrazy urge to go to the botanical gardens . chair