>> good morning, the meeting will come to order, welcome to the july 19, 2023 of the budget and finance committee. i'm superintendents connie chan chair of the committee, i'm joined by mandelman and shortly by safai, i would like to thank, sf gov. tv for broadcasting this tv. >> please make sure your cell phone devices are silenced. the board of supervisors and its meetings. sxl also provide remote public comment via telephone. those attending in-person will be allowed to speak first. and then we'll take those waiting in the telephone line. the public comment call in

number is streaming across the screen and when you are connected, you'll be in listen mode only. those joining us in-person should line ufp up to speak and those on telephone should dial up 2-3, turn down the tv and all devices that you may be using. alternatively, you may be submit public comment in either of the following ways, email them to me, at clerk. if you submit public comment via email it will be included in the file. san francisco, and final lima dam chair, items today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda on july

25th, unless otherwise stated. >> thank you, and just a reminder, today is the last of the budget and finance committee before, it's the last one before we take recess for the entire board of supervisors starting next week, or a week after next week. so with that, before we recall number 1, i would like to remind everyone that we do have budget and legislative analyst reports for items 3, 6, 7 and 9 through 11, 13, 14, and for those items we will have department presentation first followed by the budget and legislative analyst report and then we'll take questions and public comment. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 1. >> yes, item number 1, resolution of cannabis to expand a grant award in the amount of 3 million from the board of state and community

corrections from the safety grant program for a term of may 1, 2023 through october 21, 2028 and authorizing the office of cannabis to execute the agreement and any extensions or contracts subsequent there to on behalf of the sitting county. members of the public who wish to comment, press star-3 to enter a speaker line, when the system indicates that you have been unmuted. madam chair. >> thank you, i believe we have the office of cannabis here. and please introduce yourself and your title. i do not want to do it for you, even though i have it written here, i'm sure you'll do it better than i will. >> thank you, i'm social director office of cannabis, we have a slide presentation, if you can give us a few moments to put it on. okay. today, presenting for your approval and accept and expand

resolution in the amount of 3 million dollars from the board of state and community corrections. thank you for your consideration. this grant will support the board of office cannabis efforts associated with proposition 64. the grant term from may 1, 2023 through october 21, 2028. the purpose of the grant is to support local efforts to address public health and safety associated with implemented proposition 64 which legalized the use of cannabis in california. the office of cannabis has neither received grant funds nor expanded any of them pursuant to this award. the board await the resolutions prior to this funds. the majority of the grant award will fund 5 positions. all the positions will be set to expire at the end of the grant term. the positions will support compliance evaluations for cannabis operators, inspections

and responding to complaints. i'm happy to address any questions and concerns. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you, and vice chairman delman. >> with that, let's go to public comment. >> clerk: for those who have joined us remotely, please star three if you wish to enter the speaker line and please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. seeing no in-person speakers and madam chair, we have no callers. >> thank you. and i want to clarify, i want to read out loud for the public as well, that the grant funding is specifically going to positions and they're not for any type of expenditure. >> that's correct.

>> great, thank you and with that i would like to move this item with vice chair mandelman as a cosponsor, i would like to move this item with recommendation to full board and roll call. >> clerk: and on that motion, vice chairman del man. >> aye. >> sa fa see. --safai. >> aye. >> and chair chan. >> aye. >> item number 2 is a resolution authorizing the department of public comment to expand a grant increase of 2.5 million for a total of amount of approximately 7.2 million from the health resources and services administration for participation and program entitled ending the human immuno deficiency virus, h.i.v. epidemic.

a inquired immuno aids program parts a and b, for the period of march 1, 2020 through february 28, 2024. members of the public who wish to comment, please star-6. that will be your queue to begin your comments. madam chair. >> thank you, and today we have bill blum director from h.i.v. health services, thank you so much for being here. >> thank you, and good morning, pleasure to be able to speak to you madam chair chan and supervisor safai, i also have a few slides and i think the clerk can bring them up. thank you very much, you can go to the next slide. i've been instructed to air on the side of brevity but feel free to ask me questions. you can see we're here to ask the budget and finance

committee to recommend for the full board to retro actively authorize dph to expand a grant increase in the amount of 7,223,161 from hersa for participation in what is called the at. so i'll direct your attention to the left landslide, this is a pattern of hersa hiv program, ryan white program. and wrap around s*efshses for under insured folks. we've been getting additional funding since 2020, and the goal of course is to reduce new infections by 90% by 2030 both

locally and nationally. if you look to the bottom of the left of the slide, these are the four pillars how dphe is funded. so this is treating people with h.i.v. next slide please. if you look in the middle, the idea of this it fund ising to overcome health inequities particularly in on viral air suppression so we look at people not consistently in care and the populations, you can see above it's trans women of color, people experiencing homelessness, people with a resent history of incarceration whether that's transition out or having left and people with uncontrolled use of substances. and then to the bottom, the first second and fourth boxes there, it's kind of looking at

a ten-year period for which we have a complete data from 2010 to 2020 and then the third is focused on incarcerate asked that gives you a snap shot of the past year, going through our local system. so i'll stop here and if anyone has any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> thank you, and this started on march first this year? >> that's correct. >> and the program started march? >> oh yes, we've been, you know it was announced with 2020, this is the fourth year of 5 years of funding, and that's what it was authorized for in 2025 we'll be up for another 5 years of authorization. >> thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, let's go to public comment. >> yes, members of the public wish to go speak should line up now, for those joining us remotely should do so now. please continue to wait until

the system indicates that you have been unmuted. seeing no inperson speakers, and madam chair, we have no callers. >> public comment is now closed. thank you and i would like to make a motion to move this idea with bull board with recommendation. roll call. >> clerk: yes, positive recommend racing, vice chair mandelman? safai, chair chan. we have three ayes. >> thank you. and with that, let's call item number 3 and this has a abl report. >> clerk: yes, resolution authorizing the office of the treasure to amend a merchant processing agreement that enables the sitting county to accept credit and debit cards with point of sale terminals who is bank of america merchant services llc to increase the contract amount by

approximately 1.1 million for a total amount not to exceed 1.1 million, for the total term of 2020 23, and members of the public who will join us remotely and wish to comment on this resolution, press star-3. speaker line, a prompt will indicate that you're unmuted. >> thank you, and my mistake, apologies, mr. clerk, can you also call item 4 along with item 3 together. >> clerk: yes, item 4 is for banking agreement which enables the city to maintain lock box processing, using pay mode and maintain several departments bank accounts to increase the contract amount by 8 3000 for total amount of 80 million from august 31, 2023 for a total of

period of august, 22, 2023. through november 30 and also for the bank of america, madam chair? >> thank you, and today we have amanda freed from chief of policy of communications from our treasurer's collecters office. >> good morning, amanda freed from office of the treasurer and tax collector and i'm joined by chief assistant treasurer. for item 3 for seek approval with a contract agreement for bank of america for merchant services in-person processing services. this will be the third amendment to the contract and we're seeking to extend for one year and increase the amount for 1.1 million dollars. and this contract has provided the city with merchant services primarily for merchant transactions where a card is present and swiped and enables

our departments and processes for all in-person payments. for fiscal year 2022, just to give you a sense of scope, this services generated 64 million dollars in revenue from over 500 transactions and the terminals provided by the contract have helped various departments, here just a few, dbi, airport assessor recorder and the board of supervisors. this is a one-year extension as we're about to issue a request for proposals to replace the existling contract. and the reason for the delay is that we needed some time to fully implement the transition to chase as our primary banking partner. and then for item 4, we're seeking approval for another amendment for bank of america for banking services and this is the fourth amendment, we're seeking to extend for 90 days and the amount is 8 3000.

we issued an rfp pour all of our service purposes back in january 2021 and had many service areas. jpmorgan received the primary contract and transition for bank of america that's been provided to jpmorgan, many services and the product that supply payments will remain with bank of america so we're in negotiations for a new contract for these services but it will not be completed by the end of our term. so we're looking for time to complete the services. i know there is a bla report and i'm happy to taing any questions. thank you. >> good morning, chair chan, members of the committee dan with the budget and analyst office. item 3 is a proposed that authorizes the tax collector to enter into the third agreement with bank of america llc and

bank of america n.a. to include the not to exceed amount, for total amount to ex sid 1,927,020 and extend the contract by one year from august 2023, to august 2024 for a total term of 11 years. the treasure tax collector entered into a an agreement with bank of america to provide merchant processing services for credit card payments, bank of america was selected through an rfp process and received the highest score. the agreement provides merchant processing services which allows the city to accept debit and sales cards. these merchant are primarily for process ing card transactions and credit card payments. according to the proposed resolution in fiscal year, the treasure tax collector

estimated that services generated 64 million dollars in revenue from over 500,000 transactions. the proposed amendment ads an addendum fee schedule for services, describes the use of credit card related to bank of america health payment solution platform. they provide payment integration with record system allowing for integration for point of service transaction as well as payments through my chart that's epic payment portal. exhibit 1 on page 3 of our report details the fee schedule for transactions which has been in place without changes since the july 18 payment. reported to us that once the agreement ends in august of 2024, that they will be entering into a new contract for merchant processing services which will be competitively pro cured through an rfp that they intend to issue by the end of this month.

the proposed 1,127,000 increase is projected to increase as shown in page 2 on our report. we do have a policy consideration for the board that we describe on page 5 of our report. just noting that the rfp used to pro cure the contract stated a maximum term with 5 years with two year extension or total maximum term of 9 years and that's the treasure tax collector entered into agreement resulting in a three-year third to emergency declaration which is now expired which allowed departments without procurement procedures of the administrative xoed. the proposed resolution would extend the agreement by one year for a total term of 11 years now two years stated by the rfp. according to treasure tax

collector staff, statements to our office, the extension is necessary because the department was delayed in issuing the new rfp and plans to do so this month because the this would extend the term beyond, the term in the initial rfp we do consider the approval to be a policy for the board. sxl we're available for questions. >> thank you, i know i called the two items together but i just want to clarify, the first item 3 it's really for merchant services, haening the people coming through commercial, coming through and that is a processing fee for the service that's we're talking about in terms of this contract that we want to extend, even though it has technically expired so to speak. i guess, if it was not because of the emergency order, then it would have expired. you would have to go out for

rfp. and the second piece is really about lock box, you know, and specifically with bank of america. now i'm trying to understand, the contract with jpmorgan chase that you mentioned. which is only inclusive, so i'm trying to understand, how, how is chase play a roll in this if item 3 which is specifically for the merchant processing service is going off rfp and yet we're still keeping the lock box piece for item 4, that the services locking in would be of a, it seems we're still tied that we're tying to the bank of america and yet, it looks like we already have a partnership with jpmorgan chase, how do we make sure that transition is happening and yet

we're now going out for rfp. >> so the rfp that we issued for the banking services, is very broad. as you can imagine, we have a lot of different types of services and different scale. and we made a policy decision to really breakup the service areas because we find it beneficial to the city to really try to get the best price and products. given the varied amounts of banking services and just try to attract different stuff. so there is a few different things going on, i don't want to be labor this too much. but for the lock box processing in particular, we actually at t t.x. do a vas majority of lock box in-house. this is particular for dph payment that require hippa certification. and so in working dph, it

really was determined that it was beneficial to kind of keep that service area separate to make sure that that integration could work. one of the other aspects in here is supplier payments. i'll note, because i think there is a lot of interest in the processing, jpmorgan chase won that business examine in your contract negotiations it was determined, like it was not going to work in a rollout and the product was not good enough, so we went to our number 2 which in this case happens to be bank of america. there is a lot of complications going on in different products, i would say the majority of our business has shifted over to jpmorgan chase and that transition has been very successful and almost fully implemented. these are remaining service areas and we have some others that went to other banking partners as well that i've come to the board for. >> help me understand, this is

about the lack box surface that you're asking for additional three months? >> correct. >> and what is going to happen there after? >> yeah, so we're pretty far along in our contract negotiations, but understood, we were not going to have it signed and executed by the time this contract expired. so we can't have an interruption in the services so that was the amount that we determined was sort of a appropriate amount of time just to ensure that we would not have a lapse and processing for the city. >> and then, so what you're saying if i understand correctly, what you're saying is that the lack box service, after all is not, we find that jpmorgan chase is still not suitable for the lock box service particularly for the department of public health and what we end up doing is the city is going to bank of america. but we know that the new contract with bank of america to continue with this lock box

service is not going to take place within this time within the ex piration, it will come back to this body again for the approval for the new contract? >> correct. and it's a new contract because it was a part aif competitive rsp, so there is the number one for lock box and number 2 for the supplier payments. n.makes sense, so if i may now go back to number 3 which is the merchant processing services, and that we are going off rfp in july of 2023, it's a reason very similarly in in sense, we're extending until we know the rfp is completed and no drop of service they can we know transition of maybe bank of america again but, that's where we're at?

>> correct, it will be an rfp. >> i appreciate it and i think the budget is doing their due diligence as a policy decision that we, understanding the circumstances in the last two or three years with covid and everything and to understand that there could be staffing and many challenges, every city department faces and therefore rfp has delayed in not meeting the time frame of the existing contract. thank you, i just wanted to, i think i say that out loud for myself as well. so that i process it and understand it. i don't see any other name on the roster, let's go to public comment. >> yes, members of the public who wish to speak on both items, 3 and 4 and joining us in-person should line up now. and those who do this remotely, please press star-3 to enter the line. please wait to be unmuted. seeing no speakers here in the

chamber and madam chair, we have no speakers in the queue. >> seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed thank you. and colleagues i would like to send these items 3 and 4 to full board with recommendation and with that, a roll call please. >> call on the motion to forward both resolutions to the full board, vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> safai. >> aye. >> chair chan. >> aye. >> clerk: we have three ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes please call 5, 6 and 7 together. >> clerk: items 5, 6 and 7, to enter into modification to it not material' increase and affect two ate the purposes of the lease and agreements.

approves a second amendment, located at 2860 taylor street for approximately 5 and a half,000 restaurant space. changes the scope and increases the minimum required for tenant improvements from 100,000 to 900,000. item 6 approves and executes for a port lease and port license between the port md. first space located at 300 jefferson street, item number 7, authorizes the execution. of the mutual termination agreement for a port lease and port license between the port and llc doing business for the restaurant purposes and the associated front patio. and members of the public if you're joining us remotely

examine wish to comment on these resolutions, press star-3 to enter the speaker line. madam chair? >> thank you, mr. clerk and today we have dawn senior property manager from san francisco port. >> good morning, i'm don, i'm a senior property manager for the port and i handle fisherman's wharf. chatter hut is boughdin but they do business as charter hut. when they released the lease with 2020 it came with a obligation to spend a minimum of 20,000 on a closure surrounding the restaurant. by the time the lease was executed and the tenant was ready to proceed with the project, the cost had bo laond between 1 and a half to 1.4

million dollars, labor shortages and inflation and other issues. so they, they needed to do this work to be eligible for a five-year extension. and the work needed to be completed by december of 2022. so obviously, they were unable to do that, they came to us in august of 22, and said, that they have a revised scope at a lower cost and they would like us to consider that and we considered that and we thought it was an acceptable alternative. next page. so on this slide, you can see the original proposal, and below is the revised proposal, it does not enclose in many pages as original proposal but it's got luvers on the top so

it can close in good and bad weather. so that is going to be a benefit to the port by producing additional revenue. so the amendment, achieved some of our goals, it supports tenant retention, it helps a business that has been active through, different cycles but successfully. and if we're not able to man this lease, the tenant may walk away after 7 years. that's the conclusion of that one. am i excite beside it? absolutely. it's going to add. yeah, i think it will be good. all right, should i jump into the next two? >> yes, please.

>> the next two, we're doing combined. >> yeah, you are. >> sorry i just lost my place. okay, 340 jefferson is known as luz 347, and llc is pompegrado, both restaurants closed during the pandemic due to lack of business. and they have not reopened and due to the tenants, they're not willing to invest more money into a restaurant that they lost money already. they reached out to the port to terminate the leases. the restaurants are side by side and the managing partners are 1 is a brother, the another is a brother, but the business rnz interrelated but these are so close together and they have so many of the similar facts that we're presenting them as

one. next page, please. is%backer so for lou's we were able to negotiate a 11,000 in change to reimburse port for board up costs potential sign removal costs. also the personal property including tables and chairs and restaurant fixtures and equipments all have been left behind leaving the restaurant in what we believe to be turn key condition which could be eased relatively easily compared to other restaurants. pompay same sort of pattern, we negotiated 150 termination fee, originally started with 0 and the threat of legal action brought them to the table and we were able to get 150,000 fee. in this one are also charging

6300 for board up and sign removal cost and we believe the tenant reported that the value of the the fixture is 12 2000, that's the tenant's statement. we didn't independently verify that. but the point is that they're leaving all of this equipment behind that somebody else is not going to have to replace. and then we would write off the remaining balance for both restaurants. and that's the conclusion of my presentation. >> thank you. and i say that you came with good news and bad news.

doing business as louis pier lose peer 47 and pom pay have operated as restaurants an jefferson street since 1977 and 1946 respectively. as of february 15, louie's peer 47 owed a little over 500,000 in past due rent and interest.

and the port would begin seeking new tenants after approval of proposed termination agreements. as shown lieu would pay a it00,000 in exchange for 514,346 in waved rent and interest. and pom pay grado would pay exchange fee. the net cost would be 650,000. pomgrotto has already agreed to transfer the frort which is estimated to be at about 12 2000.

we were unable to validate this estimate we discussed a policy because the port recovers the portion of the rent due. the mutual termination also avoids the potential of tenant declaring bankrupt which will result in little to no paid back rent. and in june of 202 2, board of supervisors approved a termination agreement between the port and alioto fish company. they paid 250,000 and forfeited a 25,000 900 security dop in

support of the port waving rent and late fees. we do recommend approval. >> thank you. may seem irrelevant but quick questions about alioto, it was closed as well but we don't think we have a new tenant. >> no, we don't. we're starting the competitive bidding process as soon as this meeting is over, essentially. >> oh okay. >> remind me, i'm trying to searching google map, help me understand, you said lou's and pompai's is next to each other. >> i'm sorry? >> my apologies.

lou and pompai's they're next to each ooh but i believe that alioto is not too far. >> no it's mid-block around the corner in the middle of the block. none of the other items need today operate a restaurant were left. i'm eye first generation immigrant. it's very nostalgic, i'm a first generation immigrant, i would call them iconic spaces

but i do understand, i appreciate the nobodisinger in fact and so really for owners to leave, those actually if anybody running restaurant business in san francisco know that like that is a, a great leverage and great now you lease out. thank you so much for all of your hard work, i really appreciate that. i really look forward to seeing that entire block.

and so with that, thank you for all of your work and we'll go to public come. nt. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: for knows joining us remotely, if you would center the speaker line. seeing no in-person chambers and madam chair, we have no speakers in the queue. >> thank you, seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. thank you and chinese does have a saying which is share by many, in order to get new things in life, you've got to let go of the past. that's where we're heading. and i would like to make a

motion to move all three items to full board. >> the resolutions as items 6 and 7 to the bull ford of positive recommendation, vice chair, aye. safai, aye. chair chan, aye. we have three ayes. >> thank you. with that, let's call item number 8. >> yes, item number 8 is a resolution approving a port commission license llc for the non exclusive use of white and yellow zone and metered parking spaces on port street in and around the jay center on game and special events for initial term of ten years with two five-year extension. to enter into amendments to the port commission license.

and to increase the liabilities to the city and necessary to affect two ate the purposes of this resolution and making findings under ceqa. members of the public who wish to comment, press star 3. a prompt will indicate to raise your hand. madam chair. >> thank you, mr. clerk and we have jennifer senior property manager from san francisco port. thank you. >> thank you so much, jennifer see, with the port of san francisco. the item being presented to you is proposed new license to use property with gs property also loan as the gold state warriors for commercial loading zones on game and special event games.

to accommodate in and around the chase center that were consistent with the access plan that was developed by mta and had input from the port. the port on the same street. about four years ago, in 2019, the portented into an agreement with gsw with the use of the loading zones of the streets of chase center on game and event days. this license will expire at the end of month on july 31. gsw and the port now wish to enter into a non license agreement for the same area for initial term of ten years plus two-five year extensions. the proposed license was used in may and here before you today to seeking

recommendations for approval of the new license agreement between the port and the warriors. the proposed new license includes gsw non exclusive of spaces and also reservation of parking stalls on game and special event days only on parameter streets of chase. the term proposed is ten years plus two-five-year extension options. license fees are at the current port commission rates and also ininclude annual increases. anticipated revenue over the ten-year initial term will be just over 1.5 million dollars. provided gsw exercise both extension options over the entire term is approximately 3.5 million. in addition, every game and

event will also generate 1008 for the reservation and use for the ad metered parking spaces. port staff anticipate continued use of the lnz area will increase parking revenues to the port. improve traffic flow in the area and improve safety and improve parking enforcement which will increase the number of citation that's are issued. in 2015, o.c. i, sub si diced the impact report for mix use project block 29 through 32. this proposed license is also within the scope of the scir and also certified in compliance with the environmental act. that concludes my presentation for today and i'm here to answer any questions you may have. thank you toerer your consideration. >> thank you, quick question,

the additional 1008 dollars per game that you would generate, it's a projection of minimum correct? a minimum, per game as that will be played by the warriors but in terms of events is that a projection of like, it's a projection, and not an actual? >> thank you for the question. it's the the same dollar amount, it's 1008 for all the meters for each game and for each event day. when sfm increases their meter rates, that rate will also be increased. >> sorry, i think i should ask this question differently, and so, because, it's a projection, that you, you're saying all the parking spaces will be filled and therefore this is at each, each time that you're projecting that's the revenue? >> that's correct. >> yes.

>> and so, it's not just whether they will increase the parking meter but how often the warriors at the center have events. >> that's correct. >> great. thank you, i appreciate that. and seeing no names on the roster, we'll go to public comment. >> yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item and joining us in-person should join us now. and for those who have joined remote, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and that will be your signal to begin your comments. seeing no speakers here in the chamber, if you can unmute please. >> call coral i'm vanessa from the golden state warriors i'm calling to express our full support for the agreement today. i want to emphasize that this,

proposed agreement represents an extension of the partnership that has been in place since 2019. over the years we have been dedicate today working closely to the city, this agreement, as a commitment to improve access to all stakeholders. i want to highlight the warriors, together we have worked to create a access plan, this plan revolves close cord knaussing with all parties, designated passengers and commercial loading zones, to improve traffic safety and vehicular safety. we look forward to this to be continued. thank you for your time. madam chair, that concludes our chair.

>> seeing no more public speakers, that closed public comment. the revenue that you listed, 1.5 and extension options of the 3.5 million, we are really talking about that is going to sf port but the meter parking spaces, again 1008 per game or events, that is going to sftm. >> for, excuse me, the port actually receives all the meter revenues on the property. >> great, thank you. i just wanted to clarify that and this is, good news, thank you. with that, i'm going to make the motion to move this item to full board with recommendations and a roll call please. >> and on that motion, to forward this item to the full board, mandelman? aye.

safai, aye. chair chan. >> aye. >> thank you, we have three ayes. >> that item passes, mr. clerk call 9 through 12 together. >> clerk: yes, numbers 9 through 12, 9 is an order anza proofing the amendment to two contract between the united states department of emergency administration for delivery of low cost power and scheduling coordinator services to treasure island. to extend the term by 5 years and 3 months from october 1, 2024 for a total of term of september 1, 2025 to september 1, 2029. approving the city indem any fieg and holding harmless the united states against claims under the contract.

waiving administrator code requirement that a city contract can, sorry that a city contract can have a statement cost and statement regarding liability and saving others. made by the psc general manager. items 10 through 12 are resolutions approving the following, pursuant to the charter, to a contract for southeast water pollution construction management service wz parcels examine water and infrastructure inc. to increase the contract amount by 12 million for a total of 47 million with no change to the ten-year term from july 13th, 2018 through june 30th, 2028. item number 11, improvement project contract for tunnel

engineering services with mcmill associates, venture. to increase contract amount by 7.5 million for a total of for a new total not to ex taoed contract 17.2 million and increase contract by four years, for a total of contract duration of 4 years and 9 months. to provide specialized engineering services for the storm water improvement project and item number 12, for amendment number 3 contract software as a service agreement to increase the contract amount by 175,000 for a new total not to exceed contract amount of 515,000 and increase the contract duration by five years. for a total contract

duersingation of 15 years affective upon approval of that resolution and authorize the manager to enter into amendments or modifications into the agreement, they do not increase the modifications or obligations to the city or diminish the benefits of the city. members of the public who join us remotely and wish to comment on any of the items 9 through 12 press star-3 to enter the speaker line. a prompt will indicate that you raised your hand. madam chair. >> thank you, mr. clerk. and pinsed each item, with the exception of item 12, they each' have a bla report and i also understand that each item has individual presentation, please state your first and last name and title and proceed with your presentation, with all of those presentation, pause for the next one allow for each item just so they're

together that we understand it together. this way and then item 12, there is no bla report and you can proceed with item 12 therefore, thank you so much. >> good morning, today, we are asking for approval for the amount to full service and scheduling contracts with the u.s. department of emergency and administration, better known as the wapa, my name is julia oldene for san francisco puc power enterprise. the ska mat i can shows the electricity and flows through the transition lines and then contributed to treasure island and yerba buena.

the base resource contract negotiated for the daouration of january 2005 to december 2024, puc approval was in november of 2000 and january 200 amendment one was requested in 2021 to extend the base resource contract for a daouration of january 2025 through december 2024. puc approval was in march of 2021 and board of supervisors was in may of 2021. here's the background on the full load service and scheduling coordinator contracts. the original deal was for the duration of january 2005 through september of 2010. puc was in november 20004. the board of supervisors was in january 2005. the first amendment was in october 2010 through september

2015, puc was in october 2007, the board of supervisor approval was in december 20007. the sektd amendment was in the daouration of october 2015 through september 2020. puc was in september 2011 and the board approval was in november 2011. third amendment was for the duersingation of 2020 through december 2024, puc approval was in february 2018 and the board of supervisor approval was in july 2018. the current amendment requested for the full load service and scheduling coordinator contracts is needed for us to continue to provide supplement a al power and scheduled services. for treasure island and buena island. the daouration is january 2025 through december of 2029. puc approval was back in may 2023. termination of the wapa

agreement requires one-year advance written notice of request termination or may be terminated upon 30 days if no longer a resource customer. we ask your approval to amend with u.s. department of emergency power administration. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> chair chan, members of the committee, item 9 to 23u8 boed service contracts between the san francisco public utilities commission and western area power administration, increasing the not to exceed amount for a total not to exceed 41500,000. and extending the term by 5 years by december of 2029. entitled to purchase low cost electricity for treasure

island, from the federal government under the federal realignment act. since 2001, sfpuc has had a contract with the western area power administration, which expires in 2054, sfpuc has a scheduling service contract to meet confident's service operator requirement and supplement the electricity provided through the base contract. the scheduling coordinator and full load service contracts expire december 31, 2024. the western area typically seeks certainty from its customers every five years to make advance purchases and avoid spikes in the market. the proposed increase in the contract amount is due to the estimated cost of 2025-2029 supplemental coordinator costs including a ten percent

contingency. the projected are shown in page 12 of our report. most residents in treasure island are customers of the treasure development authority. sfpuc serves these customers, tida residential customers are not individually metered but received a uniform fee that bundles water and electricity and natural gas and average across occupied units. the charge to the, to tida customers is, point 2.34 cents per kilo meter, per kill watt hour as of 2023. which is lower than the rate of point 2.98 cents. and we do recommend approving the proposed ordinance. >> thank you. i do have questions on this one.

and trying to help me understand, so we're purchasing power from the western addition, western area power administration. and that is but the transition which is the grid itself really belongs to caliso. it's scheduling independent operator that was scheduled the electricity through, but it flows but pg&e transmission lines. >> so pg&e owns the grid, at which part do we come in?

are we facilitator of power and then to tida? >> okay, we are so we are purchasing the power for treasure island and herba buena, so we're the individuals that will do all the billings and all the scheduling for the power for them to receive it. where it says on the schematic and then we schedule and then the actual flow goes through the pg&e transmission grid over to the port of oakland subdivision and then it's distributed to the load serving. >> and what is the relationship, so then the relationship between sfpuc and tida which is the treasure island folks, because the resident of purchasing all

utilities and power to tida and then to, what is a relationship besides power is the relationship with tida? is it beyond just the emergency purchase? to how they play a role in the space and beyond the emergency conversation in tida collecting fees or utilities fees from residents in one bill so to speak and, and yet, it's it sounds to me they're being able to keep the rate lower than the average users for pg&e. >> that's correct. >> and i'm just kind of curious how they do that. >> a lot of it is subsidized to

the government. >> yeah. and the reason being is because, this was the federal jurisdiction. >> thank you. i just wanted to have a little more education on that piece and i appreciate that. thank you. >> uh-huh. >> next one for item 10. i think item 101 followson or southeast? >> thank you, good morning, chair while we get it set up.

i'm stephen i'm assistant manager for infrastructure. this item is the first modification, program construction management contract. this is for an increase of 12 million dollars for a total contract amount of 47 million dollars with no change to the contract duration. so our combined sewer system in san francisco has about 1,000 miles of pipe and three treatment plants. and the sewer system is one of several waste water implemented to upgrade this aging combined waste water and storm water system to ensure it's reliable and safe. and i'm showing this as because we have so much construction work going on right now. this program contract is focused on the treatment plant itself for the majority of the phase 1 program and under way. but also provides some limited

services to other services that we have around the city. that's an important point to make. next slide please. so this contract was awarded in 2018 for a period of ten years, program construction services for the ssip phase one. the program team is integrated with city staff and provides oversight and supervisor to ensure the consistency among all of our construction teams for all of these projects currently in construction. it's about general oversight and construction management but we do construction controls, xrux management and risk safety environment compliant service sxz communication as well as supplier surveillance. so while the services provided under this contract are within the scope of services itself, the level of efforts was intentionally increased in

several ways during the daouration so far and especially as task authorized and we learn more on what we need today do to make sure that things go well. three reasons. first, a level of effort was required for electrical, this work around, our power feed and switch gear project under distributed control system so think of that as the power supply coming in but also the brain and the network for how we control these systems. that were essential to the commissioning of all of our project including the facilities, the two largest projects that you can see here and a more resent aerial showing construction work under way. secondly to ensure consistent supplier quality surveillance and construction management across all the treatment projects, limited is provided to the treatment plant, also

the north shore pump station and the west side projects. and finally the contract has been used to support the assistant center under the out reach and communications task. a community base resource established to train local business enterprises on affective financial forecasting, project management and et cetera and other aspects to really support them and what is necessary so they can pursue city contracts especially on their work. the last few years of the pandemic has been challenging for all of us of course and it's impacted this contract, it lead to increased utilization, i want today provide some statisticking on what we're doing. under this program has worked diligently to mitigate safety incidents during construction.

total hours of construction, has been two and a half millions, while the work going on, all of that, there have been 17 reportable incidents of which six of those were lost workday but proud at zero tolerance for us. so our standards and our response well below serve norm am industry accepted levels. so things are going very well. to try to help that, 55,000 thermo imaging has been out of patient test so people administering their own test to make sure the construction workers are safe. a lot of us have been able to work from home and sometime, but the construction work has continued, there was a pause of

about a week when the pandemic started but the majority of the construction has continued during the pandemic. so my last slide, because we increased suitization under this contract, we're reaching capacity much earlier than the contract daouration. so the this work is important to continue consistency while meeting goals that we have in accordable with the plan and procedures. so the additional contract capacity is needed in order to continue construction services until we determine, a solution to the need that we have and what we need going forward. and this could be to do more of this work in-house to do the work itself or reimagine what this contract should look like or any type of professional services that we need as we continue with the program. so the action is to look at the contract by 12 million dollars. i'll answer any questions.

>> supervisors item 10 is proposed resolution that would provide parson water and infrastructure construction incorporated. the amendment would increase the contract amount by 12 million for a total not to exceed 47 million with no change to the contract term. san francisco public utility commission selected water and sewer infrastructure incorporated through a competitive process to provide construction services for the southeast water solution capitol program. in april of 2018, the board of supervisors proved the original 35 million with a term from june 2018 through june of 2028. as of this month, sfpe has spent higher. that on parts not part of the

original contract budget. the original agreement included one million dollars over the life of the agreement. exhibit 1 on page 19 of our report, shows the beneficiary organizations of those participation. the first and only was completed this month. to the second highest rating of four rating for fiscal year 22-23. iss fuc assigned a rating of fair, the second lowest of four ratings sighting delays in the delivery of the program. sfpuc plan to complete annually.

the total budget for fiscal year 23-24 is 7 million dollars and total budge the for 24-25 is also 7 million dollars as shown on exhibit three on page 2. contract costs as well as capitol plan cost are recovered from enterprise rate pairs. the rates were adopted on the sfpuc commission meet ing. according to the report revenue will increase by 9% annually from this year through fiscal 25-26. the contract modification does not fund construction management services through completion of the southeast water plant program projects. based on current forecast, the timeline of certain sep project are expected to extend on 2029.

in addition, the remaining three years of the contract fiscal year 25 through 26, are not funded by the contract modification. according to sfpuc staff, the additional two years will allow sfp management to evaluate to determine whether it should be determined in-house or under a new contract. but we do recommend approval of this resolution. >> thank you, i mean, i have a lot of questions in a sense where, you know, seeing how within half, this is suppose ab a ten-year contract but within the first five years, you spent 90% of the budget. and i have a lot of questions in terms of like how and why,

at some point, when do we able to recognize we are now, short of money, quite early, it's not even halfway through the contract. so what do the correction steps or corrective steps will you be taken? but if i understand correctly, and feel free to ask, instead of enterprise of 20% seems like parsons as a contractor as exceeded a 53% of the local business enterprise participation rate, very impressive. and it's a good news at least to me. impart of the initiative and would love to see more

participation and seeing the 53% it's unusual but that's a very good thing. but seeing what you intend to do is to bring this in-house. now that gives me a little bit of a pause, i would assume that it's not easy for any department to see we're going to have contract management but now we're going to say, maybe we can do it in-house. and are you trying to figure this out? two years time and say for the remaining of the construction, we're going to be able to bring the rest of the management in-house? again, i actually i'm also your presentation and based on your presentation, that more than 2 million hours was spent and we have zero cal osha.

zero citation from it, that's great news. what is going to be your next step to say we need a new contract. it sounds like the next step it seems like you'll go to a next. >> i think i clocked 3 questions in there. expected this this contract has not gone. they have absolutely and over the years for which we have inherited the contract that has been going. they have not been spending and

the amount we know that they're needing the scope of services to be used. and we're authorizing to do more than what we had expected. when i tried to explain some of the needs that we've had. but, the bl are helpful, on the program and was a a parson contract. and in the capitol budget and our program was significantly under that. and this amount for this contract still puts it in the 1.4 percent range.

and we went about a process of testing what support could be used. plus our other projects specific construction contracts we will not be able to flip this to doing in-house work. but i think over the broad services that we described today. there are elements that we can do. we will not be able to simply flip it over. we'll make sense for the

consultant to do and where would we adjust. an opportunity to rethink the need and then decide who and how is more to executed. we need to support and make sure that it's working well. and the other question about lvs for a company to commit to even 50% and exceeding that, it's unusual but it's testimony to the team building, representatives of local enterprise to be able to help with local needs that we have. and so i have no doubt that they will continue that with this amendment that we have. and it's something for us to consider. there will be an rfp but again putting the need first, what is

the best place to do that? or knowing that they will execute that as well. >> thank you, mr. robinson. i so appreciate the approach, i think it's very good to think about. understanding talent and people that people are assets, and that and figuring out a way through contract and perhaps that we can remain them in-house staff. that we can provide some train to go our in-house staff to build them to the next level.

i think what i'm hearing. >> absolutely, it's transition, both through the city on the facilities that we work on. >> i appreciate that and i look forward to seeing more of that approach through our enterprise agencies especially when it comes to larger contracts like that to be able to think about the both the short-term and long term and not just the short-term of finishing a project but also to have a vision and possibly improvement upon. with that, i appreciate it and next item. item 11.

>> good morning, i'm the project manager for the storm water improvement project. joining me today is paul louy is the project engineer. so we're presenting on the, on modification number 5 to our pro 101 which is for the design support improvement project. a little background on the project, it is a flooding resilient project within sewer system improvement program, primary component of the project is a new inside die am meter wet weather tunnel. it's located in the mission district san francisco, coinciding with the mission creek and you can see in this exhibit the project impact area

and the locations of frequent tlaoding. the project will increase, capacity of our system, for the level of storm event which is a five-year 3 hour storm, equaling 1.3 inches of rainfall. and in the fall the, issued a completion of june 2027 which aligns with our current schedule. so the contract has had four prior modifications summarized here and the original contract was for 18 months and 5.7 million, the original scope was for the new tunnel design from 10% to 100 percent completion. along with technical support for the entire project. modification number 2, increased the budget by 2 million within a foundation

structure for the u.s. 101 over pass which was discovered during design. so that included analyzing alternatives, g.o. tech exploration and some complex modeling to evaluate the complex. here is the alignment, you can see on the left is the highway 101 over pass where we have the concrete with the foundation. and also during detail design, we relocated the shaft to the right there, the red circle. and, so this modification 5 is for both budget and time. it will provide engineering support which is the bulk of the extension. this was always anticipated but not yet allocated.

the modification will also provide new modeling of the relocated shaft and in additional modeling on the u.s. 101 foundation. this scope is not previously anticipated but necessary to meet caltrans requirement. and then finally, there is a some public out reach support as well. and the total modification request is for an additional 7.5 million and 48 months. this summarizes all the modification to this contract to date including proposed modification number 5 totaling 17.2 million in 109 months. next steps is to complete the complex modeling and send it to caltrans. we're also going to enter into agreement with caltrans for oversight of the work on their

facilities, on the 101 over pass and i-8 0. and then we'll complete design the tunnel and proceed to construction. thank you, are there any questions? >> supervisors, item 11 is a preposed resolution that would approve the, with mill and jake sobs ventures for tunnel engineering for follow son area storm water improvement project to increase the amount to 17.2 million and increase the term by four years to november 2027. the scope of the project has increased due to the discovery of caltrans. the joint venture of jake sobs and zentext scored highest for tunnel engineering services for

the folson project. not to exceed amount of 9.7 million. under the proposed contract modification the total contract amount would be 17.2 million as shown on exhibit 4 of our report. this reflects an increase of 7.5 million or 77% above the current contract amount. contract cost as well as capitol are recovered from rate pairs, the rates were adopted at the may 23, commission meeting, according to the report. the waste water revenue will increase by 9% annually from fiscal year 23-24 to 25-26.

we do recommend approval of the proposed resolution. >> thank you, and this contract particularly is engineering services. you did not anticipate the caltrans analysis that cost about 5 million dollars, 29% of the cost of it. examine we're getting reimbursement from caltrans from this? >> no, no, this is work we need to do to proof that we're not going to cause any damage to the caltrans facility. so this is entirely our work to get their consent to put the tunnel that close to there. >> and then, so, after the engineering services for the construction itself, hopefully, took place after 2024 when you're all done with the design. is that funded? the construction? >> the construction of the project or engineering support? >> construction on the project.

>> yeah, the construction is funded and that includes the work that is being done in this contract. >> so today what we're approving is the extension of this specifically engineer services contract. >> correct. >> can you remind me, or help me understand what is the overall cost of the construction itself? or estimated to date? >> the overall project has four separate contracts, so all of them combined it's about 250 million in construction costs. the tunnel itself i believe is 120 million. >> sorry? how much for the tunnel? >> just the tunnel it's about 120 million. >> almost half of the overall. >> yes, it's a big part of it. >> and also help me understand the total, in the totele of like 200 more than 200 million dollars of construction, what is the funding source?

>> the rate payer dollar. >> rate payer, i'm just, so help me understand, so in this case, we're trying to do over 2 million dollars of construction project out of is portioned to the tunnel is about roughly 120 million dollars. and then within the 120 million dollars, though we are paying for this portion for engineering services. so not to exceed if we were to approve today from increase from 5 million originally that's what you said to now, 5.7 million to now 17.2 million all is actually within the 120 million construction cost estimates. >> sorry, i may have confused this a bit. so the 120 is hard cost and we

also have soft cost. >> what is your soft costs for the tunnel? >> specifically for the tunnel it's about 15 million. >> so you're now over of your original estimates? of soft costs? >> no, sorry, the soft costs, this project is a little confusing because we have a separate project for design and a separate project for the construction. so the funding sources are different. so the 15 million is for soft cost during the construction phase. we have a 30 million dollars during the design costs which includes property acquisition and lots of other things, so we're still in our budget with this increase for all of our soft costs throughout the project. it's just kind of spread around.

>> understood. and when you say this project for the entire fullson. >> which is two projects. >> yeah, and so, we're specifically talking about the tunnel portion of it. and you're saying the tunnel is about 38 million? >> no. >> 38 million higher. >> the preconstruction costs for all four contracts is approximately 38 million which covers, all of this contract work except for the engineering support during construction which is part of our post construction soft cost. >> okay, so help me understand, that with the soft costs of the 38 million dollars all four portions of this entire project which is 200 million out of which you're saying that, but it's not inclusive, but 38

million is not inclusive of the engineering services. >> it is inclusive yes. >> it is inclusive of that. >> the engineering services preconstruction, the engineering construction is part of the construction phase of work which is separate from the 38 million. >> and then to date, out of that 38 million dollars budget you're spending about 17.2? >> less the 4 million for engineering during construction. >> sorry what was the answer. >> 17.2 minus the 4 million for engineering support during construction. so it's approximately 13. >> i see, okay. i'm just trying to understand the math here but also in terms of proportion to overall spending where you're at and with this, so, if i also again understand correctly while the contract is expiring on

november 20, of this year. you are expecting it to be completed this entire contract when? >> november 2027. >> november 2027. >> i think this is my next question will then you'll be coming? and again, modification for this specifically contract not even in your entire project. when the expected completion. how about i focus on the tunnel portion, when is expected completion time for the tunnel portion? >> june 20th, 2027. >> oh the same time at the end of this. >> yeah. >> okay, thank you. i don't see any name on the roster. thank you. we'll go to the next item.

>> good morning, chair and vice chair and supervisor safai. thank you for hearing this item. it would authorize general manager with the software agreement increation the contract amount by 175,000 and extending the contract term by 5 years to provide for description services, increasing the tote not to exceed to 515,290 and extending the term to 15 years. it provides the puc with the use voyager real property and management program in conjunction with an associated database.

and with the term of 3 years. the contract has provide the puc for one-year each. the and asset management services that the puc needed. one of three u.s. companies that provided lease administration and the only minutes provided the functionality that the puc required. on april, sorry, in april of 2016, the fuc computed number 1 increasing the amount by 99,999,000. and in december 18, we executed amount number 2 increasing the

contract amount by 111,000 and extending the contract daouration by four years. let me go to the next slide. significant amount of data to use this product and switching to a new product would require new migration to data. it would take a great effort to contract new software service system and migrate and train puc employees in four different puc to use the system. we request that the board of supervisors authorize to execute amendment number 3 to the contract and ask that the budget and finance committee forward this item to the full committee with a full recommendation. >> thank you, i don't see any

name on the roster. we'll come back to the items, is that okay if we go to public comment and then we'll come back. let's go to public comment for items 9 through 12. >> clerk: thank you madam chair members of the public who wish to speak on any of the items 9 through 12 and our joining us in-person should join us now along the curtains. if you have on the line, press star -to request to speak. seeing no in-person speakers. mr. so you, if you can unmute your caller. >> great, david can you hear me okay. >> clerk: please begin. >> caller: thanks so i have no comment on 9 and 12 on 10 and 11, i praoeshl the discussion that you just had about the

staffing and in-house versus consultant support. i would encourage supervisor safai and the rest of you to look at the proposal tomorrow at gao and if that post to the full board to consider including in the escape analysis of staffing in-house versus use of consultants. i have no interest in slowing down or stopping 10 and 11. i think the work is important and i appreciate that the current staffing model may make sense for that. i just think that going forward as much as possible engineering, design, construction management support work should be done by city employees and only where specialized work cannot be done by city employees should such work be contracted out. i think that's different from

construction work again it's engineering design construction management. so those are my thoughts on items, then and 11 and i appreciate the discussion that you already had on those items. thank you very much for listening. >> do we have anymore callers? madam chair, that completes our queue. >> thank you, seeing no more public comment, public comment is now closed. supervisor safai? >> thank you, so whoever was presenting on item number 10, if they can come back up. >> mr. steven robinson. >> thank you. so i dove in on the number of these contracts, this one in particular jumped out at me. i'm sure you said of some this in your conversation, we approved this in 2018 for 35 million dollars. and here we are just a few

years into the contract, five years and 90% of the contract is done. we talked with a bla, they said 6 million dollars were added to the contract that were not part of the original scope. and 2 million of that was lb technical assistance, i'm in 100% in support of supporting our lbes but what i care about, and this is why we called for management audit after work withing bla, is that there are no performance measures that are incorporated into your work. this is one of the first times it was done, a performance measure was added and found that, it was deleted in a very short amount of time. so i don't understand adding things to the scope of work without it being part of the original scope. it seems like, there is some practices here that became part of the norm of your organization.

sxl it feeds right into the conversation of the rate and that's what the budget chair was asking about. our rates are going up and i understand your an enterprise agency but this is why we called for the audit. i can tell you, that spending 300,000 to get to the bottom of how we can be better, right now, i think is your division still without an assistant g.m. >> i'm assistant manager for infrastructure but the waste water price. >> there is no, currently no currently assistant g.m. two you have not incorporated performance measures into a contract, is that correct mr. bla? that's your new name today. i'm just messing with you. there has not been any performance measures, dollars are being added to the contract, rate pairs.

--payers. i was on the phone with your general manager and i i understand he does not get in the weeds and we talked to jeremy. this is not a got cha, this is why we want to do the audit manage. : i feel we're going to find a way to save money and we can do that as the chair said into a number of different contracts that are here today. ultimately, if you live in san francisco, i don't know if you do, but if you're paying for your water, like a lot of us, we're paying for this. this is not to say that we're not going to have future water increases, of course we are, this is about how much they need to go up. 6 million turns into 12 million, turns into 50 million, turns into a significant increase for somebody where we're paying our water. we have a lot of people on fixed income, a lot of low

income families, we have a lot of businesses that are hurting right now, so that's what we heard from. again, talking to the bla, don't know what your plan is for the remaining, this is year 5. you're asking for a two-year extension, we don't know what the plan is, are you going to put it out to bid again? are you going to come back for another extension? i think it would be better after talking to the bla, that we ask you to do a one-year extension and come back in a year and give us what your plan is for the remaining years. it was originally approved for a ten-year term and we don't know what the remaining years are going to be. what is your reaction for that? >> thank you, supervisor safai, lots of good comments and hopefully i can get some good comments. and yes, this contract has not gone how it was intended and

how that ties to our rates and who pays for the work. and importance of providing good services in san francisco. one thing that i've got a list in response to the things you're saying, in addition to scope, it's a careful thing to consider. in this case, the report said that there was some work from the original contract and you put a 6 million dollars figure on this. i would challenge that the work for the assistant center is not specifically called under the scope of services but broad out reach and communication as we do our work is. we deemed that to be absolutely within the scope of the contract. >> but out reach and education is very different than lbe technical assistance. that is we're helping you expand your business, we're helping you how to solidify your business. we're helping you to work better with these contracts. out reach, is very different.

out reach is we're going to let the community and businesses know. i don't see them as the same thing. i see them as very different things. >> correct, i'm acknowledging that it was not called out in the contract. and by the way, i'm not arguing about technical assistance, it's needed. by point is, if you don't have good management over the contract and by the way, talking to the bla, when they ask for all the costs when you come in, the billing did not add up to the larger justification. and so, we understand that there were electrical costs and construction costs and labor costs have increased, that's all necessary. but when you're adding things to contract that we're going to

contemplate, it seems to be that that's a practice, the economy is not strong anymore. and then you heard the caller, and i think it's a valid point, what things can be done through in-house versus consultant. these are all things about managing the work, and managing the contracts and controlling for costs ultimately. we're going to sit down with the general manager, we had a good conversation yesterday and we're going to dive in deeper. i understand there is some audit that's are under way, we're going to look at that. but i just, i think that this really highlights why a management audit will be very helpful to your organization. >> thank you, and i'll try to respond to some other points that you made. from a perspective from managing contracts like this, earlier i mentioned and

recently being in front of you for another contract where there was an audit. all the recommendations are either complete or under way. and we put the timeline of june 23, last month, contract you'll administrator process how we manage the contract and needed to be in place. and i can say that yes, we have not taken that action, we have developed a grand new procedure to address all the recommendations that the audit did find. so that process is now better and in place. and responsive to that. we want to test that and make sure that that works and make sure that it adjust if we need to. >> sxl i'm sorry, you said it was an audit? >> correct. into our manage construction contract. >> it was a specific contract? >> it was a specific contract but a lot of findings related

to processes and procedure for administering contracts of this nature. >> got it. >> so that now incompasses this contract. but we accepted the feedback and lately, as you said, things have changed overtime. we need to strength and ensure some of our process sxz people and tools and in this case, address things like spend rate overtime. we took out the heart and i'm

new to this position last year and recognize that's an area that we needed to approve. now i do have performance and audits in place. and we submitted to updating other procedures and making sure that it happened going forward. so that in terms of our procedures and now addressed as well. there was a comment earlier about funding and rate pairs and back to the wholesome project and project manager rate pair funds. but they look at all possible funding options we have. and more large projects the largest of our flooding, it's a very large project and we try to take advantage. so it's absolutely part of that package in order to help supplement and make sure that we're doing the right thing. >> sorry, i just don't want, i just want to interrupt about the who will some project i want today say that if you can

get to get caltrans to pay for their portion that 29%. and this is an analysis that you require us to do and something has gaot to give and why don't you pitch in. that's me, that's me as a county supervisor versus the states and making the states pay where ever possible. >> understood. >> and ien in the district, caltrans and the work that was originally done contributed to a lot of flooding that happens. i know it's hard work, but it would be great to have cal tran participate. >> thank you. and the project manager is correct that we initialed the work, but this deeper conversations are longer, so we'll take that away. >> so the other thing i was saying, is i think it would be better rather than giving you a

two-year extension if you would two a two-year and give us your plan. it would make me feel better. i don't feel like it makes sense to just keep giving you extensioned when we originally gave you 35 million dollars authorization for ten years or in kind of year four and a half and you already blue through 90% of it. given the fact that you have some new guidance and control measures that you're going to be instituting. >> and we'll differ to the, but what i tried to explain earlier, the two-year period and we asked for funds to see us through this. is to help us reimagine the future of the work that needs to happen and putting the need first. so we've got a lot of heavy construction projects under way right now. and so we want to reevaluate how much of that work could be done in house in order to do that work and we need some time to about it. and if we waited a year and

decide today go with an rfp, we would have to come back for a second amendment. for this contract. >> i still think that it would be better because it forces you to come back and tell us what your plan is. >> that amount is what we would anticipate but two-year period is to give us thinking. but. >> when would you be initiating rfp? >> a replacement contract. >> when? >> when in >> at the tend of the two-year period, we would have to begin far earlier. >> it takes a year plus in order to rescope. >> right, so if we gave you a one-year and came back and said this is what you're rfp would look like and we would have an

opportunity to say that made sense. anyway. >> the question is would it be satisfactory to you in the event that we scale back not to exceed. we do not scale back a dollar amount and consistent with the 12 million but we actually extend the contract term for one year which then requires them to come back. but this is not about the dollar amount but to specifically time period. meaning we keep the 12 million which is the total not to exceed amount the same but we're going to say, we only have the contract term within a year. but vice chair mandelman? >> i would give them, i mean, speaking for myself, i would give them their two years to think about this, work this out, there is work associated with setting up a conversation with the board of supervisors if they're not ready to have that conversation, would i

rather not hear that conversation until they're ready to do it. they can come back in two years if they get it done sooner, but from my perspective, this committee may make clear that they should do what they intend to do, work can be done by other means. and i think it would make sense to give them their extension and their increase right now. and trust the confidence which we hope will be coming back to us with better solution. >> i would just say, supervisor respectively, we have literally had a series of contracts that every single one of them for waste water has gone over the amount and there have not been standards and controls.

one year why i would feel more comfort is at the end of the day, it forces them and know that they're on schedule. that came as a strong recommendation from the bla, if you recall a couple weeks ago, is to not let the contracts go forward. and we get the recommendation from the bla. so there are some concerns in the waste water and again, it's one of the reasons why i called for the audit. we want to walk for the puc, this is not advosaryial but we do want to run the cost. >> i do not want recall which is the one that bla did not recommend for approval? >> well i cannot remember off the top of my head, it was a strong recommendation to hold the contract, it was a couple of weeks ago. >> let's deal with that. >> i'm sorry supervisors i was not at the mighting where that

recommendation was made. >> yeah, it was with nick. sorry. so we can get back to you. >> i do not recall those contracts without recommendations. i do recall a contract on the analyst that to require reporting to be on file and to be consistent. and that is for the clean power assess and to make sure that we have those on file before you come back for increase, if i recall that correctly. but i think that, it sounds like i'm going to break this tie whether we're going to go two years or one year. i'm inclined to support us, vice chair mandelman's going to two years and for to us move this forward.

i do think it's critical to have these conversations. i would urge to keep close communication making sure that i would regular perhaps before you, before the one-year up, you should return to this body or particularly to supervisors safai to make sure that you report back your progress and approach. again, perhaps also the list of local business enterprise which is 53%. i would appreciate perhaps a list of them, if they're not already on file. i would like to see them on file just a de tailed list of who they are and perhaps also how to ease some of the questions around in a local business enterprise, spending. i do think that there is the social incap program listing, i

did not see the local enterprise but maybe i'm just missing what is on file. but that would be greatly appreciated. with that, i don't see any name on the roster, so i don't anticipate any motion and i think we went to public comment. colleagues i appreciate, all of us doing our due diligence in item 9 through 12, i appreciate the on going conversation. i do conquer that these are very large construction contract. they are complicated. i think that's like, the frustration comes from the fact that we are not subject expertise, however we do have a fiduciary responsibility to tax payer in san francisco and it's our responsibility to hold ourselves accountable in this case all of your contracts before us today, is spent by rate payer even though they're

not general dollar funding but they're paid by san franciscans. with that colleagues, i'm fine if there is a motion to send this item particular item 10 without recommendation. great, and then the remaining of 9, 11, 12 with recommendation to full board. and with that, can we do a roll call. >> clerk: on that motion, to forward items 9, 11 and 12 to the bull board with item 10 with no recommendation from this committee. vice chair somes man dell man. >> aye. safai, aye. chan aye. we have three eyes. --ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes. thank you, let's call 13 and 14 together. >> clerk: items 13 and 14

resolutions approving the following to increase the contract amount by one million and the terms of the respective contracts from one year from june 30th 2023 through july 1, 2024 to extend the contract by one year to july 1, 2025. item number 13 he reproactive lea proofs amount number 9 engineering services for the final design and construction with the central subway design group for a total amended contract not to exceed 7.2 million. item number 4 retroactive approves amendment number 13 system quality control and design integration with h nt nc. for total amended contract

amount not to exceed 38.2 million. those who have joined us remotely and wish to comment on these resolutions, please press star-3 to speak. madam chair. >> thank you, and today we have sfmta here to make the presentation. >> good morning, chair chan and supervisor mandelman. i want to apologize typically my director would be here doing the presentation, unfortunately, he has other commit, so he's not able to make it. i'm albert ho with the program. we do have some copies of the presentation if anybody would like some. so, what we're here today for

basically for the community to consider extension of two professional contract related to the professional service design. the first contract is with the central subway design partners. joint venture to extend the contract by one year to july 1, of 2024 with a amount additional amount of 1 million dollars not to exceed. sim larry the second design contractor, joint venture for similar time duration to extend the contract with increase amount for a million dollars. in addition, there is actually a option requests to increase both contracts by another additional year through july 1, 2025 with additional million dollars each. i want it clarify that both are

related to professional service sxz not related to the construction contract that contract is completed. so part of the reason why we want to extend the service of these two designs professional, is that we want to actually do some additional enhancement improvement to the central subway program. and the reason why we want to increase are the original system related elements. they are the most qualified to do enhancement improvement. versus a new design team that in essence have to, basically

relearn and understand the basically central subway functionality and design. in addition to that, they also have additional expertise one with a related to water mitigation and water restoration we do have some water leakage and we're in the process of mitigating, it will be on going one of the ways that we will do with that, is basically we call back some funds in order for us to address some of these water mitigation. related to the safety and security. so after the soft launch in

november and revenue service in january, and maintenance personnel basically was looking at the operation of the central subway and we wanted to enhance the safety and security related to the central subway. one of the first things that we identified was to get additional coverage on a cameras, one of the things that we noticed as part of the six month operation is that we have coverage within the stations, especially along the corridor, and the public access area along the escalators and elevator so we wanted to provide some additional cameras and you can see some photos. until addition to that, we also

want the riders to feel comfortable so we want to enhance somity lighting especially at the doors and some of the corridors just to make sure that the public feels safe and comfortable using the central subway alignment. so this is the portal, where they enter the configurationing underneath the freeway. this area is of concern in terms of security. we do have a fence partially on the port fence but we would like to expand that to get a full fence. and part of it is because of the homelessness issue around that area so we wanted to try to expand that and make sure

that the porter area is secure and that the particular cannot access the portal from anywhere, especially during operation of our training. a couple of other areas was basically, to some areas for fall protection where we want to restrict access for the public by putting barricades through. so if you look at the right hand corner there are beams that are inputed in the revenue area. these beams are not accessible because of the fence. so what we're going to be doing is put ining barricades so that the public or anybody else cannot access that area. in addition, we wanted upgrade our back up power supply. we do have a back up power

supply but we want to enhance it in case of emergency. we wanted to make sure that these power supplies are robust in terms of lighting and train control and anything else. and the last thing we want to talk about is, so as part of the we had to remove much of the resistance. there were some cross alignments that had to be altered that needs to be incorporated into the main configuration so that's one of the other elements that we want to do. and the last thing that i talked about was the water intrusion into the central subway station and other locations. so we have call back from a million and a half dollar to be

set aside to repair and to do some work with the water intuition at the water locations. this contract, the designer will assist us in trying to get some solutions to getting these water restoration repair. the other thing that i want today share, the program has its complete, and the fta and our local partner, sfta wanted to do evaluation of the performance of the central subway program. basically there were several workshops earlier this year, march and april that was basically initiative as the fta to basically review the very different elements that were

success and failure. over 25 items that was reviewed and discussed relating to basically from the start of the project initiation to the environmental to the engineering to final design and testing. looking at all the elements, the fta when we did the initial workshop, we reviewed all of these elements. areas that we can improve or we can learn something for the future projects and future endeavor. as part of that, we had a second a day workshop with fta and our funding partners. really evaluate how we perform. while it was not specific to

the individual, many of the topic basically covered the inner working of the very different groups. and i don't necessarily want to go through all the details but these are key because they're using these as guidelines and will publish, i believe they already published a lesson for future projects going forward including the downtown extension that is on board in san francisco but also the san jose extension. and these items, changed management process, especially contractor performing path work and project control and capabilities, these are all important and crucial to basic controlling costs to schedule.

so this is very important so there is a write-up i can share with the committee if the committee is interested. oh the findings of what we did well and what we didn't do well and how we can integrate. and part of this has to do with basically policy decision that needs to be made beyond, you know, even the agency level with a city because again, the first item project delivery has to do with our low bid strategy to get a lower bid contractor but that usually relates in getting typically, like we had a contract that is very change order happy and want to basically, identify ways to increase the overall costs.

and i think while it's too late, i think it's beneficial and i've been reached out by at least, the san jose extension to basically share some of the lessons and i hope that my colleagues over in downtown extension will do something similar so we can share some of the knowledge. i do that is important moving forward. >> sure, thank you. >> clerk: supervisors 13 and 14, are resolutions proposed resolution that would retroactive lea proof two amendments to the contracts regarding the central subway project. first amendment 9 to the contract with central subway design group extending the term by one year to july 1, 2024 and increasing not to exceed amount by one million dollars to 55,779,692.

and second an amendment number 13, to the contract with hntbjv, extending the term by one year through july first, 2024 and increasing the not to exceed amount to 35 million dollars. 69--the resolution would allow the option to extend each contract by an additional through 2025 and increase not to exceed amounts business 1 million dollars. in 2010 board of supervisor as proved to csdg for the central project which have been respectively been amended 8 to 10 times. although the revenue service has begun there are close out tasks and enhancements that require additional engineering and design services. the san francisco metropolitan,

municipal authority decided to extend the csdg contracts for the services due to their familiarity with the project and to avoid costs and delays associated with putting in the contracts out to bid. engineering and design task to be completed by the two contractors include project management reviewing and responding to contractor submittal, request for information, request for substitutetion. the proposed amendment would increase the not to exceed amount of the two contracts for one million dollars each to final cost of two million dollars. if the one-year option to extend are executed. each contract would be increased by additional one million dollars for total added

costs of smta of four million dollars. estimated expenditure are shown in exhibit 1 of page 34 of our report. the contracts are funded by ftma capitol project for the sixth guide way and enhancement projects. on page 34 and 35 of our report we have discussion of performance management and the, the timing of the approval of these resolutions. so regarding performance management despite delays and cost over runs, sfmta has never completed a performance of either contractor in addition, sfmta did not provide any documentation of evaluating performance to its contractor to our team.

we recommend that they consider a hearing on this topic in september or whenever the board feels it may be appropriate. at the other issue is regarding, the two-year extensions, so the proposed resolution would approve two extensions of each contract one, one-year extension and one year option to extend subject to approval. we think that the board should resolution of each contracts option to extend. to be consistent with the director's authority and also because the authority describes one-year of pending rather than one-year and the option to extend. we do for that reason, we do consider approval of proposed resolution to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors.

>> thank you, how much was it ultimately what was the total budget? >> for the whole program? >> it's a little under two billion dollars, 1.968. >> with that, i mean when i look back of the total scale of spending and in the scale of what is before us today. this is a drop in the bucket. i want to put that in contract why i care about the integrity of the process and the contract and throughout, we are here. it's done. i'm not in the space but i feel very strongly about just along the way, could you explain why it's retroactive. i know that this is not the contract, this is actually a design contract project, design

team contract but in your explanation why it has to be retroactive is because of your negotiation, could you explain? >> we had started the negotiation with the two design teams in january. and we have actually done most of the negotiations in april. but, we the management team wanted put all full contract under one cycle to the board because they wanted to discuss all of the elements together because they're integrated. there were some call back and issues related to design that the tutor was implying. >> it's because of the design but not the construction work? that was a debate. >> that was a debate, yeah. we felt it was inappropriate

for us to go with the design package without concluding the tutor part of it. plus we're also under lawsuit tutor because of the covid delay. we waited to package under the four contracts altogether and our tension was really to go to the board in may. we ended up going to board in june 6th. >> would you category both the design group as well as the h nt btsgjv that those groups are considered specialty contractors?

>> they are in the sense that they're especially design because they provide some skill set related to station design which we don't normally do. and also related to tunnel and water. so according to you, when you have done these evaluation, right with the our funding partners which is the federal transportation authority and our own, county transportation authority, you have done an evaluation which including the contractors performing critical path work. they were included. >> they were part of the discussion but we, evaluated

all performance, myself and all our internal design team to see what we did better. the conclusion is there were some elements during design that we could have anticipated some of these changes. also some things that unbe known to us that things changed that we could not anticipate. it's almost, i think the fta conclusion was that basically, if we understood what we understood back then, we may have changed the methodology, hindsight it's 2020. >> it's 2020 but it's tax payer's dollars. but what i'm trying to say is also to say, that perhaps that these four million dollars should have been part of the scope of the design.

and that's something as basically as power medication and sensing at the station. what i'm trying to articulate i'm not in disagreement of these improvements, why are we paying extra for it and why do we have to extend additional contract terms and conditions for it. i would think that this should have been all inclusive in your contract, original contract and should have been all inclusive in terms of a close out process that this could happen what a lay person would see as warranty. if we invest this much thatser, i would like to understand what is my warranty period and our coming back to us and saying,

supervisors please approve us additional fund to go buy a warranty because we didn't do the job to ensure that we have this warranty and therefore now we have to spend additional dollars. of course i do agree the fact that the climate, the bidding climate and policy decisions that the city and county of san francisco has when it comes to the lowest bid is what makes it difficult. to be able to come to us for lowest bid but through our time and also gaining the gaming conditions that they allow to come in and change orders, then coming in at a much higher costs at the end of a project which is also the reason why i appreciate and vice chair

effort, supervisor mandelman has been doing the best quality for construction contract. and i whole ha*ertedly agree with that and i look forward to seeing that changes to really look into best practices and best performance and in our bidding evaluation. but with that said, we're going to go to comment. until in central subway, it's been two decades in the making, two billion dollars worth. perhaps we're landing in a better space terminal. because at least it's functional, perhaps it's additional fencing and water mitigation.

but, but it's hard, it's a hard pill to swallow. thank you and with that, let's go to public comment. >> clerk: yes, members of the public who wish to speak on items 13 and 14 are joining us in-person should line up now. and for those who have joining remotely, press star-3 if you wish to enter the speaker line. for those on the line, indicate--seeing no speakers here in the chamber. mr. chu if you can unmute our caller please. >> caller: david pillpow, are you hear me okay? >> clerk: you're time is going. >> caller: am i inmuted. >> we can hear you go ahead. >> caller: thanks, my only comment here, i appreciate the discussion you just had. in my opinion, there were a

number of decisions made by boards of supervisors, management, that related in value engineering which is short for cutting things out of the project in terms of design and construction and elements and perhaps quality issues. and functionality and as a result, we are left with the project that was ultimately designed and built and delivered and now we're dealing with that so you're looking at funding what you can to fix.

and non mta project within the city. but i think unfortunately, forwarding these items and resolving these issues makes the most sense under the circumstances. thanks for listening. >> clerk: mr. should you do we have anymore callers? madam chair, that completes the queue. >> thank you, seeing no more public comment, public comment is now closed. is would like to move items 13 and 14 to full board without recommendation. supervisor safai, will you returning to the chamber and join us? >> clerk: before that, madam chair, i do believe there were amendments. >> yeah, sorry, so let's do the substancetive amendments for let me read this off. on page 3, line 8 to 9 and 16 and 18.

on page 3, is the line 8 and to cross out therefore be it and cross out resolve and put in where as, and line 16, again cross out now be it now. and crossing it out mamb and then replace it with a phrase and line 17, is to cross out the municipal transportation agency board directors and board of supervisors. those are technical amendments, moving. vice chair is moving the amendment.

roll call on the amendment. >> to amend item 13 as just read by search, vice chair, aye. member safai? >> aye. >> chair chan. >> aye. >> we have three ayes. >> i would like to move 13 and 14 without recommendation. >> clerk: and on that motion to refer both resolutions with no recommendations, items 13 as amended vice chair mandelman? >> aye. >> safai? >> aye. >> chair chan. >> aye. >> we have three ayes. >> mr. clerk, do we have any other business. >> that completes business. >> thank you, the meeting is adjourned.

>> it is one of the first steps families and step to secure their future and provide a sense of stability for them and their loved ones. your home, it is something that

could be passed down to your children and grandchildren. a asset that offers a pathway to build wealth from one generation to the next. and you need to complete estate plan to protect the asisets. your home, small business, air looms and more. you and so many communities, black, indigenous, latino and asian worked so hard to make yours but estate plans could be costly and conversations complex proud to partner to bring free and low cost estate plans to san franciscans. by providing estate plans we are able to keep the assets whole for our families, prevent displacement, address disparities and home ownership and strengthen the cultural integrity of the city. working with local non profit organizations and neighborhood groups bringing the serveess to you and community, to workshops focused on estate planning and why it's important.

>> i'm 86 years old and you do need a trustee. you need a will and put who ever you want in charge of it. >> that's why i wanted to be here today. that is why one of the first steps i took when become assessor recorder is make sure we have a partnership to get foundational funding to provide these resources to community. but even more important is our connection to you and your homes and making sure we know how to help you and how to protect them. >> if you don't have a living trust you have to go through probate and that cost money and depending on the cost of the home is associated the cost you have to pay. that could be $40 thousand for a home at that level. i don't know about you, but i don't $40 thousand to give up. >> (indiscernible) important workshop to the community so we can stop the loss of generational wealth and equity and maintain a

(indiscernible) >> why are estate plans important? we were just talking before we started the program, 70 percent of black americans do not scr a will in place. >> as mentioning being in community we had a conversation with a woman who paid $2700, $2700 just for revocable trust. what we are talking about today are free or low cost estate plans that are value between 3,000 to $3500. free or low cost meaning free, or $400 if you make above $104 thousand a year, and capped larger then that amount. because we want to focus on black and brown households, because that's whether the need is, not only in san francisco, not only the bay area but the region as well. and, >> i was excitesed to see the turn out from the western addition and bayview and want to make sure we cover

all the different steps from buying a home to making sure homes stay within the family. >> work with staff attorneys to receive these free and low cost complete estate plans that include a living trust, will, financial power of attorney, and health directive. >> that's why it is so important to make these resources and this information accessible. so we can make sure we are serving you and your families and your generations and your dreams. >> we insure the financial stability of san francisco, not just for government, but for our communities. >> on behalf of the office of assessor recorder, i'm thankful for all the support and legal assistance they have given that makes the estate planning program a realty for you in san francisco and are thank all the community partners like san francisco housing development corporation, booker t washington center and neighborhood leaders and organizations that help families and individuals realize their dreams of building wealth in san francisco from one generation to the next. to learn

more about this program e-mail >> 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. [ ♪♪♪ ]television.

>> in 1948 swensen's ice cream used to make ice cream in the navy and decided to open up an ice cream shop it it takes time for the parent to put money down and diane one of the managers at zen citizen in arena hills open and serve old-fashioned ice cream. >> over 20 years. >> yeah. >> had my own business i was a firefighter and came in- in 1969 her dad had ice cream and left here still the owner but

shortly after um, in here became the inc. maker the manager and lead and branded the store from day to day and in the late 90s- was obvious choice he sold it to him and he called us up one night and said i'm going to sell the ice cream store what you you talking about diane came and looked at the store and something we want to do and had a history of her dad here and growing up here at the ice cream store we decided to take that business on. >> and have it in the family i didn't want to sell it. >> to keep it here in san

francisco. >> and (unintelligible). >> share worked there and worked with all the people and a lot of customers come in. >> a round hill in the adjoining areas loved neither ice cream shop in this area and support russia hills and have clean up day and give them free ice cream because that is those are the people that keep us the opportunity to stick around here four so many years next generations have been coming her 20 er thirty or 40 years and we have the ingredients something it sold and, you know, her dad said to treat the customers right and people will keep on coming back and 75 or 74 years,

you know, that is quite an accomplishment i think of it as our first 75 years and like to see that, you know, going into the future um, that ice cream shop will be around used to be 4 hundred in the united states and all gone equipment for that one that is the first and last we're proud of that we're still standing and people people are you tell people it's been around in 50 years and don't plan on

[♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> so i grew up in cambridge, massachusetts and i was very fortunate to meet my future wife, now my wife while we were both attending graduate school at m.i.t., studying urban planning. so this is her hometown. so, we fell in love and moved to her city. [♪♪♪]

[♪♪♪] >> i was introduced to this part of town while working on a campaign for gavin, who is running for mayor. i was one of the organizers out here and i met the people and i fell in love with them in the neighborhood. so it also was a place in the city that at the time that i could afford to buy a home and i wanted to own my own home. this is where we laid down our roots like many people in this neighborhood and we started our family and this is where we are going to be. i mean we are the part of san francisco. it's the two neighborhoods with the most children under the age of 18. everybody likes to talk about how san francisco is not family-friendly, there are not a lot of children and families. we have predominately single family homes. as i said, people move here to

buy their first home, maybe with multiple family members or multiple families in the same home and they laid down their roots. [♪♪♪] >> it's different because again, we have little small storefronts. we don't have light industrial space or space where you can build high-rises or large office buildings. so the tech boom will never hit our neighborhood in that way when it comes to jobs. >> turkey, cheddar, avocado, lettuce and mayo, and little bit of mustard. that's my usual. >> mike is the owner, born and bred in the neighborhood. he worked in the drugstore

forever. he saved his money and opened up his own spot. we're always going to support home grown businesses and he spent generations living in this part of town, focusing on the family, and the vibe is great and people feel at home. it's like a little community gathering spot. >> this is the part of the city with a small town feel. a lot of mom and pop businesses, a lot of family run businesses. there is a conversation on whether starbucks would come in. i think there are some people that would embrace that. i think there are others that would prefer that not to be. i think we moved beyond that conversation. i think where we are now, we really want to enhance and embrace and encourage the businesses and small businesses that we have here. in fact, it's more of a mom and

pop style business. i think at the end of the day, what we're really trying to do is encourage and embrace the diversity and enhance that diversity of businesses we already have. we're the only supervisor in the city that has a permanent district office. a lot of folks use cafes or use offices or different places, but i want out and was able to raise money and open up a spot that we could pay for. i'm very fortunate to have that. >> hi, good to see you. just wanted to say hi, hi to the owner, see how he's doing. everything okay? >> yeah. >> good. >> we spend the entire day in the district so we can talk to constituents and talk to small businesses.

we put money in the budget so you guys could be out here. this is like a commercial corridor, so they focus on cleaning the streets and it made a significant impact as you can see. what an improvement it has made to have you guys out here. >> for sure. >> we have a significantly diverse neighborhood and population. so i think that's the richness of the mission and it always has been. it's what made me fall in love with this neighborhood and why i love it so much. .

[applause] >> good morning everybody. good morning, it will work better to hold this. (indiscernible) it is 5 after 12. this is the last time stopped this long was the 1906 earthquake. it is in fact 11 o'clock, so we are starting. i want to welcome everybody here. i'm the rick the president of market street railway, a non profit muni's preservation partner. we get no government funding. we depend on donations from individuals and businesses who love and benefit from the historic cars that run on market street which we brought back 40 years ago, and the cable cars. we run the san francisco