Transcripts For SFGTV 20141201

I am joined by supervisor john avalos, we will be joined momentarily by supervisor eric mar items acted upon today will appear on the november 25th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Items 1 through 3 are sponsored by supervisor wiener who will be here in about 30 minutes. Item 4 is an ordinance authorizing the Municipal Transportation Agency to include in any contract with Security Services it executes within the next year after issuing a competitive solicitation reviptions that require payment of prevailing wages by both the contractor and subcontractor to any individual providing Security Services under the contract and transitional employment for the prior contractors employees as set forth in administrative code 21c. 7. We have cis from mta on this item. Supervisor avalos, cis cabot, security enforcement at mta on behalf of my colleagues at the agency i am grateful for the opportunity to address this committee about the importance of partnering with a private company. With a ridership of over 250 Million People annually and billions of dollars in assets the mta has much to protect that is vital to the people of San Francisco and the region. That duty is undertaken with the utmost seriously by the agency and we are constantly looking for Better Solutions to accomplish that mission. The security takes the sbeg greatd asset approach. The combination of trained security personnel, technology, for example surveillance and intrusion detection systems and properly secured and maintained or hardened securities work in tandem to maintain the safety and security of the infrastructure. Additionally our daily partnership with the San Francisco Police Department and the department of home labd security and the Transportation Security Administration increase our ability to increase security for the agency and our ridership. In keeping with our culture of Continuous Improvement in this area in addition to looking for state of the Art Solutions we also assess the effectiveness of our guard force. We can select the one that is the best able to meet the needs of the agency and the crate. We are looking forward to undertaking that process and particularly with this provision as the members of this committee are obviously well aware we encountered some challenges in our previous ifp process. Things that we would like to avoid both in the interest of efficiency going through an rfp process and obtaining a contract with a security provider for an additional period of time but also in the interest of making sure that we can do justice by the employees who are providing this valuable service for the agency. With that i would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you. Okay, no questions, mr. Rosen, if we can go to your report, please. Yes, mr. Chairman, supervisor avalos, as shown in table 2 on page 21 of our report, based on the recent comparative as you recall this similar item went before you or the item on the actual competitive bidding. The proposed ordinance will result in the sfmta paying an additional 218,000 annually for a total of wl done,226,679 during a 10 year term. The proposed ordinance excuse me if the proposed ordinance is approved it is likely to reduce the number of responses to the sfmta solicitation and therefore the competitiveness of the bidding process because the proposed language appears to significantly advantage the existing contractor, sigh press Security Services. Currently the existing contract, sigh press Security Service, under this proposed ordinance sigh press Security Service would also have the advantage of setting the specific wages and Fringe Benefits that would be required to be paid to all contractors. Therefore our recommendation, supervisor, on the bottom of page 22 is that you amend the proposed ordinance to delete the language on pages 2 and 3 which defines, quote, prevailing wages, end of quote, as the amount of compensation including Fringe Benefits or the matching equivalent thereof paid by the incumbent contractor to its employees as of the date of the competitive solicitation and we recommend you approve the proposed ordinance as amended. Mr. Avalos. Thank you, mr. Rose, i actually appreciate your suggestion for an amendment. That makes a lot of sense that we have an even Playing Field and base it on prevailing wage on not what the contractor thats already currently paying but what the standard is in the industry. So i will move that amendment. Okay, why dont we first open this up to Public Comment. Anybody wish to comment on item 4 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Okay, motion to approve the Budget Amendment and to approve the underlying ordinance and move forward as recommended. Okay, we can approve that without objection. Excuse me, mr. Chair, i would like to request that the department provide us with the amended legislation before 9 00 am tomorrow morning. Thank you. All right, madam clerk, no. 5. Item 5 is a resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of a multi Family Housing revenue note in an agret gate Principal Amount not to exceed 1 mill for the acquisition and construction of a 105 multi Family Housing project known as hunters view. Good morning, supervisors, i am pamela sims, i am a Development Specialist in the office of Community Investment and infrastructure and the resolution before you will authorize the issuance of bond proceeds to pay for construction and Development Costs for hunters view phase ii a this was introduced at 112 middle point road. However through a technical amendment we have revised the text to the exact address or 227228 west point road. The sponsoring Team Includes the john stewart company, divine and gong and ridge point as the owner and general partner. Wells fargo will serve as limited partner and tax Credit Investor and citi bank is construction lender and bond purchaser. When completed hunters view phase ii a will be a 107 develop. Come prietszd of 32 two bedroom units, 8 4 bedroom units and one 5 bedroom units. 80 units are replacement units and the household will pay no more than 30 percent of their income as rent. The remaining units are ardable tax credit units targeting no more than 50 percent of area Median Income or 48,550 for a family of four. These transactions are conduit financing which do not require the city to pledge repayment of the bonds. We anticipate closing the bonding within the next month, construction completion date of 2017. Here with me today is a sponsor representative, Andrew Berman of divine and gong, we look forward to your support and look forward to seeing you at the Ground Breaking and this concludes my staff report. Seeing no questions, why dont we move on to Public Comment. Anyone wish to comment on item 5 . Seeing none, comment is closed. Dont be have a budget analyst report, we can take this without objection. Thank you very much. Item 6, resolution approving and authorizing the general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities commission to execute amendment no. 4 to the professional Services Agreement for the new urban tunnel project with Urs Corporation for a total revised agreement of approximately 14. 9 million and extend the Contract Term by one year. Do we have our Public Utilities commission here . Okay, they are not here right now. Why dont we move on to item 7 oh, 7 is puc as well. Item no. 7 you. You know what, ma madam clerk, thats the same staff. Item 8, resolution authorizing the director of property to execute the option agreement for the purchase and sales of Real Property between the city Transbay Joint Powers Authority and inaudible agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the city and county of San Francisco, execute a consent to the condition of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority bridge loan with a value of 171 million. Good morning, claudia goram, assistant director of real estate. Miss sarah giladi and miss tiffany bohe, the executive director of oci, were going to be here for a presentation and a powerpoint. I dont know if we want to continue this to allow them to get here or i can just give you a brief i dont know if you had any questions. I can do an introduction and kind of lay it out for you. Why dont you do an introduction and well see if we have further questions. Very concisely, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority requires a short term interim financing to be able to continue to meet certain contractual requirements in their phase i of the Transbay Transit Center project. Tjpa seeks to obtain a bridge loan in the amount of 171 million and as security for that loan, certain conditions must met including a deed of trust and negative covenants on Certain Properties located in the transbay redevelopment area. There is no fiscal impact to the city in this transaction. The city will not be a party to the loan and it is not an owner of any of the property at issue. However since the city is a party to a 2003 cooperative agreement made with caltrans which transferred certain sfaitowned properties in the area to the city and tjpa and since the city is a party to the boardapproved 2008 option agreement for the purchase and sale of those properties, including stateowned property own you had by the city, tjpa and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, agency, pars3 now ocii the city has to approve any amendment to any agreement including the option agreement. The city does not incur any indebtedness or approve the structure of the tjpa loan. Rather it approves certain conditions which allow tjpa to move forward to obtain the interim financing and the loan it needs to allow the Transbay Center project to continue construction. The proposed resolution authorizes the director of property to execute the First Amendment which permits, among other things, ocii to subordinate its option and offer a priority interest in those projects doo its lenders during the term of the bridge loan. The resolution authorizes the director to xutd an acknowledgement of those subordinations and to consent to caltrans Early Release under the cooperative agreement as to these certain parcels as security interest for the loan. The budget and legislative analysis recommends approval of the proposed legislation and real estate agrees. If you have minimal questions, again, they had a Powerpoint Presentation but they are not here. It goes into the underlying transaction and background, i dont know if we need to get into that because thats not this hat, that will be the redevelopment hat that is being drektded to the board later. I think well be okay but lets see if we have questions after the report. Supervisor avalos, on the bottom of page 47 and as the department has indicated, the proposed legislation does not bind the city to make any expenditure, incur any indebtedness or in any way obligate itself under the Transbay Joint Power Authority bridge loan nor approve the financial structure of the bridge loan and the underlying Credit Program therefore we recommend you do approve this proposed legislation. Thank you, mr. Rose. Move to Public Comment. Anybody wish to comment on item 8 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Move we approve. Thanks very much for being here. Could we have a motion to approve and send this item to the december 9 full Board Meeting where there will be some other things in the project. Without objection. Let me check back with the puc, okay, why dont we bring you up, weve already called item yeah, puc is here so why doesnt the puc come up. Weve already called item 6. Why dont we take items 6 and 7. Item no. 7, resolution authorizing the general manager of the puc to execute an agreement with parillo engineers for specialized planning and Engineering Services for the proposed new head work facility at the southeast Water Pollution control for an amount not to exceed 14 million and a 6 year term following board approval. Thank you. Good morning, members of the committee, emilio cruz. Before you is a contract for the design as much ass of what we call the head work system at the southeast plant. It is part of the overall Sewer System Improvement Program and part of the plan to invest 2 billion in the gt southeast plant in renovation to bring that plant up to modern use. The head works is the initial area where the sewage is brought to the plant and processed through the plant into the plant for bio solid digestion. Our plan is to move through the design phase at a quick phase and move into construction in approximately 2017, concurrent with construction of the bio solids project which is already under contract and design with a contract you approved with brown and caldwell so we ask your permission to move forward. You were speaking there on item 7. You want to speak on item 6 as well . I had a staff person who was supposed to talk about item 6. I will tell you the City Attorney tells me i have a conflict of interest with urs because my wife works with urs. I will state that out front and say i had nothing to do with the decision to bring this original contract to the puc, but this is a contract to extend the contract for services on the new irvington be tunnel. That tunnel is moving, we have completed construction of the tunnel, we plan on disinfectious in 2015 consistent with our overall operations plan. We did run into very challenging conditions while tunneling which extended the contract so this is an extension of of services to be concurrent with the contractors xwepx extension of services. No questions. Mr. Rose, can we do them on 6 and 7 . Mr. Chairman, supervisor avalos, on item 6 on page 26 of our report we report a summary of the additional contract costs of 500,000 is shown in table 1. And we do recommend that you approve the proposed resolution. Regarding item 7, on page 30 of our report we have a table 2 which shows that the amounts to be expended on each phase i task totaling 5. 8 million and anticipated delivery dates for each task. We also recommend that you approve that resolution. Thank you very much, mr. Rose. Why dont we just open it up to Public Comment. Anybody wish to comment on items 6 or 7 . Okay, seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Motion to approve both items. Motion to send both items with recommendation, we can take that without objection. Thank you. Madam clerk, please call item 9. Item 9, resolution authorizing the lease at 3801 tleet street for Human Services agency for rental total of 333,000 and tenant improvement in an estimated cost to the city of approximately 690,000. Good morning again, Claudia Gorham as director of real estate. The proposed resolution authorizes a 5 year lease between the city as tenant and Bayview Plaza llc as land lord for administrative space for the Human Services Agency Family services and Child Welfare programs with renovations. Hhc has rented the suite since 2009. The original term and options expired august 31, 2014 and hsa has been holding over on a month to month since then. Under the proposed new lease, hsa seeks to renovate the premises by combining all 6 suites and adding a 7th suite into a single space under one lease. It has a 5 year term commencing from the date of substantial completion of the tenant improvements with one additional five year option at 95 percent of the thenprevailing market rate. Rent for the interim period during renovations will be 39,215 or 2. 50 per square foot and then rent after completion of the improvements estimated to be around march 2015 will be 41,478. 25 a month, or 2. 75 per square foot, which is only an increase of 29 cents from the original old lease. The interim and initial base rent are fully serviced and the initial base rent is subject to an annual cpi increase of 3 to 5 percent. Hsa will continue to occupy some of the premises during the renovation. The renovation adds problematic space for hsa including a child care room, a large Multi Purpose training and meeting room and larger work space for additional staff which hsa will be increasing and hiring as previously approved by the board. The expected cost of the tenant improvements is 1,097,291, of which 232,000 will be paid by the landlord with the remainder paid by the city. This figure increased by 180,000 due to necessary if furniture and equipment for the additional staff not included in the original resolution language, thus the proposed resolution as drafted states an estimated cost for renovations that is lower, but after further review and conference with mr. Dave kurdo, who is here today, the budget and legislative analyst recommends the proposal be amended and real estate agrees. Funds have been approved through hsas fiscal year budget through fiscal year 2015. If you have any questions regarding the program or the use of the space and the tenant improvement, as i said mr. Kudo is here. Thank you very much. If no questions can we go, mr. Rose, to your report, please. Yes, mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on page 51 of your report as the Department Just stated we report that the expected cost of the tenant improvements is 1,097,291. Of that amount, 231,000 will be paid by the landlord and the remaining 865,098 will be paid by the city. We show a full budget for the tenant improvements on page 52 of our report. We do recommend you amend the resolution to state the revised estimate of the citys cost for tenant improvement is 865,098 instead of the 865,098 that is stated now and we recommend you approve the resolution as amended. Thank you, mr. Rose. No questions. I dont dont we move on to Public Comment if theres anybody who wishes to comment on item 9 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Motion to approve. Any issues right now . Okay. inaudible . Okay, we have a motion, mr. Roses recommendation, approve the item as amended. Item no. 10, resolution authorizing the director of public works to execute modification no. 62 a professional Services Agreement with Jacob Services for the General Hospital rebuild program and increasing the contract not to exceed amount to approximately 21 million. Okay, thank you very much, dpw here to speak on this item. Good morning, my name is ron alameda with the department of Public Works Program manager for the San Francisco general rebuild. I have a brief powerpoint to share with you to hit the highlights of your report before you and kind of a brief status for the project. Were here in front of you to seek approval for an amendment to jacobs Construction Management agreement to a total of 20. 9 Million Dollars to help service the 887. 4 Million Dollar rebuild program. This amendment will allow us will add 4. 5 million to the contract. Its going to reconcile our current forecast utilization trends, reconcile with our last kind of refit of the forecast which we did in 2010. What this does is maintains our rebuild team makeup that weve been running for about 8 years, keeping the project on time and on budget. It will also support additional lbe participation as a major player in the jacobs contract is taylor consulting which provides the well needed cost estimating to validate the project change orders and advancement of payments. The position it also positions the team to address some Additional Services that i cecuming in the coming year. In terms of status we should be substantially complete with the project come may and were about 88 percent expended, were looking to have final completion by september of 2015 with occupancy in december of 2015. So this team will afford us an ability to keep the status quo in terms of the talent on board to address the issues coming in the next year in terms of finishing this project as well as addressing some issues with the service building, seismic, as well as kind of an extension of additional work in the building 5 basement and second floor where the tunnel and the bridge intersect the existing building. This is just a quick summary of what their contract has done. Weve completed the preconstruction, Construction Phase Services are provided as well as close out and postconstruction is the bulk of the work that well be doing in the upcoming year. And its based on our integrated project delivery, they afford us the Third Party Validation of cost and schedule so they play a key role in our efforts and were currently at 29 percent lbe participation for this contract. If we fully expend with the additional addition of 4. 5, we should be able to boost this up to about 34 or 35 percent participation. This is just a quick benchmarking much like we did in 2010. Were still benchmarking well in the realm of a private project as opposed to the trends of a typical public contract in terms of a fee versus Construction Cost ratio, so were still within that realm. And then this is a quick view of our team makeup. Its fairly balanced with dpw as well as consultants. However, we were not able to buttress our dpw team with the skills or the expertise of cost estimating that we were hoping to do back in 2010, so that speaks to a piece of why were looking to extend their contract in terms of dollar amounts. I do want to underscore this request is for authorization to amend their contract. All the funding is