Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 20, 2010 7:30pm-8:00pm PST

8:30 pm
the city is working for the pga instead of the other way around. it is badly written and unfortunately forces the city to make inappropriate commitments to the contractor, ignoring the law that governments have made about revenue usage. i am told that the city has wave a magic wand and protection disappeared from the agreement. the contract is missing all of the factors that directly affect the scope. rule number one in signing the contract is to leave no blanks. this contract need serious amendments to correct many flaws and be in compliance. speaking of approval, where is the puc in this long-term arrangement? they do own the property, including the golf course, and had they not been asked to be a
8:31 pm
signatory, there was not a public that was committed to allowing to the park -- allowing the park to be controlled in perpetuity. if the puc wants their land back, will they keep the contract as written? or will they find themselves in court, using taxpayer money to get out of the appeal that does not meet their long-term needs? i cannot stress this strongly enough. before we have two departments signing on. [tone] thank you. supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> walter ♪ fly the pga golf ball management to the moon and let me play under the stars and let it be that harding park has come along so far.
8:32 pm
in other words, please be true as i am to ♪ >> my name is richard and i am in opposition to this contract. after putting it money into harding park annually, have we not learn something? two minutes does not give me much time, but first of all the contract was originally r f q four qualifications, unfortunately they did not sign the contract with them. it was signed with ttc, which is a shell corporation. they were given approval based
8:33 pm
on financial ability. who is this new group? will they be responsible? i am a lawyer and any lawyer knows that you do not let your shell corporations sign your contracts. the next thing is that every year, the department says they have lost $500,000. actually it is $1.2 million because they are not able to pay back the opening statement. when you do that, this thing is a losing proposition. we are using the same model that got us into trouble and we have not learned anything. we are really making a mistake. if you look at my brief, the averages $1.2 million each year. the reason we are losing this kind of money is because we are paying $3.5 million for someone to push tickets. i worked at a golf course as a kid and i was one of those
8:34 pm
ticket counters. it did not take $3.5 million. we can still have the tournament if we have a competent staff that can run this and it should be put out for bid. there are managers that will pay less money. [tone] you should look at it, you cannot do it today but you have got to look at the contract, there are so many holes. supervisor avalos: thank you larry much. next speaker, please? >> my name is richard harris with the public alliance of 4500 member golfers. we have appear before you before. we have discussed public building matters with supervisors. we do support this contract. i have given you a letter dated september 16 stating our position. i am also giving you a letter
8:35 pm
from leedo, director of a golf club that supports the contract. on the point that the budget analysts have raised in the arbitration provision and course conditions, we have addressed that point in the fourth and fifth paragraph with letters that we gave you. we were not consulted in the details of negotiation between the parties. from our view there are as many benefits to having the pga and its affiliates operate the golf course, including a series of tournaments' that they are bringing here.
8:36 pm
we also believe in the city to keep its standards with other courses. this is apparently based on what we support. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. any other members of the public? could you line up please? thank you. >> in the executive director of the first tee of san francisco. over the two tournament held in the past at harding park, because of the nature of a golf course and the level of the tournament they have attracted, the first tee has been the beneficiary. we have been able to collect $1 million as a result. what some of you might know in this room is that we were able to build the first ever driving range facility in the valley where a golf course was put on
8:37 pm
top of my high school. it happened with much fanfare at -- fanfare last october. that facility has been able to serve 500 children in and out of them, we had 150 children show up for summer programming. that was 150 young men and women that were able to take part in something constructive. 20 people that were already golf course ready, some of them living in the housing developments in the area that have taken to the golf course because of what they have been able to learn through the kind of generosity of this capital commitment of the pga tour. moving forward, i find a real impact has happened and it will take about one quarter of a million dollars just to have a sustainable impact through the jobs program for the people of that community.
8:38 pm
with the two were agreeing to donate their feet of approximately $250,000 to create a lasting funding source for the first tee to be able to not only fun of the children at the park, but most importantly hopefully the 500 that we currently see and be able to achieve a lasting impact on those young people's lives. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. net speaker, please? -- next speaker, please? >> my name is sandy tatum and i am a golfer. i have lived in the city for 55 years and have been very aware of what kind of bass said the city has in the park. it is absolutely priceless. that awareness was a factor when i started turning in my
8:39 pm
patches, realizing they would go to see that i could not bear it. i had been in it involved in various ways in trying to keep it alive. from the standpoint of knowing a lot about golfing administration, you could not possibly have a better reason than to have a pga to take on the project. making sure not just that it is properly maintained, but this is a very, very valuable asset. i have been aware of its potential for years and up we will now realize its potential. now, to take advantage of the fact that the pga was willing to come here to take on this project, i would have to say that i was very stimulated by the fact that i thought that the park provided a great basis for
8:40 pm
the establishment of a first tee program in san francisco. what that program does, simply, it takes in interest in looking these kids into playing golf. not to get them to play golf, but to get them to do something was more important, being constructive human beings. we have established those schools in war zones and they are doing their job, saving these children. keeping them on the right track. i would urge you, with all of the passion and bring to bear. supervisor avalos: i want to thank you for all of your work. i want to thank you for your commitment to the first tee program and evolving, i think
8:41 pm
that the president's cup was will of a ban thank you for everything. -- the presidents cup was a thank you for everything. >> i could not be more grateful for being involved in the manner in which i have been. supervisor avalos: thank you, next speaker? >> my name is daniel dillon. i have worked around this building and we have debated many of them over the years, having had many fund doing that over the years with practical joke on me. it is rare that you see a contract where you get
8:42 pm
something this good for so little. you are getting the world's best has gotten the best for free. , we should be patenting mr. ginsberg and the entire team on the back, using this contract and their work as a model for other departments to find an opportunity to have contracts like this. with due respect to the previous speaker, sharp park and lincoln park are great assets. as a golfer, you cannot compare them to hyde park and what the pga tour has done and will do to harding part. hopefully this will be a model for what we can do in the future. but this is an incredibly good contract and i hope that he will
8:43 pm
consider it and pass it on to the full board with a yes recommendation. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. any other members of the public? seeing no one come forward, we will close public comment. but just a quick question related to open spaces and contributions. there is a footnote on page 206 of the budget analysts report to discuss the deficit from the golfing fund relative to contributions to the over state fund. i notice that for the last fiscal year, there were no contributions. but in previous years and has arranged itself from $1.4 million of $583,000. what is proposed for the current
8:44 pm
year is the deficit with a payments to the open space fund of $1,038,000. what is the formula for how we contribute to the open space fund and how does that change year after year? >> supervisors, under the building fund ordinance, the department has worked with the city's office of public finance to create a debt service schedule for the payment to the open space fund. gulf funds at the interest rate, which is variable and changes every year. so, every year the department works with policymakers.
8:45 pm
we budget. we start off every fiscal year with the intention of budgeting the full amounts of the payment from golf to the open space fund. supervisor avalos: the full amount would be for the current year? >> for the current year the full amount of payment in the schedule would be over $5.2 million. that is under the assumption that we start off with so many bills on the budget. but over prior years as we know, the fund has needed support from general funds. so, at the end of the day it winds up being something of a negotiation between what they can afford and what the general funding subsidy is, as well as the payment from golf to open space and what it winds up
8:46 pm
being. again, as you know, the fund was an ordinance, the budget was an ordinance. although the gulf fund it specifies how the payment would be made, as the board approved the budget annually, the payment might be something less than what the fund originally intended. >> in terms -- supervisor avalos: supervisor avalos: in terms of the original amount, now we are projecting and the declining? correct? >> no, the final approved budget by the board of supervisors included the $1,038,000 payment. supervisor avalos: budgets that have been improved from previous years, we did not hit that mark? >> no. if the budget includes the payment, the department makes the payment. supervisor avalos: coming back
8:47 pm
to approve again the ordinance? >> correct. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. colleagues, this item is before us. supervisor maxwell? [laughter] -- supervisor maxwell: the city has put a lot of money, over $20 million, into this golf course. no one is giving the city favors. we put a lot of money into this golf course and it is paying off. i appreciate the fact that it is paying off and that people see it as a valuable asset. that is exactly what we started off doing. and that what -- that is what has come about. it's not like we have been given something, we have worked hard for this. it will pay off in different
8:48 pm
ways. i am supporting the contract. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. colleagues, the item is before us. any amendments from the budget analysts? no? let's move forward with recommendations. taken without objection. if we could call item no. 3? >> item #3, resolution authorizing the airport commission to execute an other transaction agreement with the federal aviation administration (faa) for the replacement airport traffic control tower and faa offices in the amount not to exceed $79,982,500 and retroactively accept and expend federal funds. supervisor avalos: thanks for sticking with us. thank you, mr. young. i am told that this item has a
8:49 pm
companion piece that is not quite ready yet, we would like a motion to continue it for one week to next wednesday's meeting. without objection? ok. that you very much. mr. clerk, item number four, please. >> item #4, ordinance authorizing the san francisco department of public works to implement an alternative bid process for construction trade packages and to award contracts for construction services, for the renovation of and capital improvements to the moscone convention center. supervisor avalos:? told that we have a small technical amendment for this? >> yes, -- i am told that we have a small technical amendment for this? >> yes, the middle initial is s. supervisor avalos: we will make that change in the resolution to the ordinance and we assume that
8:50 pm
that is not substantive. we will make that amendment. welcome. >> thank you, good morning, supervisors. i will be speaking about the alternative contract process. first wanted to acknowledge that we have other team members here at the convention facilities department from the visitors' bureau, as well as executive liaison to the non-profit source improving district. the capital improvements is much needed to maintain it as a modern and destinations base for conventions. over the last couple of years the bureau has reached out to major stakeholders and clients for feedback on improvements required to maintain the facility as fresh and competitive based on the
8:51 pm
feedback received we have prepared improvements that are needed, developing a list of priorities that would meet the budget and schedule. based on that, we have put together scopes of work that needs a budget of $55.5 million. the improvements include things like painting, upgrades to the elevators and escalators, new bathrooms, renovations, lighting, control to mechanical equipment, all of these improvements being in an effort to address concerns raised by the people granted for conventions. we have used a list of priorities to make determinations on funding improvements between private and public. based on that, we have developed a unique public-private partnership and we would like
8:52 pm
your approval to deliver the project in the same way. chapter 6 of the administrative code does not contemplate the liberal budgets in public and private funds, so we are here to see your approval for integrated project delivery that is different from what chapter 6 allows. in general terms, the way that it works is we will release the public funds to pay for contractors such as funding, elliptical, painting and so on, using other funds to pay for professional services, contractors, or hiring of legitimate contractors to manage the trade. once the public trade is bid out based on requirements, we would like to take both contracts to the general contractors for them to manage
8:53 pm
the work. this one step is what is not allowed in chapter 6 and is what requires approval. this is exactly the same model that be used with at the academy of science, where we use public dollars for the contract and assigned it to the general contractor for them to manage the work. supervisor avalos: tid funds are considered private because they go into a separate, non-profit? >> correct. with that their funds that will handle some of the professional contractors and specific contracts that are best for cured through a negotiation process. all of these public funds are intended to be used with construction contracts in competitive processes with prevailing wages and all of the things embodied in chapter 6.
8:54 pm
the budget analyst report recommended that we make an advantage -- recommended that we make an amendment, it has been submitted and reflects their concern is for the projects. >> that was the only thing i was going to add, that we had made a recommendation that the bottom of page 9 on the report, to amend the ordinance to require scope of work for all contracts awarded by or assigned to the tourism district for the work on the moscone improvement center in changes be subject to the approval review in writing of the two and we recommend approval of the ordnance -- dtw and we recommend approval of the ordinance as recommended. supervisor avalos: thank you.
8:55 pm
any public comment? please come forward. >> ♪ moscone center i hope you fix it and i hope you can hardly wait to be right there don't you remember you told me you love the george moscone convention center said you would be coming back and you would like to fix it up greatly. i hope that you do it, do a good center i love that center yes i really do i hope you fix it up and the convention center from all over the world people will visit there right now don't you remember you told me you love the the moscone convention
8:56 pm
center said he would be coming back to visit their i love that center i really do ♪ supervisor avalos: any other member of the public that would like to comment? we will close public comment. without objection, recommendation. wait, let's back that up. we need to make some amendments. >> actually, mr. chairman, i believe that the department submitted an amendment on whole that reflects our recommendation, which is stated on page 4-7 supervisor avalos:
8:57 pm
to give the scope of the work -- 4-7. supervisor avalos: to give the scope of the work? that's get the vote and accept the amendment as a whole and move it forward to the full board with recommendation. thank you, mr. rose. on item number one, i am told that since that was amended up, we will have to rescind that vote and continue in one week. any comments? >> no. supervisor avalos: we will rescind the vote on item number one and bring it up in a week. okay? mr. clerk, please call item no. 5. >> item #5, ordinance amending section 105.3 of the san francisco administrative code to change the timelines and standards under which the controller is directed to review
8:58 pm
and adjust the cigarette litter abatement fee. supervisor avalos: mr. wagoner? >> budget director, mr. gregg wagner, the item is clarification of the process for adjusting the cigarette lighter abatement feet. when this legislation was passed, it had a provision that would require the controller to adjust the feed based on data on recoverable expenses. in the original legislation they patted the controller to make those legislation's specific beginning in fiscal year 2011 and 2012. this amendment would allow the controller to make adjustments to move up the time line. sooner based on updated data. that is the primary change. i have a couple of amendments recommended by the city attorney
8:59 pm
that are not substantive which you have before you, but i am happy to read them into the record of that would be appropriate. the first is to add a section one untitled findings -- entitled findings, finding that the analysis of the sidewalk street litter conducted by mgm management inc. reveals that the audit found that cigarette butts and related packaging constitutes 22% of all such litter on san francisco sidewalks and street gutter's. and then there are adjustments to the section headings and sub- section headings reflecting the addition of that section. then on page 3, the section formerly g