My confusion is why is it so low . I understand the specialty. I know there are areas that we can use lb e. We have looked at those scopes and have made okay, but three point nine shoreside construction, but we only have eligible work or two point eight. Yes. The component that has no participation is 32,000,000 dollars in the project. Okay. The balance at 15 percent which is what we see in a normal package brings us to when you take the 32,000,000 dollars specialty back out. Getting crumbs. As usual. [laughter] im not supporting it on just giving the raw numbers. So we all understand it. There is nothing else we can do about this . We can once again, director forbes, i feel sorry for her having to listen to me over, and over, and over. I just feel sorry for her. [laughter] we do millions of dollars in project. Over, and over. Walkers through why the 32,000,000 dollars participation . Walk us through some of the suppliers, where the suppliers are, what makes them so unique so we understand that those companies cannot do this. Because we want to do it. And demonstrate that there they are only choices. This tells me if this is in the bidding process. This is sort of telling me were going to hire the company that is out there. I would conclude there would be some participation at that point . The master builder, because the 34,000,000 dollar project would be one of the largest firms that you see to have the various crane in the city. As well as dredging, and what they call the cat. Those work, inherently there are no lb eased up perform that work at this time. This includes the painting which is very minimal. There is also some minimal electrical work. There is also an there is a lot of concrete work performed by themselves. 30,000,000 dollars of it is not available, lb es are not able to provide that service to you. Its not the type of work they do. I guess, maybe at this point, it is something for the port. This is work we are going to do forever. We are going to need this type of work. What are we doing to partner with companies, or joint venture, or whatever to make sure there are Companies Available to do this work. One last thing i wanted to mention, sometimes we forget, the eight percent is a four. It is not a ceiling. We struggle to get to the floor. Trust me. A lot of the big firms that inherently pursue this level of work are well known to us at our the same type of contractors that work at the airport, or work on pc. They understand the expectations of not just cmd, they also understand the expectations of the various commissions and how they all want to see a robust participation within their community. We certainly can lean on them. They understand the expectations of the commissions, and certainly we will not let them shoot for the minimums. I am sorry, i did not get commissioner out of the chance to talk. The presentation wasnt really clear to me, probably more confused now when we started. I think victor was on point. Me myself i would like to hold this over, i would like you to go out and do better. To me this is unacceptable. Im tired of always coming in and expect to take crumbs. I think you can do better. I, myself, would like to hold this over madam president youd come back with something better. I just cannot accept that there is no lb eased out there. That is just where i am at. If i may make a comment, in terms of what the port is doing. Some of these firms, there is a huge barrier to entry. There is many millions of dollars to purchase equipment, and to be successful in the field there is economies of scale. So these firms have customers all over the nation in some instances. Perhaps it is a scalability issue and what firms can take on and it could be a mismatch between local Small Businesses and the Marine Construction field. This could be a question for the office of workforce and economic development. That is my sense of why there are no certified lb eased in the Marine Construction field. We are about to spend, you know, billions of dollars on this type of work. We have to do something to get prepared. So that our local Business Enterprises can participate. We have to do something area had a question on the holdover. Im confused, too. Can you remind us about the funding . Can you answer the question around the funding there is mobilization, materials that need to be purchased. There is other items for earnest money that we could do to make that goal if we prepare and spend that money before it is forfeited we have to look for another source for that area does that answer your question . In terms of what we would be able to do in a month. We would not have capacity to enter firms into this field. They are not certified, they are not there. What we would look to is things like the mentorship Protege Program or other forms of Community Building or workforce building that we could accomplish this contract. We would not be able to create these terms or cause assembly. It would be much more around metro protege and other Capacity Building efforts. We can certainly work with our City Partners and see what we might be able to come up with. I think that is a great suggestion and hopefully we can put that in place prior to spending any more funds on this project that needs to move forward. 750,000 dollars we can move forward with this, we have another 36 alien dollars to deal with finding. I would like to understand what your proposal is if we move ahead with this area at the same time we ask the staff to develop the mentor Protege Program because it doesnt sound like the percentages going to change within 30 days. Its not a question of identifying more firms, that is not going to change. Its a Development Effort to get more firms. I wasnt laying out the process Going Forward just what you might purchase anticipate if we take a month to work on it. You have two options here, you can approve this item now and we can work with other staff on sin Capacity Building or other things we can do with these contract dollars to build the pipeline down the road. I dont know if you have any thoughts on hand, or you can hold us over and we could come and tell you what we plan to do next month and you can consider the item that . What you come and tell us youre going to do has to do with future funding, not necessarily this contract . We can move forward with this contract, but prior to any additional allocations being sent, lets have a plan. The underlying bid will be part of the plan or it will not be a part of the plan . The 750,000 dollars contract can be advertised. Everything underneath is different, separate. This is just advertising. All lives matter one favor . Resolution 1927 has been approved. [reading items] good afternoon. I am a capital manager here at the port to present to you the 2012 clean and safe Neighborhood Parks bond. It was approved by voters in 2012 for a total of one 95,000,000 dollars, of which 34,500,000 was allocated to the poor for waterfront parks. Since then the board has participated in two of three bond sales for a total of 31,400,000 dollars and port staff is now recommending that we initiate the fourth bond sale which is the final sale from this bond and the remaining total of 3,100,000 dollars. We would pursue this in the summer of 2019 so we can join with unAffordable Housing bond to save on issuance costs so more money can go towards the projects. The proceeds would be used for construction. Im going to briefly give you an update on the status of the bonds appropriated to date and then we will highlight the intended uses of the proposed sale. This slide shows the full programming of the 2012 parks bond. I would note that this is a bit higher than the 34,500,000 i stated on a previous slide because this has an appropriation of interest earnings. Of the projects in this program, one has been completed the cruise terminal project known as the northeast wharf plaza. That was completed in 2014. As you know well, crane park is under construction and that is funded with 28 and 2012 general Obligation Bond funds. The remaining projects are in planning and design including the peer 27 public art led by the Arts Commission and improvements which will begin conceptual designs this fall. Anticipate all bond proceeds would be expended by june of 2021. This chart shows the details of the existing appropriation as you will see it includes 31,400,000 we have sold in the prior to sales as well as 331,000 dollars of appropriated interest findings. Of that, 13 percent is remaining balance that is unexpended. The proposed final bond sale would include 1,700,000 dollars for aqua vista park and one point two four karens head park. It shows an estimated cost of issuance of one 89,032 dollars. As outnumbered changes and gets finalized, any delta would be reflected in the final karens head park budget. The aqua vista park which you just heard a little bit about in the previous presentation is a 2,000,000 park renovation of an existing port park that will complement the missionbased area landing and the mission bay bay park front to the north. It will improve the experience for pedestrians and visitors by upgrading the furniture, the lighting as well as the access to the existing fishing pier. The herons had park and improvements are complementary to improvement made with the 2008 parks bond and response to the increased usage we are seeing at the park, similarly it will connect a chain of parks by improving access to the improved pg e shoreline to the south of the park and conductivity down to india basin, includes signage improvement, pathway improvement as well as upgrades to the ecocenters. Panels on electrical systems, it is a Green Building but the solar panels are rather old so it can use some upgrade to better serve the needs of the facility. As we can see from the schedule, i touched on earlier. The last object anticipated to be completed from this group is aqua vista park which is said to be completed in mid 2021. If the Commission Approves the item today we would proceed with the Capital Planning committee for approval on july 22, and the item would be introduced along with the Affordable Housing bond to the board of supervisors on july 30. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Can i have a motion . So moved area in any Public Comments on this item . Seeing none. Public comment is closed. Thank you for this presentation. We have all been happy to see that the park program is a very straightforward, just think its execution of something we had agreed to and just to see the schedule on very supported in the item. No questions youd thank you for the presentation, no questions and i am supportive. No questions thank you for the presentation. We all want this to move forward. I am supportive. [laughter] of this one. Thank you. Thank you for this report. Just one question, once we receive the funds, will you come back to the commission on how they are going to be spent and with whom . In terms of issuing contracts we would be back when we issue contracts for the work, yes it would go to the two projects as described but then we would come back with the contracting. Aqua vista is part of the Mission Bay Ferry Landing . And then separately herons park. Youre going to come back with the designs on the programming and all that good stuff . Okay. Thank you. All lives matter one favor . Any opposed . Resolution 1928 has been approved. Good afternoon, or maybe good evening commissioners. I am the port cfo, and im here with a request to approve a supplemental appropriation to support the Seawall Program. Should the city be unable to move forward with the first sale of the seawall bond due to litigation that has been filed contesting proposition a. A measure that passed in november of 2018 with 82 point seven percent voter approval. The port is requesting that the board of supervisors consider and approve a supplemental appropriation from harbor fund balance to support ongoing planning, Community Outreach and preliminary design work on the seawall. I am here today, because in april of 2019, two San Francisco residents filed litigation challenging proposition a. They alleged that the city had violated a variety of state and local election laws in conjunction without measure. On june 18, the litigation with this list by a superior court judge who did not give the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint which was the best possible outcome that the city could have seen. However, the litigants have 60 days in which to appeal the dismissal of their case. The deadline for their appeal would be august 19. The City Attorney strongly believes that this case is without merit, and in fact, this was supported by the action that the superior court took last month. The first sale of the seawall bond has been delayed until at least august 19, and perhaps beyond. As the city evaluates the risk of selling bonds before the appellate timeframe has expired. If the litigation persists and if the city chooses not, the port would propose to appropriate available harbor fund balance to support the Seawall Program through this new fiscal year. Through june 30 of 2020. When the bonds are finally sold, the ports 11,500,000 dollars contribution would ultimately be reimbursed to the harbor. The seawall bond, as you all know, provides a majority of funding for phase 1 of the program. It has no other sources other than the harbor fund to backfill the prevalent potential delay of the bond sales. As of today, staff is estimating, at the current rate of expenditure, the Seawall Program will exhaust its appropriated funding at the end of september, beginning of october. Without a bonded sale or supplemental appropriation, the Seawall Program will run out of funding. The appropriation request is a contingency that will allow us to have worked on the program and continue if we ultimately face a worst Case Scenario with the bond. The total that the port expects to spend on the Seawall Program in fiscal year 1920 is approximately 18,180,000 dollars. The proposed supplemental of 11,500,000 dollars will find nine months of work. October through june on the program. This work would include completion of the multi hazard risk assessment, the initiation of alternative development and the continuation of our Public Engagement work as well as our ongoing collaboration with the army corps of engineers on the flood study. If the commission were to give its approval today we would go to the Capital Planning committee for their approval on july 22 with an eye towards introducing the ordinance at the board of supervisors on july 30. If there is no appeal, of the dismissal of the litigation against prop a by august 19, then we will simply table the ordinance at the board of supervisors. If there is a an appeal and the city chooses to delay the first of bond sale which is an open question we would work to get the items scheduled at the budget and finance committee when the board returns from its recess at the beginning of september and then we would hope to have full board approval by the end of september which would then allow us to continue the program. That concludes my presentation im happy to answer questions. Can i have a motion . So moved. Any Public Comment on this item . Public comment is closed. Thank you for the presentation i am in support of the item and i would continue to see planning so we can move this work forward. Thank you. I support the item. I support the item and think you, its important to have the contingency measure. When you take the funding, the 11,500,000 as the contingency plan out of the ports harbor fund, what line does not affect, county wise . It takes us out of fun balance. We have concluded fiscal year 1718 with a little over as it happens, a little over 1,000,000 dollars in revenue to the good where we had not been counting on that money. Those funds fell to fund balance, we had not programmed the funds for anything. It would be a debit from cash and it will show up as a contribution to capital that has been repaid by an external source of capital. My second question is if you had a bond sale you would have an infusion of cash honestly. Now youre having to use cash. Whats the impact of having to use up cash unexpectedly for this we have a fairly healthy cash balance we have above and beyond what we have given ourselves as policy guidelines in terms of cash balances the we feel confident that we can let go of this cash as a contingency measure and then be paid when the bonds are ultimately sold. Are not concerned on a cash flow basis . Absolutely not. I understand now. Do you want to include that so we all understand how the Financial Impact on the Financial Statements as well on your cash flow im glad we have very positive cash balances. [laughter] we have a lot of allocated projects that sit in cash. Good presentation, you always sit back in the back real quiet and right before you have to speak, passed by the public 82 percent. I was like look at her. This one makes me mad. We should not be here today. Anyway, like my fellow commissioners, i am also supportive. Thank you. These funds have already been appropriated . No, maam. We would be going to the board of supervisors to ask for the appropriation. Okay. As far as to consultants and the youth staff. You have to come back to us, or are we approving how they are going to be spent next . The funds will be appropriated into a project budget for the seawall. And then, the project, that appropriation which we are asking you to approve gives support staff a lot of leeway in how to allocate the funding weatherby between staff or consultant. Okay, i guess my question is this appropriation would be allocated to the contract already approved.