(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Calendar : meeting of Budget Committee, Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco"

: 



STACKS 



m 



GOVERNMENT 1IMF0RMAT1OH 06NT1 
SA I 10 L;3fiAR1l 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Lilmtry 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARV 



3 1223 05718 3544 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/3calendarmeetingo1995sanf 



California Newspaper Se. .ce Bureau, Inc. 
Please have this ad published in the 
SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER 

flee - — 






.^c<|^|N.B. Printer 

b.f. and center 



( NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 

( < BUDGET COMMITTEE 

( S.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



DOCUMENTS nrnv 
AUG 2 - ' 

SAN FR/, 
PU3LIC 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled meeting of 
the Budget Committee for Wednesday, July 5, 1995, at 1:00 p.m., has been 
cancellec 



The next regular meeting of the Budget Committee will be held on 
Wednesday, June 12, 1995, at 1:00 p.m., Room 410, War Memorial 



Building, 401 Van Ness Avenue. 



MOTW Of CAHC&LEDUnTWC 
• BUDGET COMMUTE!, 

kf board of supervisors 

ioTttt IS HEREBY OVEN 0« me 
rt£ujn> scnecued meean* o* the 
■Em committee h» Weonesdiy *»y 
5T9R a UJ0 urn. n» oeen oreeM 
TTne next n*uW meettnj 0< M 
&JVM Commrttte w* Be new on 
SZmKay. June 1Z 1». «< U» &2; 
JSJw W» Memor- But** W 
van Ness Avenue. 
JOHN L TAYIOR. 
OERK OF THE BOARD 

CHS 12WSI nxin IT 



t_D 
CJ1 



CD 



7/01/95 -It - JOHN L. TAYLOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD 



3 1223 05718 3544 



CORRECTED 7/13/95 

MINUTES 



REGULAR MEETING 

BUDGET COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF/ SAN FRANCISCO 

• / 7 

WEDNESDAY. JULY 12. 1995 -1:00 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 



MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS TOM HSIEH, BARBARA KAUFMAN, SUE BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 

DOCUMENTS DEP*r 
TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:05 P.M. AUG 2 7 jqgg 

SAN FRANCISCO 

CONSENT CALENDAR D U3L/C LlBftAn { 



All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to 
be routine by the Budget Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll 
call vote of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these 
items unless a member of the Committee or a member of the public so 
requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent 
Calendar and considered as a separate item: 



a) File 101-92-1 1.5 . [Reserved Funds, Airport] Consideration of release of 
reserved funds, Airport, (1992 Airport Improvement Bonds) totalling 
$1,780,323, ($839,184 for Contract No. 5856, $746,579 for Contract 
#3414R, and $194,560 for Contract No. 3432R) for the purpose of Airport 
Master Plan construction contracts awarded April 18, 1995 and May 16, 
1995. (Airports Commission) 

b) File 101-94-76.1 . [Reserved Funds, Chief Administrative Officer] 
Consideration of release of reserved funds, Chief Administrative Officer, 
(Convention Facilities Fund), in the amount of $679,500, for capital 
improvements for the Children's Place and Moscone Center. (Chief 
Administrative Officer) 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED. FILED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



7 45243 SFPL: ECONO JF 
206 SFPL 11/22/00 ! 



BUDGET COMMITTEE I\ JTES PAGE 2 

REGULAR CALENDAR 
FISCAL ITEMS 

2. File 101-94-112 . [Appropriation, Police and Sheriff] Ordinance appropriating 
$955,423, Sheriff and Police Departments, from the General Fund Reserve for 
overtime, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, other non-personal services 
and services of other departments for costs associated with the UN 50 
Celebration for fiscal year 1994-95. (Controller) RO #94287 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. TABLED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



3. File 101-95-3 . [Appropriation, Public Works] Ordinance appropriating 
$200,000, Department of Public Works, of parking revenue to capital 
improvement project (Clay/Washington parcel rezoning). (Supervisors Shelley, 
Kaufman, Teng, Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Supervisor Kevin Shelley, President of 
the Board. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Rebecca Kolstrand, 
Chief Administrative Office; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amend to add a Section 2 to read: "It is the intent of the Board of 
Supervisors in approving this appropriation, that at least half of 
the Clay/Washington Street parcel (i.e., Block 202) shall remain 
under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission and 
be reserved for public open space. Further amend to add a Section 
3 to read: "Funds in the amount of $101,095 are hereby placed on 
reserve pending selection of consultants, the hourly rates, the 
estimated hours and determination of the MBE/WBE status." NEW 
TITLE: "Ordinance appropriating $200,000 of parking revenue to 
capital improvement project at the Department of Public Works 
for fiscal year 1995-96 (Clay/Washington parcel rezoning); 
providing that at least one half of the Clay/Washington Street 
parcel be reserved for public open space and placing a reserve on 
$101,095." (SUPERVISORS KAUFMAN, TENG AND HSIEH 
REQUESTED TO BE ADDED AS CO-SPONSORS.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE I. UTES PAGE 3 



GENERAL ITEMS 

File 170-94-1.1 . [General Obligation Refunding Bonds] Resolution affirming 
and renewing the authorization for the issuance from time to time in one or 
more series of not to exceed $600,000,000 aggregate principal amount of City 
and County of San Francisco General Obligation Bonds contained in 
Resolution No. 93-94. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Laura Lockwood, Chief Administrative Office. IN SUPPORT: 
None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 38-95-3 . [Gift Acceptance, National Blue Ribbon Commission] 
Resolution accepting gifts of $11,000 from various sources to fund the 
National Blue Ribbon Commission and authorizing the National Blue Ribbon 
Commission to expend the monies donated to facilitate the business of the 
Commission and directing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to reimburse 
the Commission for monies expended to carry out its functions. (Supervisor 
Bierman) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amend amount of accepting gift from $11,000 to $970. Add a 
resolved clause to read: "Authorizing the National Blue Ribbon 
Commission to accept and expend a gift of $970 and the 
expenditure of $10,000 from various sources retroactively to 
facilitate the business of the Commission and directing the Clerk 
of the Board of Supervisors to reimburse the Commission for 
monies expended to carry out its functions." NEW TITLE: 
"Authorizing the National Blue Ribbon Commission to accept and 
expend a gift of $970 and the expenditure of $10,000 from various 
sources retroactively to facilitate the business of the Commission 
and directing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to reimburse 
the Commission for monies expended to carry out its functions." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE i .UTES PAGE 4 



File 60-95-5. [Special Election, Bond Measures] Ordinance calling and 
providing for a Special Election to be held in the City and County on Tuesday, 
November 7, 1995, for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City and 
County propositions to incur the following bonded debts of the City and 
County for the acquisition, construction or completion by the City and County 
of the following municipal improvements, to wit: $63,590,000; $29,245,000 
and $44,100,000 for acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction of certain 
improvements to City Hall, Steinhart Aquarium and related facilities and 
structures and to underground storage tanks owned by City and County; that 
estimated cost of said improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of 
ordinary annual income and revenue will require expenditures greater than the 
amount allowed by annual tax levy; reciting estimated costs of manner of 
holding such election and procedure for voting for or against the propositions; 
fixing maximum rate of interest on said bonds and providing for levy and 
collection of taxes to pay both principal and interest; prescribing notice to be 
given of such election; consolidating the Special Election with the General 
Election; and providing that the election precincts, voting places and officers 
for election shall be the same as for such General Election. (Supervisors 
Shelley, Hsieh, Kaufman, Alioto, Migden, Hallinan, Ammiano, Bierman) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Supervisor Kevin Shelley, President of 
the Board. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose Budget 
Analyst. NO POSITION: John Erlich. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: 
None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING 
SAME TITLE PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE. ADOPTED. 
AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDED. (SUPERVISOR 
BIERMAN REQUESTED TO BE ADDED AS CO-SPONOSR.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



7. File 170-95-7.1 . [Underground Storage Tank Bond Reimbursement] 

Resolution declaring the intent of the City and County of San Francisco to 
reimburse certain expenditures (repair, removal, replacement of underground 
storage tanks and remediation of contaminated soil) from proceeds of future 
indebtedness, and approving and ratifying previous actions. (Chief 
Administrative Officer) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 1:45 P.M. 



■07 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Tublic Library, 'Documents T>ept. 

OF SAN FRAN^^. Jam JudsOTl 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



July 7, 1995 



TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst Rec*~ 

SUBJECT: July 12, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



DOd jMFNTS DEPT, 

JUL 1 1 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item la - File 101-92-11.5 

Department: Airports Commission 



Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Hearing requesting release of reserved funds, Airport, 
totaling $1,780,323, for Airport Master Plan construction 
work. 

$1,780,323 

1992 Airport Revenue Bonds 

In December of 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved an 
ordinance appropriating $2.4 billion in Airport Revenue Bond 
funds for Near Term Master Plan Projects at the San 
Francisco International Airport. Of the $2.4 billion, 
$1,554,200,000 was placed on reserve for construction 
contracts pending the selection of contractors, the submission 
of budget details and the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractors. 

In July of 1994, the Board of Supervisors released 
$51,792,700 of this reserve (File 101-92-11.2) to fund the 
South San Francisco and San Bruno Home Insulation Project 
and construction of the Lot DD Park^g S&uc.-ure at San 
Bruno Avenue and Route 101, leaving a balance of 
$1,502,407,300 still on reserve for construction contracts. 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 



In October of 1994, the Board of Supervisors released 
$6,489,745 of this reserve (File 101-92-11.3) to fund initial 
construction and contingency costs of a new paved open air 
parking area for aircraft in the northwest section of the 
Airport (Plot 41 Hardstands Phase I), leaving a balance of 
$1,495,917,555 still on reserve. 

In May of 1995, the Board of Supervisors released 
$35,977,753 of this reserve (File 101-92-11.4 ) to fund the 
toxic cleanup and remediation of Plots 7, 8, and 10 in 
preparation for construction of the west field cargo complex 
on those sites, the completion of the Plot 41 Hardstands, and 
noise insulation funding for 1,202 homes in South San 
Francisco, San Bruno, Daly City, and Millbrae, leaving a 
balance of $1,459,939,802 still on reserve. 

The proposed subject release of reserve in the amount of 
$1,780,323 would leave a balance of $1,458,159,479 on 
reserve and would fund the following Master Plan Projects: 

• The renovation of vacated Delta Airlines space into office 
space for five tenants being relocated from the old Airborne 
Building which is slated for demolition. Office space is also 
required to accommodate the administration and 
management of Master Plan projects (Contract Cost - 
$839,184). 

• The demolition of existing buildings on Plot 50 in order to 
begin construction of a cargo facility as part of the Airport 
Master Plan Program (Contract Cost - $194,560). 

• The demolition of existing facilities and construction of 
new facilities as part of the Airport Master Plan program on 
Plots 7, 8, and 10. This project involves asbestos and lead 
based paint abatement, demolition of existing hangars and 
the removal and disposal of hazardous materials off the 
Airport property (Contract Cost - $746,579). 

The contract information for the three projects to be funded 
under this appropriation is shown below: 

Delta Airlines Building Renovation. Contract No. 5856 

($83 9,164) 

The contractor for this project is Lem Construction. Lem 
Construction is an MBE firm. Lem Construction is 
subcontracting with four MBE firms for approximately 37.9 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($317,944 of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 



total $839,184), and one WBE firm for approximately 2.3 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($19,000 of the 
total $839,184). The MBE firms and WBE firm that Lem 
Construction is subcontracting with are: 

V the MBE firm of Pacific Shores for approximately 6.1 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($51,000 of the 
total $839,184); 

V the MBE firm of A & B Painting for approximately 1.7 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($14,644 of the 
total $839,184); 

V the MBE firm of Temper Insulation for approximately .5 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($4,300 of the total 
$839,184) ; 

V the MBE firm of LC Electric for approximately 29.6 percent 
of the requested release of reserve ($248,000 of the total 
$839,184); 

V and the WBE firm of Continental Building for 
approximately 2.3 percent of the requested release of reserve 
($19,000 of the total $839,184). 

Plot 50 Abatement/Building Demolition. Contract No. 
3432R ($194.560) 

The contractor for this project is Cleveland Wrecking 
Company. Cleveland Wrecking Company is not an MBE firm. 
Cleveland Wrecking Company is subcontracting with three 
MBE firms for approximately 25.7 percent of the requested 
release of reserve ($50,000 of the total $194,560), and two 
WBE firms for approximately 2.6 percent of the requested 
release of reserve ($5,000 of the total $194,560). The MBE 
firms and WBE firm that Cleveland Wrecking Company is 
subcontracting with are: 

V the MBE firm of Esquivel Paving for approximately 16.5 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($32,000 of the 
total $194,560); 

V the MBE firm of Big J Trucking for approximately 5.1 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($10,000 of the 
total $194,560); 

V the MBE firm of P & K Trucking for approximately 4.1 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($8,000 of the total 
$194,560); 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 

V the WBE firm of Sierra Electric for approximately 1.3 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($2,500 of the total 
$194,560); 

V and the WBE firm of Greenleaf Trucking for approximately 
1.3 percent of the requested release of reserve ($2,500 of the 
total $194,560). 

Plots 7. 8. & 10 Abatement/Buildin g Demolition. 
Contract No . 3414R ($ 746.579 ) 

The contractor for this project is Iconco, Inc. Iconco, Inc. is 
not an MBE firm. Iconco, Inc. is subcontracting with two 
MBE firms for approximately 24.8 percent of the requested 
release of reserve ($185,000 of the total $746,579), and one 
WBE firm for approximately 2.4 percent of the requested 
release of reserve ($18,000 of the total $746,579). The MBE 
firms and WBE firm that Iconco, Inc. is subcontracting with 
are: 

V the MBE firm of Ocampo-Talao for approximately 5.4 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($40,000 of the 
total $746,579); 

V the MBE firm of P & K Trucking for approximately 19.4 
percent of the requested release of reserve ($145,000 of the 
total $746,579); 

V the WBE firm of Greenleaf for approximately 2.4 percent of 
the requested release of reserve ($18,000 of the total 
$746,579). 

Recommendation: Release the requested reserved funds in the amount of 

$1,780,323. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 12, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Item lb - File 101-94-76.1 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer 



Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Hearing requesting release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $679,500 for capital improvements for the 
Children's Place and Moscone Center. 

$679,500 

1994 Lease Revenue Bond Proceeds 
Convention Facilities Fund 

In March of 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
$32,117,349 supplemental appropriation for debt service, 
capital improvements to the Moscone Center, and the 
construction of the Children's Center to be located on the 
roof of Moscone Center South (File 101-94-76). Of the 
$32,117,349, $22,973,794 was placed on reserve pending 
the provision of cost details, the selection of contractors, 
and the MBE/WBE status of the contractors. 

The $679,500 requested for release from reserve would be 
used to fund the First Phase Programming and Planning 
Studies for the Children's Center, at a cost of $226,500, 
and Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical Design for 
the Children's Center, at $453,000. Most of the costs 
associated with these studies would support the 
Department of Public Works (DPW) Bureau of 
Architecture staff hours, with some costs for consultants 
(see below). 

According to Mr. Jack Moerschbaecher, Director of the 
Convention Facilities, when the programming and design 
are completed, the Convention Facilities will prepare a 
request to release the remaining of $22,294,294, including 
cost details, selection of the contractors, and the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors. 

1. According to Mr. Mark Dorian of the DPW, the costs 
associated with these two studies include the following 
activities pursuant to Planning and Design for the new 
Children's Center: 

• Planning meetings; 

• Project reviews; 

• Facilities walks/surveys; 

• Programming; 

• Development of preliminary alternatives; 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 12, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



• Americans with Disabilities Act projects identification; 

• Code reviews; 

• Project administration, scheduling, and budgeting; and 

• Cost estimating. 

Attachments 1 and 2 provided by Mr. Dorian contain the 
classifications, hours, hourly rates and total costs of the 
DPW Bureau of Architecture personnel and consultants 
who will be expending the $226,500 for the First Phase 
Programming and Planning Study and for the 
Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical Design Phase of 
this project, at $453,000. 

2. The information provided in Attachment II regarding 
the proposed Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical 
Design Phase for the Children's Center shows a total of 
$453,837, rather than the requested release of $453,000. 
Mr. Dorian advises that the Bureau of Architecture will 
absorb the $837 into its existing budget. 

3. Both of the proposed studies include costs for 
consultant services from Honeywell, Inc., as follows: 

V $14,500 (145 hours at $100 per hour) of the total 
$453,000 for the Design Phase; and 

V $10,350 (103.5 hours at $100 per hour) of the total 
$226,317 for the Programming & Planning Phase. 

These services are to be provided by Honeywell, Inc. as 
part of an existing contract for light, heat and power 
maintenance services at the Moscone Center. Honeywell, 
Inc. is not an MBE/WBE firm. 

4. The DPW will use a consultant, Arcost/CPM Group, to 
provide coordination and estimates, at $7,350 (73.5 hours 
at $100 per hour), for the $226,500 Programming and 
Planning Phase of the project. Arcost/CPM Group was 
selected through an Request for Qualifications, and is an 
MBE firm. 



Recommendation: Release $679,500, as requested. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 



Attachment 1 



page 



1 of 4 



3 

X 

a. 

& 

cc 
o 






Q-3 



o> 



% 



q> co 

I? & 

i R 

as o 

CO « 



E 
oo 

ii 

c: 
o 

jS 

Z> 
TO 

E 

CO 

k_ 

o> 
o 

Q. 

m 

i 



1 

x: 
< 

Q 



3= 

o 

«o 



S 



o o co h* oo oi 

^ co oo o r^- id cm 

c\f t±" -^ cd o" cvj" oq~ 

«/* U* T- ' ' ▼- 



§s?g3 



CO 



. 5? 

- CM 






CM LD 



CD 1?) Ifi t O) 

vT ^TT V/ vy *-r«T 



£ ^ 



CO 

co 



CD 
CM 



_ £ 



CM 



lO ID 

■ t 

O CM <r- 

O — : I-; 

CO CO CO 

%$£ 

"^ CO cO 

= Z> 3 

cd a> co , 

.c -c .c " 

C£ cj o 

< < < 



18 



CO - 
CM ^ CO 

i CO ' 
CO *— 

I s 

CO D_ 



<=/> 



| 
__ 



CO 

c? 

Q. 



Attachment 1 
Page 2 of 4 



1 



CO 

_l 
X 

al 

O- 

UJ 
CO 







el 

en ® 



C3 OJ 

CO "3- O 



111 

■§ss 

5 ai co 



CM 

CD 

a» 

a. 



e - d 



XJ2206 XOJ ISld ZT:2T S6, Z0 



~inr 



3 

X 

LU 
DC 

& 



Attachment 1 
Page 3 of A 



LO 

1 



8; 

« 

X 
Q 

Jl E 

c: 2 
E o> 

eg o 

s: qi 

Oil T3 
CD O 

.£! m 

lit 
«I 

o 

CD 

cr 

- 8 

01 to 

o 



0) 



CO 
CO 

E 

8 

CD 

Q 



in 



w 




CD 

O 

X 



h- 



LT5 CD 

oo in 



3s 



o 

1 3 
il 



LU 



<S 



CO 
CD 

c? 

a. 



Attachment 1 
Page 4 of 4 



3 
X 

c\i 
o 

UJ 
DC 



ID 














$£ 














C: 














r-- 














$ 














CO 














JZ 














ningP 

ram 






8 


o 




in 

CO 

o 


C CD 

— 9 






X 


^ 






CL Q_ 


«t= 












«5 T3 


8 












mlng 

alBor 


1 

CO 




O 


CO 

1 






ram 

apit 


o 




X 






■r— 


Prog 

nterC 
er'96 


X 












CO 






>s 






■ <B -S 


CO 


o 




E> 


CO 




n-O E 


:e 


x: 




o 


8 




3 m <35 


3 


~-~- 




C 




^ O 


CO 


o 




UJ 


e 




O £ CD 


c 


CP 






CD 




ffl Q Q 


o 








CO 




CQ b5 , 


o 


<v> 




"qj 




Budget 

May '95 


to 

•s 

a. 


CD 

E 

CO 

4g 


8. 


CD 

c: 
o 

X 


CO 

E 

>> 

CO 


S 

=3 

CO 



CO 
CD 

CO 



k4 
< 
H 
O 
H 



Wd 



10 



XJ2206 XbJ l'SlU ZT:2T S6, Z0 Tlf 



3 

X 

X 

o 

cc 
< 

h- 
o 



<8 in 



S' i J 



3 



o 

A 

CO 

Q) 

CD 

■o 
m 



CO 



9- 



CO 

u_ OS 
05 \_ 

E 
> 3 

0) 

Q 



8 



io 

05 



CO 



2 

K, 



2 ii 
=» g 

| 1 

*i 

a— CT 
§ cL 

.*£ 
g g 

X LI 



S S! £ S 5 

T- n o o n 

co 5 (D r-" d 

N V N CO N 

xrr xrr xrT v/ ttt 



0> "^ CV4 

CD IT) Ifl 
<«■ fc* <b9- 



CO 

C\J 



o 

CO 
UO 



"3 2 

i 



=3 
<D 



f 

< 



t= ri CO 



c 

CO -^ 

0) t5 



13 

< < 



Sf CD 
CO Q_ 



Attachment 2 
Page 1 of 3 



2 



Attachment 2 
Page l of 3 



3 

cd 

i 

E 



O) 

2> II 



S 

Q- 
ll 

£ i 
| 

31 

• a> 
Q.O 

o 
cd 

CQ as 

*- o 

3 O 

ca o 



ID 
X 



CD \— 



E 

8 
8 a 



CZ> 



2» ^ 

o o 

c E 

iu < 



c 
"5. 



in in 

CD CO 



■**■ co o 

0> <X> 



CO -g is 

III 

2 LLI 55 



CNJ 

o 

ca 
a. 



9 - d 



12 



XJ2206 XUJ ISIU ET:ZT S6, SB 



Attachment 2 
Page 3 of 3 



3 
X 



o 

5 



E 
8 

Q_ 

■D 

£1 



8- 



■2>0 cd 

«» 03 »_ 

Q *= « 

• CD -U 

Q.O E 

O E, CD 
OQ co 

-s ■§ ^> 

T3 LL >> 

3 O ^ 






o 

31 



£ is 

*£ 

« CD 

£ I 

© CO 

o < 









3 



£ 



CO 
= o> 

CD •*• 

i= 
o 
X 



«/» 



CO 

CO 

CO 

Q_ 



13 



XJ2206 XdJ lSld VX:l\ S6< S0 Tlf 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 

Item 2 -File 101-94-112 

Departments: Police Department 

Sheriffs Department 

Item: Ordinance appropriating $955,423 from the General Fund 

Reserve for overtime, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, 
other non-personal services and services of other 
departments for costs associated with the UN 50 Celebration 
incurred by the Sheriff and the Police Departments in Fiscal 
Year 1994-95. 



Amount: 


$955,423 




Source of Funds: 


1994-95 General Fund Reserve 




Budget: 


Police Department 
Overtime 
Fringe Benefits 
Contractual Services 
Materials and Supplies 
DPW Work Order 


$656,859 

11,360 

32,343 

22,701 

5.800 




Subtotal Police Department 


$729,063 




Sheriffs Department 

Overtime (including premium pay) 

Fringe Benefits 

Materials and Supplies 


$192,308 

2,163 

31.889 



Subtotal Sheriffs Department 

TOTAL REQUESTED 
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS 



$226,360 



$955,423 



Description: 



San Francisco was the host City for the 50th Anniversary of 
the United Nations which was held throughout the City, 
including the Civic Center area. The proposed supplemental 
appropriation request would pay for the costs incurred by the 
Police Department and the Sheriffs Department during the 
period June 23, 1995 through June 28, 1995 for the increased 
law enforcement activity associated with the UN 50 
Celebration. Specifically, the proposed supplemental funds 
would be used to fund the following: 

• Overtime personnel assigned to various UN 50 
Celebration key events, including the "We the People" 
celebration, the Royal Philharmonic concert, the 



BOARD QF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



1 L 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 

Marilyn Home concert, the Opera de Lyon, and the 
UN Plaza ceremonies and luncheon; 

• Bomb Squad; 

• Diplomatic Protection; 

• Traffic Enforcement; 

• Trailer Security; 

• Various field support activities including standby 
for mass arrests, crowd control, transportation of 
arrestees; 

• Increase in Jail staff as required by the 
circumstances; 

• Station transfers. 

According to the Controller, there has been no formal 
commitment regarding Federal reimbursement of the 
expenses incurred by the City. Mr. John Kaye of the Police 
Department reports that negotiations are currently being 
held between the Police Department and the U. S. State 
Department to determine the amount of Federal 
reimbursement. Therefore, the proposed supplemental funds 
would be used to pay for all expenses incurred by the Police 
and Sheriff Departments associated with the UN 50 
Celebration event, prior to the receipt of any Federal funds. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the proposed budget includes $656,859 for 

overtime costs for the Police Department, and $192,308 
requested for overtime costs in the Sheriffs Department. 
However, as of the writing of this report, neither the Police 
Department nor the Sheriffs Department have actual 
overtime cost information available. Actual overtime cost 
information is needed by the Budget Analyst to analyze this 
request and to determine whether the requested overtime 
funds exceed the actual costs incurred (See Comment #4). 

2. The Police Department is currently finalizing cost details 
regarding the contractual services, materials and supplies 
and the DPW work order. 

■-** 3* Aesorckmg- toMs. Theresa Lee of the Mayor's Office, the 
Police Department and the Sheriffs Department are the only 
departments requesting supplemental funds for the UN 50 
Celebration at this time, and no other City Departments are 

BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 

anticipated to submit funding requests for the UN 50 
Celebration. 

4. The Controller advises that the overtime report detailing 
actual costs incurred by the Police Department and the 
Sheriffs Department will not be available until early next 
week. In addition, the Police Department is currently 
finalizing an itemized breakdown of other contractual 
services and materials and supplies expenses. Therefore, the 
Budget Analyst recommends that this proposed legislation be 
continued for one week until the Budget Committee meeting 
of July 19, 1995. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed ordinance for one week, pending the 
submission of finalized cost details. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 



Item 3- File 101-95-3 
Departments: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Works 
Chief Administrative Officer 

Supplemental Appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$200,000 from the Broadway Parking Lot revenues to the 
Department of Public Works for a capital improvement 
project. 

$200,000 

Broadway Parking Lot (BPL) revenues (See Comment #1) 

In 1989, the Loma Prieta earthquake destroyed parts of the 
Embarcadero Freeway, leading to its complete demolition. As 
a result, parcels of land formerly part of the Embarcadero 
Freeway right-of-way and owned by the California 
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) were left vacant at 
Broadway and Clay/Washington Streets. In 1991, the State 
Legislature approved SB 181 requiring CalTrans to transfer 
this land to the City. SB 181 also specified that the City use 
this land or proceeds from the sale of this land, to construct 
an alternate system of local streets. 

Currently, the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the 
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) are working on a plan to 
sell the vacant parcels of land at Clay/Washington Streets 
(Blocks 202 and 203). The proceeds of the sale of this land 
will be used to help fund the Mid-Embarcadero Replacement 
Project, the construction project that creates an alternate 
system of local streets. In order to sell the land for the 
maximum profit, DPW and the CAO have determined that 
the land must be rezoned to make it more attractive to 
developers. Currently, the land is zoned for Public Use and 
Open Space. 

In order to rezone the parcels at Clay/Washington Streets, 
the City must pay for an environmental review as well as 
other rezoning expenses associated with the Department of 
City Planning (DCP). DPW has determined that the total cost 
to rezone the parcels at Clay/Washington Streets will be 
$300,000. 

DPW has requested this supplemental appropriation 
ordinance .to pay for part of the rezoning of the 
Clay/Washington Street parcels. DPW will use $167,000 of 
the requested $200,000 to pay for the rezoning. The 
remaining $133,000 ($300,000 total cost less this request of 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 



$167,000) needed to rezone the Clay/Washington parcels will 
be funded with Sales Tax revenues which were previously 
appropriated by the Board of Supervisors acting as the 
Transportation Authority in March, 1995 (Transportation 
Authority Resolution 95-8). 



Rezoning 
($167,000) 



the Clay/Washington Street Parcels 



The proposed expenditure plan for the Clay/Washington 
Street parcels is summarized below: 









Broadway 










Parking 










Revenues 










(Subject 






To Be 


Sales 


of this 


Total 


Task 


Performed bv 


Tax 


Request) 


Amount 


Consolidate Parcels 


DCP, CAO 


$18,428 


$23,172 


$41,600 


Environmental Review 


Consultants 


80,405 


101,095 


181,500 


Rezoning 


DCP 


7,974 


10,026 


18,000 


Project Management 


CAO, DPW 


13,467 


16,933 


30,400 


Department Staff Review CAO, DPW 


12J2fi 


15.774 


2&5.M 



TOTAL 



$133,000 $167,000 $300,000 



As noted above, only $167,000 of this proposed budget will be 
funded from this supplemental appropriation request of 
$200,000. The remaining $133,000 ($300,000 total project 
cost less this request of $167,000) needed to rezone the 
Clay /Washington parcels will be funded with Sales Tax 
monies which have previously been appropriated. 

General Development Guidelines for Broadway Street 
Parcels ($33,000) 

According to Ms. Rebecca Kohlstrand of the Department of 
City Planning, the remaining $33,000 (request of $200,000 
less $167,000 for the rezoning project above) of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation will be used to fund the 
preparation of general development guidelines for three 
parcels located on Broadway (Lot 21: Block 165, Lot 1: Block 
141, and Lot 8: Block 140), as requested by the Chinatown, 
North Beach, and Telegraph Hill communities and the 
Broadway-Embarcadero Community Planning Group 
(BECPG) due to the potential watpac^ orrthesr jsommunities. 
According to Ms. Kohlstrand, the objective of these general 
design guidelines is to address community concerns that have 
arisen due to the pending Mid-Embarcadero Replacement 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 

Project. Currently, these three parcels of land on Broadway 
Street are being used as parking lots, known as the 
Broadway Parking Lots (BPL). 

The preparation of the general development guidelines, to 
address land use, transportation, and urban design concerns 
of the community, will be performed entirely by the 
Department of City Planning with assistance from other City 
Departments. Up to two public meetings will be held to solicit 
community input. 

Comments: 1. As stated in the ordinance and reported by the Capital 

Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) (see Attachment), 
the source of funds for this supplemental appropriation are 
revenues from the Broadway Parking Lots. According to SB 
181, revenues from the Broadway Parking Lots can only be 
expended for the Mid-Embarcadero Replacement Project. 
These parking lots are leased by the City to private 
operators. According to Ms. Tina Olson of DPW, the projected 
annual parking revenues received by the City from the 
Broadway Parking Lots total $261,060. 

2. As stated in the attached letter from the CAO, no General 
Fund monies would be used for these projects. The CIAC 
recommends approval of this supplemental appropriation 
request of $200,000. 

3. Ms. Olson advises that the consultants who will perform 
the environmental review ($181,500) have not yet been 
selected. As such, the amount of $101,095, the proportion of 
consultant fees to be allocated from this proposed 
supplemental appropriation request of $200,000 for the 
Environmental Review pertaining to the Clay/Washington 
Street parcels, should be placed on reserve, pending the 
selection of the consultant, the hourly rates, the estimated 
hours and the determination of the MBE/WBE status of the 
consultant. 

Recommendation: 1. Amend the proposed request by reserving the amount of 
$101,095 of the requested $200,000, pending the selection of 
consultants, the hourly rates, the estimated hours and the 
determination of the MBE/WBE status of the consultant. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
■>■ ^-policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

i q 



)5(WED) 13:14 OFFICE 



CAO 



TEL : 4 1 5 




WILLIAM L. LEE 
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 



June 6, 1995 



The Honorable Frank Jordan 

The Honorable Board of Supervisors 

Mr. Edward Harrington, Controller 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

In accordance with Section 3.010 of the Administrative Code, I am reporting on 
behalf of the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee on the following request 
for supplemental appropriation: 



Department: 

Title: 

Source of Funds : 

Total Amount: 



Public Works 

Rezoning Clay/Washington Parcels 

Revenue Broadway Parking Lots 

$200,000 



It is the report of the CIAC that: 

1. The funds will be used to pay the costs associated with the rezoning and 
consolidation of the Clay/Washington parcels as well as the costs 
associated with environmental review and the preparation of a set of 
development guidelines for properties located on Broadway. These 
actions are needed as part of the process of selling the Broadway 
parcels to provide funds to complete the Embarcadero Roadway Replacement 
Project. 

2. Revenues for these purposes will come from revenues generated from 
parking lots on the Broadway parcels. Thus, no General Fund money is 
being used. 

The CIAC recommends approval of this request. 



Sincerely, 

William Lee 

chief Administrative Officer and, 

Chair, Capital Improvement Advisory Committee 



VvtU 



401 VaN NESS AVENUE. ROOM 402. SAN FRANCISCO. Ca 94102 
TELEPHONE 415-554-4851; FAX 415-554-4&49 

20 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 12, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 170-94-1.1 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Item: Resolution affirming and renewing the authorization for the 

issuance from time to time in one or more series of not to 
exceed $600,000,000 aggregate principal amount of City and 
County of San Francisco General Obligation Bonds as 
contained in Resolution No. 93-94. 

Description: In January of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a 

resolution (Resolution 93-94, File 170-94-1) authorizing the 
Chief Administrative Officer, the Controller, the Treasurer, 
and other City officials to take the necessary actions in FY 
1994-95 to issue and sell up to $600,000,000 in Series 1994 
General Obligation Refunding Bonds in order to refund a 
portion of up to $713,819,000 in outstanding General 
Obligation bonds of the City, for the purpose of realizing debt 
service savings by retiring higher interest rate bonds and 
replacing such bonds with lower interest rate bonds. The 
proposed resolution would reaffirm and extend that 
authorization for the next fiscal year, through June 30, 1996, 
and thereby authorize the sale of Series 1995 General 
Obligation Refunding Bonds. 

The amount of the Series 1994 Refunding Bonds previously 
issued was $344,185,000. As such, an amount of $255,815,000 
($600,000,000 less $344,185,000) remains within the limit of 
the aggregate principal amount of Refunding Bonds authorized 
under Resolution 93-94. 

Ms. Stephanie Carlisle of the CAO's Office advises that the 
proposed amount of the Series 1995 Refunding Bonds is 
$192,875,000. Following the issuance of the Series 1995 
Refunding Bonds, an amount of $62,940,000 ($255,815,000 less 
$192,875,000) would remain within the limit of the aggregate 
principal amount of Refunding Bonds authorized under 
Resolution 93-94. 

General provisions of the issuance and sale of the City's 
Refunding Bonds authorized under Resolution 93-94 are as 
follows: 

• The CAO would be authorized and directed to determine 
which issues (or maturities within any issues) of previously 
<■*- m M itEuaed General Obligation Bonds shall be refunded from 
proceeds of any series of bonds and to provide for the sale of 
any series of bonds; 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 12, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

• The Series 1995 Refunding Bonds would be issued only if 
the application of the proceeds of the Series 1995 Refunding 
Bonds to refund the previously issued bonds would result in 
lower total scheduled principal and interest payments to the 
City; 

• The Series 1995 Refunding Bonds would be sold at an 
interest rate which could not exceed 12 percent per year, and 
would mature no later than the final maturity date of the 
bonds to be refunded, and in no event shall the Series 1995 
Refunding Bonds have a final maturity date after June 30, 
2011; 

• Costs incurred in connection with the issuance of the Series 
1995 Refunding Bonds shall not exceed two percent of the 
principal amount of such Bonds; 

• No Series 1995 Refunding Bonds could be issued or sold 
after June 30, 1996. Authorization to issue Refunding Bonds 
under Resolution 93-94 requires annual review and approval of 
the Board of Supervisors. 

Comments: 1. Under the proposed resolution, the annual interest rate for 

the bonds may not exceed 12 percent. Ms Stephanie Carlisle of 
the CAO's Office reports that if the Series 1995 Refunding 
bonds were sold today, the interest rate would be 
approximately 5.5 percent, which is 1.3 percent less than the 
average overall interest rate of approximately 6.8 on the 
existing bonds. 

2. Ms. Carlisle reports that the average annual debt service 
for the proposed $192,875,000 in Series 1995 Refunding Bonds 
would be an estimated $17,864,000, and the average annual 
debt service of the previously issued bonds to be refunded is 
approximately $18,386,000. Thus, according to Ms. Carlisle, 
the City will realize an estimated savings of approximately 
$522,000 per year, or a total estimated savings of $8,874,000 
over the 17-year life of the Series 1995 Refunding Bond issue. 

3. Ms. Carlisle reports that the cost of issuing the proposed 
Series 1995 Refunding bonds, including fees for private bond 
counsel and financial advisors and the services of the Chief 
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, are expected to 
be approximately $450,000. Ms. Carlisle notes that the CAO 
would submit a separate supplemental appropriation request 
to fund the issuance costs, and that &ss araaunt appropriated 
for such costs would be reimbursed from the bond proceeds. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 



Item 5 - File 38-95-3 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Gift: 



Description: 



National Service Blue Ribbon Commission (NSBRC), an 
advisory body to the Board of Supervisors 

Resolution accepting cash gifts totaling $11,000 to fund the 
National Service Blue Ribbon Commission and authorizing 
the National Blue Ribbon Commission to expend the monies 
donated to facilitate the business of the Commission and 
directing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to reimburse 
the Commission for monies expended to carry out its 
functions. 

$10,970 - See Comment No. 1 

Mr. David Jenkins, a local benefactor $10,000 
Individual donors throughout the community 

(See Attachment) 970 

Total Cash Gifts: $10,970 



The creation of the National Service Blue Ribbon 
Commission (NSBRC) was authorized by the Board of 
Supervisors in 1993 (Resolution 300-93) to serve as an 
advisory body to the Board pertaining to the implementation 
of the National Service Program, a Federal Government 
program. The National Service Program, which was signed 
into law in September, 1993 (called The National and 
Community Service Trust Act), includes the creation of a 
voluntary service corps, to be known as "AmeriCorps", 
consisting of young people primarily, between the ages of 16 
and 24, who will provide service to their local communities in 
the areas of education, human services, environment and 
public safety. In exchange for this service, the participants 
will receive an educational award in the amount of $4,725 
per year, payable to the participant's college or trade school, 
to be used to pay for tuition or job training or to repay college 
student loans. 

The authorizing legislation specifies that the Board of 
Supervisors would provide in-kind professional and 
administrative staff and services to the NSBRC and that the 
Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer were urged to do the 
same. However, the NSBRC was also authorized to seek 
funds from public and private sources to carry out its 
.functions ..and as such, the NSBRC is requesting 
authorization to accept and expend the subject cash gifts 
totaling $10,970. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 



In April, 1994 the Board of Supervisors approved acceptance 
of the $10,000 portion of the subject cash gifts from Mr. 
David Jenkins. However, the NSBRC was not granted 
authority to expend the $10,000 pending the submission, to 
the Board of Supervisors, of a detailed budget for the $10,000 
gift. As noted above, the proposed resolution would authorize 
the acceptance of cash gifts totaling $11,000. Since the 
$10,000 cash gift has already been accepted, the proposed 
legislation should be amended to (1) authorize only the 
expenditure of the $10,000 and (2) authorize the acceptance 
and expenditure of the remaining $970 portion of the gift. 

The budget for the $10,000 gift plus an additional $970 in 
donations for a total of $10,970 is detailed below: 

Personnel 
Executive Director's Salary 

($2,000/month for a period of 4 months) $8.000.00 

Total Personnel: $8,000.00 

Swearing In Ceremony 

Catering by Adama Saunders 550.00 

Photographic Documentation 59.80 

Name Tags 21.70 

Sign Language Interpreter 75.00 

Invitations 200.00 

Mailing 109.00 
Total Swearing In Ceremony: $ 1,015.50 

Other 

Postage 1,500.00 

Printing 454.50 

Total Other: $ 1,954.50 

TOTAL CASH GIFT BUDGET: $10,970.00 

According to Mr. Jason Wong, Treasurer of the NSBRC, the 
above-noted services and materials have been paid for by a 
$10,970 interest free loan to the NSBRC, from New College of 
California, on the condition that New College would be 
reimbursed once the subject cash gifts totaling $10,970 were 
received. As such, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to authorize the NSBRC to expend retroactively the 
total cash gift amount of $10,970. Mr. Wong also advises, 
that there is no fhrmaLloan agreement between New College 
of California and the NSBRC. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 

Comment: Mr. Wong advises that the actual amount of the cash gifts is 

$10,970 and not $11,000. As such, the proposed resolution 
should be amended to reflect this new amount. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to reflect that the total 
amount of the cash gifts is $10,970 instead of $11,000. 

2. Amend the proposed resolution to (1) authorize only the 
expenditure of the $10,000 and (2) authorize the acceptance 
and expenditure of the remaining $970 portion of the gift. 

3. Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the National 
Service Blue Ribbon Commission to expend the $10,970 in 
cash gifts retroactively. 

4. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Commission on National Servicb 1 
Report of the Treasurer 
Credits as of March 9, 1994 j ! 



Name: 



Checks to be returned: 

Eddy, Elizabeth and Wilk, John R. ($30) 



Amount 



Bierman, Sue - San Francisco Supervisor 


$50 


Chin, Eddie Y. 


$25 


Cochrane, Ann 


$30 


Duca, Samuel and Betty 


$30 


Edelman, Florence 


$30 


Felder, Jane Zirpoli 


$35 


Good Samaritan Family Resource Center, Inc. 


$30 


Jenkins, Dave - Giant's Baseball Team Owner 


$10,000 


Kavanagh, Julia A. 


$100 


Lanfranchi, Marcello 


$15 


League of Women Voters of S.F., Jean Lacey 


$30 


Lee, Charles S. and Betty F. 


$30 


Mabel Teng • College Board Member 


$30 


Neuwirth and Assoc, Donald B. and Carol B. 


$30 


Nivola, Claire A. 


$15 


Ong, Eugene and Jane 


$30 


Queen, Jim 


$100 


Rivaldo, Joseph 


$100 


Rohrer, Deborah 


$100 


Simon, Juno 


$10 


Skain, Patrick M. 


$30 


Sustainable City, Beryl Magilary 


$30 


Union Chartered Corp, Derek Chan 


$30 


Wong, Moon Y. 


$30 


Wong, Sandra 


$30 




$10,970 



! I 



! I 



; I 



26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 

Item 6 -File 60-95-5 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Item: Ordinance calling and providing for a Special Election to be 

held in the City and County on Tuesday, November 7, 1995, 
for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City and 
County propositions to incur the following bonded debts of 
the City and County for the acquisition, construction or 
completion by the City and County of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: $63,590,000 for certain improvements 
to City Hall; $29,245,000 for Steinhart Aquarium 
improvements; and $44,100,000 for improvements to 
underground storage tanks owned by the City and County; 
that the estimated cost of said improvements is and will be 
too great to be paid out of ordinary annual income and 
revenue will require expenditures greater than the amount 
allowed by the annual tax levy; reciting estimated costs of 
such municipal improvements (i.e., the amount of the bonds 
plus interest); fixing the date of election and the manner of 
holding such election and procedure of voting for or against 
the propositions; fixing maximum rate of interest on said 
bonds and providing for levy and collection of taxes to pay 
both principal and interest; prescribing notice to be given of 
such election; consolidating the Special Election with the 
General Election; and providing that the election precincts, 
voting places and officers for election shall be the same as for 
such General Election. 

Amount: $63,590,000: City Hall improvements 

$29,245,000: Steinhart Aquarium improvements 
$44,100,000: Underground storage tank improvements 

Description: The State General Obligation Bond Law requires that, in 

order for the City to issue General Obligation Bonds, a 
resolution of public convenience and necessity must first be 
adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors, and 
the proposed bonds must then be approved by two-thirds of 
the electorate. In June of 1995, the Board of Supervisors 
adopted three pieces of legislation by a two-thirds vote 
determining and declaring that the public interest and 
necessity would be served by approving the following bond 



• $63,590,000 to finance non-seismic capital improvement 
projects at City Hall, including waterproofing, improvements 
to the plumbing, fire protection, and heating, ventilation and 



BOARD QF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 

air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and accessibility 
improvements. (File 170-95-6) 

• $44,100,000 to construct a secondary containment (usually 
a double wall) in underground storage tanks owned by the 
City and to clean up any leakage from existing single-walled 
underground fuel storage tanks, in conformance with a State 
law requiring that such improvements be completed by 
December 1998. 

The amount initially proposed for this bond issue was $51 
million. However, the Budget Committee amended the 
resolution to decrease the amount to $44.1 million, because 
the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) 
determined that only $44.1 million was required for the 
proposed construction related to the underground storage 
tanks. (Pile 170-95-7) 

• $29,245,000 for seismic retrofitting and structural repairs 
for the Steinhart Aquarium, including the removal of 
asbestos and other toxic materials, and improvements to the 
electrical and water supply systems, which are crucial to the 
maintenance of the aquarium. 

The amount initially proposed for this bond issue was 
$28,670,829. However, the Budget Committee amended the 
resolution to approve a bond issue of $29,245,000, because 
the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) 
determined that $29,245,000 was required for the proposed 
seismic retrofitting and structural repairs for the Steinhart 
Aquarium. (File 170-95-8) 

The proposed ordinance would provide for a Special Election 
on Tuesday, November 7, 1995, to submit the above bond 
issues to the voters. 

Comments: 1. In conformance with State law, the proposed ordinance 

would provide for a Special Election, since bond issues must 
be submitted to the voters in a Special Election. The proposed 
ordinance would further provide that the Special Election be 
consolidated with the General Election, so that the election 
precincts, voting places and officers for the elections would be 
the same as for the General Election. 

2. The proposed ordinance would require that notice be given 
of the proposed election. The proposed-^rdii&anG© would be 
published once a day for at least seven days in the official 
newspaper of the City and County. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 



3. The three previously approved resolutions of public 
convenience and necessity found that the sum of money 
specified was too great to be paid out of the City's ordinary 
annual revenue. This proposed ordinance would submit the 
same finding to the voters. 

4. The proposed ordinance would fix the interest rate of the 
bond issues at a maximum of twelve percent per year, paid 
semiannually. As the Budget Analyst previously reported, 
the owner of a single family owner-occupied residence 
assessed at $300,000 would pay the following in additional 
property taxes in FY 1996-97 to support the proposed bond 



File Number and Purpose 

170-95-6 City Hall improvements 
170-95-7 Underground storage tank repair 
170-95-8 Steinhart Aquarium improvements 

TOTAL IF ALL THREE BOND 
MEASURES ARE APPROVED 



* Per $100 of assessed value 

**For single family owner occupied residences assessed at $300,000 



Bond 
Issue Amount 


Increase 
in Property 
Tax Rate* 


Additional 

1996-97 

Property Tax** 


$63,590,000 
44,100,000 
29.245.000 


$0.0117 
0.0074 
0.0054 


$34.28 
21.68 
1LS2 


$136,935,000 


$0.0245 


$71.78 



Ms. Stephanie Carlisle of the CAO's Office advises that the 
above costs are based on eight percent annual interest rates. 
According to Ms. Carlisle, it is likely that the actual interest 
rate will be lower than eight percent. The proposed ordinance 
includes a maximum interest rate of twelve percent per 
annum. 

Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood of the CAO's Office advises that 
the proposed bond issues would most likely not be issued all 
at once, but would instead be apportioned in separate bond 
issues over time. Therefore, the total outstanding debt 
pursuant to any particular bond issue would not, at any 
given time, be as much as the total authorized bond issue 
amount, since a portion of the debt would be repaid before 
the total authorized amount were issued. 

5. The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC), 
which is responsible for prioritizing the City's proposed 
capit^imB*ov*ra9»t projects, recommended approval of all 
three of the above bond issues. As noted in the Budget 
Analyst's previous reports, according to the CIAC, the City is 
reaching its prudent remaining debt capacity of $642,000,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 12, 1995 

(assuming a three percent growth rate), which represents 2.4 
percent of the net assessed property value in the City, less 
outstanding debt and authorized bonds through the year 
2005. 

If all of the above bond issues are approved by the voters in 
November, 1995, the City would issue up to a total of 
$136,935,000 in General Obligation bonds, using 
approximately 21 percent of the City's remaining estimated 
prudent bonding capacity of $642,000,000 to the year 2005, 
leaving approximately $505 million, or approximately 79 
percent of prudent remaining bonding capacity through the 
year 2005. 

6. Expenditures related to any of the proposed General 
Obligation bonds, if approved by the voters, would require a 
supplemental appropriation to be approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 12, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



File 170-95-7.1 



Departments: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Item: Resolution declaring the intent of the City and County of San 

Francisco to reimburse certain expenditures, related to the 
City's underground storage tanks, from the proceeds of future 
bonded indebtedness, and approving and ratifying previous 
actions. 

Description: The Board of Supervisors recently approved legislation (1) 

determining and declaring that the public interest and 
necessity demand that certain improvements be made to 
underground storage tanks owned by the City and (2) that 
the estimated cost of $44,100,000 for said improvements, 
which will involve repair, removal and/or replacement of the 
subject storage tanks and the clean up of related leakage, is 
and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual 
income and revenue of the City and will require the incurring 
of a bonded indebtedness (File 170-95-7). 

Item 6, File 60-95-5 in this report to the Budget Committee is 
a proposed ordinance calling and providing for a Special 
Election to be held in the City and County on November 7, 
1995 to incur bonded debts totaling an estimated 
$136,935,000 for various municipal improvements including 
improvements to the City's underground storage tanks. Of 
the $136,935,000, $44,100,000 represents a General 
Obligation Bond issue designated for improvements to the 
City's underground storage tanks. 

The proposed legislation states that Section 1.150-2 of the 
Treasury Regulations under the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 requires that the City declare its official intent to 
reimburse itself for any expenditures that are to be financed 
by the proceeds of bonds, when such expenditures are 
incurred before the bonds have been sold. The proposed 
resolution would declare such intent by the City. The 
proposed legislation further states that this resolution is 
solely for purposes of establishing compliance with the 
requirements of Section 1.150-2 and does not bind the Board 
of Supervisors to make any expenditure, incur any 
indebtedness or proceed with the proposed project. 

The proposed resolution afill a&ow*Cifcf departments, that 
advance money for the repair, removal and replacement of 
underground storage tanks and/ or clean-up of contaminated 
soil resulting from the City's underground storage tanks, to 



BOARD QF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 12, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



be reimbursed from the pending General Obligation Bond 
proceeds related to the City's underground storage tanks. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 




[arvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 

Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Teng 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



s 



MINUTES DOCUMENTS DEP^ 



£> <^>. 07 



REGULAR MEETING AUG 2 

/// BUDGET COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



/ ? llS 



WEDNESDAY. JULY 19. 1995 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 



MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS TOM HSIEH, BARBARA KAUFMAN, SUE BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:05 P.M. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 



All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to 
be routine by the Budget Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll 
call vote of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these 
items unless a member of the Committee or a member of the public so 
requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent 
Calendar and considered as a separate item: 



a) File 101-90-121.5 . [Reserved Funds] Consideration of release of 
reserved funds, Water Department (1991 Water Bond Funds) in the 
amount of $881,930, to fund Water Main Replacement Contract 2146 - 
Howard Street. (Public Utilities Commission) 

b) File 101-93-88.2 . [Reserved Funds, Department of Public Works] 
Consideration of release of reserved funds, Department of Public Works 
(1989 Earthquake Safety Bond Fund), in the amount of $191,000 to 
provide additional funding for the construction contract for Fire Station 
No. 31. (Department of Public Works) 

c) File 101-93-104.1 . [Reserved Funds, Department of Electricity] 
Consideration of release of reserved funds, Department of Electricity 
and Telecommunications, in the amount of $40,000, for the City-Wide 
Radio System project. (Department of Electricity and 
Telecommunications. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE 1 UTES PAGE 2 



d) File 101-93-105.2 . [Reserved Funds, Public Library] Consideration of 
release of reserved funds, Public Library (1988 Library Improvement 
Bond Interest), in the amount of $584,250, for the renovation of Mission 
Branch Library. (Public Library) 

e) File 101-94-89.1 . [Reserved Funds, Department of Public Works] 
Consideration of release of reserved funds, Department of Public Works, 
(Special Recreation and Park Revenue Funds - Rent Credit from San 
Francisco 49'ers), in the amount of $141,000 for improvements to 
Candlestick Park for the 1999 Superbowl. (Department of Public Works) 

f) File 28-95-10 . [Emergency Repair, Chlorination Facilities] Resolution 
authorizing expenditure of San Francisco Water Department funds for 
emergency repairs at City chlorination facilities. (Public Utilities 
Commission) 

SPEAKERS: ITEMS a-c, e-f. None. 

ACTION: ITEMS d AND e REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR. 
REMAINING ITEMS a-c, e-f APPROVED. FILED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

d) File 101-93-105.2 . [Reserved Funds, Public Library] 
Consideration of release of reserved funds, Public Library 
(1988 Library Improvement Bond Interest), in the amount of 
$584,250, for the renovation of Mission Branch Library. 
(Public Library) 

SPEAKER: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey 
Rose, Budget Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: 
None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. REDUCE 
AMOUNT TO $289,250 AND APPROVE. FILED. 

e) File 101-94-89.1 . [Reserved Funds, Department of Public 
Works] Consideration of release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Works, (Special Recreation and Park 
Revenue Funds - Rent Credit from San Francisco 49'ers), in 
the amount of $141,000 for improvements to Candlestick 
Park for the 1999 Superbowl. (Department of Public Works) 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE CALL 
OF THE CHAIR. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE k JTES PAGE 3 



REGULAR CALENDAR 
FISCAL ITEM 



File 101-95-4 . [Appropriation, Police and Sheriff] Ordinance appropriating 
$955,423, Sheriff and Police Departments, from the General Fund Reserve for 
overtime, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, other non-personal services 
and services of other departments for costs associated with the UN 50 
Celebration for fiscal year 1995-96. Providing for ratification of action 
previously taken. (Controller) RO #95011 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Maryanne Soza, Chief Deputy, Sheriff's Department; Ed Harrington, 
Controller; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Lt. Ryan, Police Department. 
IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW 
TITLE PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE. ADOPTED. AMENDMENT 
OF THE WHOLE AMENDED. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO 
JULY 26, 1995, MEETING. Amend to reduce overtime to 
$195,013; reduce mandatory fringe benefits to $11,019; reduce 
materials and supplies to $67,163 and amend the title to add the 
following: "and other public safety activities performed by the 
Sheriff Department in late June 1995. NEW TITLE: "Ordinance 
appropriating $1,243,899 from the General Fund Reserve for 
overtime, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, other 
non-personal services and services of other departments for costs 
associated with the UN 50 Celebration in the Sheriff and the 
Police Departments and other public safety activities performed 
by the Sheriff Department in late June 1995 for fiscal year 
1995-96." Providing for ratification of action previously taken. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

GENERAL ITEM 



File 172-95-27 . [Sales of Grants and Easements] Ordinance authorizing and 
approving sales of and grants of easements with respect to City-owned 
property (portions of Block 5269, Lots 7 and 8; and Block 5282, Lot 31) to the 
State of California, Department of Transportation in connection with the 
retrofit and maintenance of the Interstate 280 Freeway. (Real Estate 
Department) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Tony DeLucchi, Director, Real Estate Department. IN SUPPORT: 
None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE N. JTES PAGE 4 



HEARING 

4. File 200-95-2 . [Cost of Installation of Public Toilets] Hearing to consider 
the cost to the City of the installation of public toilets when the 
manufacturer is limited to $20,000 per toilet for installation. (Supervisors 
Kaufman, Bierman) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATTVES: Vitaly Troyan, 
Department of Public Works; Gerald Green, City Planning Department; Ed 
Harrington, Controller; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. IN SUPPORT: 
None. OPPOSED: John Korman, National Park Service; Dzavid Bowsman, SF 
Hertiage Foundation; Ed Lawson, Union Square Association; Yvonne Yeates 
Northset Property Management; Dave Reese, Merrill Drugs; GB Piatt, 
Historic Preservation Consultant; Janet Copeland, Property Manager, 111 
Sutter Street. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO AUGUST 2, 
1995, MEETING. 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 4:00 P.M. 



07 
Ms- 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Ihibtic LiBraru, (Documents *Dept. 
. Attn: JaneJ-Cudson 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



July 14, 1995 



/• 



/ 



TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst Rec-c 

SUBJECT: July 19, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item la - File 101-90-121.5 
Department: Water Department 



DOO'lMFNTS DEPl, 
JUL 1 8 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Release of reserved funds in the amount of $881,930 to fund 
the Water Main Replacement Contract No. 2146 - Howard 
Street. 

$881,930 

1991 Series A San Francisco Water Revenue Bonds 

In June of 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation ordinance in the amount of 
$47,925,000 in 1991 Water Revenue Bonds for various capital 
improvement projects (File 101-90-121). Of this amount, 
$14,000,000 was placed on reserve for the Water Main 
Replacement Program and the San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 
Relining Project, pending the selection of contractors, the 
submission of budget details and the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractors. Thus far, $13,080,240 of the $14,000,000 
originally placed on reserve has been released, leaving a 
balance on reserve of $919,760. 

The Water Department is now requesting the release of 
$881,930 for the Water Main Replacement Project at Howard 
Street. This project involves replacing approximately 5,190 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 



feet of water mains on Howard Street, between Fourth and 
Thirteenth Streets, and on Russ Street, between Howard and 
Folsom Streets. 

Through a competitive bid process, the Water Department 
awarded a contract in the amount of $595,930 to the sole 
bidder, P & J Utility Company. P & J Utility Company is not 
an MBE or WBE firm. 

The budget details and the MBE/WBE subcontractor 
information are as follows: 

Water Department Personnel 

The following in-house staff positions will be responsible 
for purchasing all materials, preparing contract 
specifications and drawings and performing construction 
management, inspection and service connections. 

Position 

5210 Senior Civil Engineer 
5206 Associate Civil Engineer 
5364 Civil Engineer Associate I 
6318 Construction Inspector 
7250 Utility Plumber Supervisor 
7388 Utility Plumber 
7463 Utility Plumber Apprentice 
7514 General Laborer 
Total - In-house Personnel 2.60 $162,000 



FTE 


Amount 


0.01 


$1,250 


0.26 


17,500 


0.52 


27,500 


0.02 


1,250 


0.14 


11,200 


0.90 


62,850 


0.37 


23,650 


0.38 


16.800 


2.60 





Material s and Supplies 

Materials include ductile iron pipe, gate valves, fittings, 
gaskets, and service pipes. 

Construction Contract 



Prime Contractor 

P & J Utility Company 

Subcontractors 
Esquivel Paving (MBE) 
Vickers Sawing (MBE) 
J. Higgins Trucking (MBE) 
Double B & L Trucking (WBE) 
Subtotal - Subcontractors 



Total - Construction Contract 

Total Request to Release Reserved Funds 



124,000 



Percentage 

of Contract 

70.8 


Amount 
$421,930 




15.9 
4.2 
4.9 
4.2 

29.2 


$95,000 

25,000 

29,000 

25.000 

$174,000 




100.0 
\inds 




595.930 
$881,930 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 

Comment: Mr. Jeff Pera of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

reports that an Invitation for Bids (IFB) was advertised in 
the San Francisco Examiner on March 18, 1995. According to 
Mr. Pera, due to an apparent lack of interest on the part of 
potential bidders in responding to the City's IFB, the PUC 
conducted one extra pre-bid conference for potential bidders 
and postponed the bid date. Still, only one bid was received, 
from P & J Utility Company, prior to the revised deadline for 
the receipt of bids. 

Recommendation: Approve the release of reserved funds in the amount of 
$881,930. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 

Item lb- File 101-93-88.2 

Departments: Fire Department 

Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Item: Requesting release of reserved funds, Department of Public 

Works (1989 Earthquake Safety Bond Fund) in the amount of 
$191,000 to provide additional funding for the construction 
contract for Fire Station No. 31. 

Amount: $191,000 

Source of Funds: Interest earned on 1989 Earthquake Safety Bond Program, 
Phase One Bonds. 

Project: Fire Station No. 31 Seismic Improvement Project. 

Description: The requested release of $191,000 is for additional funding of 

DPW seismic improvement work related to Fire Station No. 
31 located at 441 Twelfth Avenue. 

In April of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation of $1,400,000 for various Fire 
Department capital improvement projects. The funding 
source was interest income earned on 1989 Earthquake 
Safety Bonds (File 101-93-88). Included in this supplemental 
appropriation of $1,400,000 was $191,000 for additional 
construction costs for seismic improvement work on Fire 
Station No. 31. The $191,000, requested by the DPW, 
represented the difference between previously appropriated 
funds for the construction costs of the Fire Station No. 31 
Seismic Improvement Project of $1,692,760 and the DPW 
estimated construction cost for the project of $1,883,760. The 
entire $191,000 was placed on reserve, pending the 
identification of the contractor, the MBE/WBE/LBE status of 
the contractor, and finalization of contract cost details. The 
DPW is now requesting that the $191,000 be released from 
reserve to fund additional construction costs for seismic 
improvements to Fire Station No. 31. 

A construction contract in the amount of $1,695,913 was 
awarded to Lee Engineering Services to perform seismic 
improvements to Fire Station No. 31 (File 101-92-72.3). This 
$1,695,913 construction contract was for $3,153 more than 
the previously appropriated amount of $1,692,760 for the 
Fire Station No. 31 Seismic Improvement Project. Lee 
Engineering Services commenced construction on the project 
in August of 1994. Mr. Roger Wong of DPW advises that 
subsequently, in the course of construction, increased costs 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 



have resulted due to conditions on the project site that were 
not detected when the construction contract was approved. 
Additional funds in the amount of $191,000 are now needed 
to complete the Fire Station No. 31 Seismic Improvement 
Project, according to Mr. Wong. 

The additional work needed to complete the Fire State No. 31 
Seismic Improvement Project will be performed by the DPW 
staff, by Lee Engineering Enterprises, a WBE firm, and by 
three other non-MBE/WBE firms that have on-going 
contracts with DPW. The three other firms are Signet 
Testing Laboratory, Paradigm Environmental, and Roger 
Foott Associates. 

The $191,000 in additional requested funding will be 
expended as follows: 

Contractual Services 



Lee Engineering Services (51.9 percent) 






Fire Department requested changes 






(slide pole hardware, miscel- 






laneous electrical work) 


$7,811 




Filling in two existing windows 


3,718 




Conduit and Cable for PG&E pull box 


9,305 




Concrete pad for generator 


3,907 




Structural repair to existing 






grade beam 


2,584 




Repair damage sidewalk 


3,030 




Other* 


45,645 




Subtotal 




$76,000 


Signet Testing Laboratory (15.5 percent) 






Testing/special inspection 




22,623 


Paradigm Environmental (24.3 percent) 






Asbestos/lead abatement 




35,522 


Roger Foott Associates (8.3 percent) 






Underground-tank removal 




12.100 


Subtotal - Contractual Services 




$146,245 



ROARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 



In-house DPW Personnel 



Installation of telecommunication 

system $20,000 




Construction Management and 

Inspection 15 r 000 




Subtotal - in-house DPW Personnel 


$35,000 


Subtotal 


$181,245 


Contingency (5.4 percent of $181,245)** 


9.755 



TOTAL 



$191,000 



* Includes installation of conduits for 
telecommunication, TV and telephone services from 
service boxes to building and required excavation work 
in sidewalk, repair and replacement of damaged 
underground rainwater drains in rear vehicle parking 
area, minor additions in electrical work, and other 
unforeseeable work. 

**According to Mr. Wong, the $9,755 contingency 
represents the difference between the total amount of 
$191,000 that remains in the reserve account for this 
project and the project's additional construction cost of 
$181,245. 



Comment: According to Mr. Wong, the original contingency of $229,484 

provided in previously appropriated funds for the Fire 
Station No. 31 Seismic Improvement Project was depleted 
due to the following unanticipated factors: (1) deeper 
foundations were required due to soil problems encountered 
during excavation, (2) extra reinforcing was needed for 
mechanical enclosures and chases located behind plaster 
walls, (3) additional structural work was necessary to repair 
dry-rot and strengthen inadequately braced roof trusses 
concealed in the existing attic, (4) more abatement work was 
required for asbestos containing materials subsequently 
found during construction, and (5) additional design and 
construction management was required. 

Recommendation: Release the reserved funds in the amount of $191,000 



B O ARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item lc - File 101-93-104.1 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 

Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of Electricity and Telecommunications (DET). 

Hearing requesting release of reserved funds for the 
Department of Electricity and Telecommunications, in the 
amount of $40,000, for the City- Wide Radio System Project. 

$40,000 

Surplus monies rescinded from various completed Capital 
Improvement Projects and reserved for development of the 
800 MHz Citywide Radio System. 

In April of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation (File 101-93-104) in the amount 
of $246,050 to cover start-up costs for the DET's development 
of the City- Wide Radio System Project, an integrated radio 
communications system to be used by several City 
departments, including the Police Department, the Fire 
Department, the Department of Parking and Traffic and the 
Department of Public Health. Part of the funding ($40,000) 
was requested to pay for professional consulting services. The 
Board of Supervisors placed $40,000 of the $246,050 on 
reserve, pending the selection of a contractor, the MBE/WBE 
status of the contractor and the contract cost details. 

At the time of the 1994 supplemental appropriation, the DET 
planned to enter into a sole source contract with Motorola 
Communications and Electronics, Inc. (Motorola) for 
provision of the 800 MHz Citywide Radio Communication 
System. DET planned to develop general specifications for 
each phase of work in-house, and have Motorola convert the 
specifications into a scope of work. In order to ensure some 
independent analysis of the completeness of the scope of 
work, technical design requirements, equipment 
specifications, etc., the DET proposed to hire a consulting 
engineering firm to review the DET specifications and 
Motorola Statements of Work and Services, at an estimated 
cost of $40,000. Because the DET had not yet selected a 
consulting engineering firm, the Budget Committee placed 
this $40,000 on reserve. 

However, the sole source contract for provision of the 800 
MHz Citywide Communications System was successfully 
challenged in Federal Court, and the DET will now conduct a 
competitive bid. In order to issue a Request for Proposals 
(RFP) for provision of the system, it is necessary to develop 
full, detailed specifications for the project. Instead of hiring a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



consulting engineer to review DET specifications and the 
Motorola Statement of Work and Services, the DET has 
retained a consulting engineer to prepare the specifications 
for inclusion in the RFP, to assist the DET in reviewing the 
bids, and to perform project management functions during 
implementation of the System. The DET now requests that 
the $40,000 reserved for advisory consulting engineering 
services be released to help pay for the much larger contract 
for development of specifications, review of bids and project 
management, that is currently required. 

The DET reports that, through the Purchasing Department's 
Request for Proposal (RFP) process, the DET has selected the 
firm of Fluor Daniel Inc., an engineering firm to perform 
these services for the City-Wide Radio System Project 
($2,409,000), as well as providing other, unrelated 
engineering services for the 911 Project ($2,027,357), at a 
total estimated cost of $4,436,357. Fluor Daniel, Inc. is not 
an MBE or WBE firm. The DET reports that Fluor Daniel 
Inc. was selected on the basis of their expertise; they were 
also the lowest bidder. The DET advises that two other firms, 
neither of which are MBE or WBE firms, responded to the 
Department's RFP, as follows: 

Firm Amount. Bid 

RAM Communication Consulting, Inc. $4,983,046 

Warner Group $4,983,157 



Mr. Mike Ward of the Purchasing Department, who managed 
the RFP process, reports that the contract for engineering 
services will be performed in seven phases. Mr. Ward advises 
that Fluor Daniel Inc. has been awarded a contract in the 
amount of $2,487,625 for Phase I of the project ($2,409,000), 
which is the portion related to the 800 MHz Citywide Radio 
System, and a portion of Phase II ($78,625), which pertains 
to the 911 Project. According to Mr. Ward, contracts covering 
the remaining $1,948,732 in anticipated contract expenses 
related to the 911 Project will be developed at a later date. 

Mr. Ward states that the $2,487,625 contract amount is 
based on a flat rate for the services to be provided over a 
three-year, five-month (or 41 month) period. Mr. Ward 
advises that Fluor Daniel's hourly rates range from $60 to 
$175 per hour. Mr. Ward states that Fluor Daniel Inc. will 
subcontract on an as-needed basis with the following five 
firms: F. W. Associates Inc. (an MBE firm), Clayton 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Environmental, Frank Thatcher Associates, Inc., The 
Jefferson Company (an MBE firm), and Linestream (a WBE 
firm). According to Mr. Ward, The Jefferson Company will be 
allocated $106,968 or 4.3 percent of the total contract amount 
of $2,487,625, F. W. Associates will be allocated $273,639 or 
11 percent of the contract and Linestream will be allocated 
$129,357 or 5.2 percent of the contract, for a total MBE/WBE 
participation of 20.5 percent or $509,964. 

Mr. Dan McFarland of the DET advises that, in addition to 
this request of $40,000, the DET has $1,000,000 budgeted in 
its proposed FY 1995-96 budget for the 800 MHz portion of 
the Fluor Daniel contract. Mr. McFarland states that the 
DET is requesting the proposed release of reserve because 
staff anticipate that additional tasks not included in the 
contract scope of work will arise during the specification 
design process. Mr. McFarland advises that he wishes to use 
the $40,000 to cover such unanticipated expenses as they 
arise, without unnecessarily delaying the completion of each 
work phase. 

1. According to Mr. McFarland, the $1,369,000 balance of the 
contract amount related to the 800 MHz Citywide Radio 
System ($2,409,000 less $1,040,000) will be budgeted in the 
DET's FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98 budgets. Mr. McFarland 
advises that the DET hopes to have bid-ready specifications 
for the 800 MHz Citywide Radio Project by June 1, 1996. 

2. The Attachment provided by the DET describes, in more 
detail, the work to be performed by Fluor Daniel, Inc. for 
Phase I. As noted above, the $40,000 requested for release of 
reserve is only a small portion of the total cost of $2,409,000 
for development of specifications, review of bids and project 
management of the 800 MHz Citywide Radio System Project. 

3. The original purpose for which the subject $40,000 
requested release of reserve was designated — review of 
specifications for the 800 MHz Citywide Radio Project ~ is 
closely related to the purpose for which the DET now wishes 
to use the funds: development of such specifications. 
Furthermore, it is clear that the DET will ultimately spend 
significantly more than the $1,000,000 included in the 
Department's FY 1995-96 budget plus the $40,000 included 
in this request ($1,040,000) on the contract with Fluor Daniel 
Inc. For these reasons, the Budget Analyst concludes that the 
request for release of reserve is a reasonable request. 



Recommendation: Approve the $40,000 release of reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



i ATTACHMENT 

i 

Cost Calculation Form 2 

COST CALCULATION FOR PHASE NO. 1, OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. 

i 



Summary of Services to be Provided: 



SPECIFICATIONS DEVELOPMENT 

(1) Conduct project alignment and define scope of work 

(2) (Conduct needs analysis interviews (20) with radio system users 

(3) Define functional requirements 

(4) Evaluate system requirements and prepare preliminary design 

(5) Review and define applicable standards 

(6) Review and define existing systems 

(7) Provide value engineering services to ensure that functional requirements are satisfied at a 
reasonable cost 

(8) Develop performance and technical specifications 

(9) Support the DET in review and approval of specifications (one review cycle) 

(10) Provide support to the DET in specifications issues for pre-bid conference 



BID, NEGOTIATIONS, APPROVAL & AWARD SUPPORT (Procurement/Bid process based on one 
(jycle each for the 800MHz Trunked System and the MDT Radio System) 

(11) provide support to the DET in evaluating bidders' responses 

(12) Develop and issue award recommendation for DET evaluation 

(13) Provide contract negotiations support to the DET during the contract award process (support 
biased upon a 3 month duration) 

(14) provide approval and award support to the DET (support based upon a 2 month duration) 



SYSTEPff IMPLEMENTATION 

(15) Review and finalize vendor design issues for system implementation 

(16) Oversee system installation to ensure compliance with applicable documentation, standards, 
codes, and regulations (oversight based upon a 9 month duration) 

(17) Obtain and evaluate site specific data to develop final as-built analyses 



POST IMPLEMENTATION & REVIEW 

(18) Review vendor as-built documentation 

(19) Prepare system documentation 

(20) Prepare final project close-out report (one review cycle) 



SUPPORT SERVICES 

(21) Provide engineering support services. Participate in monthly progress reviews, engineering 
meetings with CCSF and prime contractor analysis and provide engineering analysis arid input 
{o support monthly project status reporting 

(22) Provide project management support services (project manager, cost and scheduling, 
estimating) to support monthly project status reporting 



Total Lump Cost of Services: 
$2,409JOOO 



Estimated Time of Completion; 
3 years, 5 months 



Contractor. Fluor Daniel, Inc. 



Signature: 



Name and Title: Alec Bentley, Project Manager 



Address: 3333 Michelson Drive, Irvine, CA, 92730 



Telephone No. 714-975-6329 F ax 714-975-3857 

50124076.IJP 05/^5/95 1 

10 






Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 

Item Id - File 101-93-105.2 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Public Library 

Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Release of reserved funds, in the amount of $584,250 for the 
renovation of the Mission Branch Library. 

$584,250 

1988 Public Library Improvement Bond Interest 

As the result of the 1988 Public Library Improvement Bond 
measure, approved by the voters in 1988, the Mission Branch 
Library is slated to undergo the following renovations: 
seismic upgrading, handicapped accessibility, additional 
public space, and additional space for the Mission Branch 
Library's collections. 

Requested Release of Reserve 

In April of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a request 
for a supplemental appropriation from the 1988 Public 
Library Improvement Bond interest funds, which included an 
amount of $1,208,551 for the renovation of the Mission 
Branch Library (File 101-93-105). The Board of Supervisors 
placed the entire amount of $1,208,551 on reserve, pending 
the selection of a contractor, the contractor cost details, and 
the MBE/WBE status of the contractor. In September of 
1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a release of 
$150,000 of the reserved amount of $1,208,551 to replace the 
heating system in the Mission Branch Library, leaving a 
balance of $1,058,551 on reserve. Although the reserved 
amount of $1,058,551 was originally reserved for the 
construction services of an outside contractor, DPW is now 
requesting that the proposed $584,250 release of reserve, 
which is included in the $1,058,551 currently reserved, be 
used for (1) the completion of in-house design work by DPW 
and outside peer review of the project cost estimates 
($289,250), and (2) in-house construction management 
services by DPW ($295,000). Mr. Victor Talatala of DPW 
advises that, as of May, 1994, the scope of the construction 
work for the Mission Branch Library Renovation Project 
increased based on peer reviews, and therefore there has 
been a corresponding increase in the need for design and 
construction management services to be provided by DPW 
prior to the start of construction. (See discussion of Project 
Budget and Financing, below.) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 



The proposed funds would be used as follows: 

Design Phase 

DPW-Design Phase Project Management 
(Project Manager approx. 595.2 hrs @ $84 per hr) $50,000 

DPW-Construction Documents 180,550 

Department of Building Inspection- 
Permits and Approvals 36,000 

Two Peer Reviews (See Comment No. 3) 22.700 

Subtotal $289,250 

In-House Construction Management Services 

DPW- Testing and Inspection 85,000 

DPW- Construction Management 
(Construction Manager for approx. 417 hrs @ 
$96 per hour, Construction Inspector for 1,875 
hrs. @ $80 per hr) 190,000 

DPW- Post-Construction Services 
(Project Manager for approx. 59.5 hrs @ $84 per hr 
Architect 130 hrs. @ $77 per hour, Construction 
Manager 52 hours @ $96 per hour) 20.000 

Subtotal 295,000 

TOTAL $584,250 



Total Project Budget and Financing 

The original budget for completion of the Mission Branch 
Library renovations, including design and construction, was 
$2,360,880. The Project has received funding from the 
following sources: (1) an amount of $355,750 from the 
original allocation of the 1988 Public Library Improvement 
Bond funds (See Comment No. 4); (2) $100,000 of 1990 
Earthquake Safety Improvement Bond funds; (3) $696,579 
for construction, from a Federal grant; and (4) $1,208,551 
from an April, 1994 supplemental appropriation (File 101-93- 
105) of the 1988 Public Library Improvement Bond interest 
funds, which was placed on reserve and is the subject of this 
$584,250 request for release of reserve. 

Although DPW originally estimated that the entire project 
could be completed for an amount of approximately 
$2,360,880, a peer review of DPWs overall cost estimates, 
which was completed in May of 1994 (after the supplemental 
appropriation) by Turner Construction, and a second peer 
review of the value engineering (a review of the structural 
design of the project) in March of 1995, also by Turner 
Construction, concluded that the actual cost for the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

1? 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 



completion of the project would be approximately $3,304,536, 
or $943,656 more than DPW's current allocation for the 
project. These additional funds, in the amount of $943,656, 
will be required to implement all of the code-required seismic 
and disabled access renovations, and the corresponding 
interior remodeling identified as missing from the original 
plans through the two peer reviews. 

Mr. Frank McPartland of DPW advises that DPW is 
confident that the current projection of $3,304,536, which 
includes the subject requested release of $584,250 on reserve, 
is comprehensive and includes all renovation costs, including 
$2,310,454 for construction to be performed by a contractor, 
and $994,082 for DPW design and construction management 
services. Nonetheless, Mr. McPartland advises that because 
DPW has not yet selected a contractor for the construction 
contract, the bid amount for the construction contract may be 
slightly higher or lower than DPW's construction cost 
estimate of $2,310,454. 

Mr. Talatala advises that DPW will submit legislation at a 
future date for a second supplemental appropriation, in the 
amount of $943,656, in order to complete the Mission Branch 
Library renovation. Mr. Talatala advises that, although the 
original $5 million in 1988 Public Library Improvement Bond 
funds allocated for the Public Library branches has been 
completely expended, this amount is available from the 
interest earnings of the 1988 Public Library Improvement 
Bond. 

In summary, the full budget estimate, including (1) design 
and construction management services ($994,082), and (2) 
construction contract and construction contingency costs 
($2,310,454) now totals $3,304,536. The funding sources for 
the entire Mission Branch Library renovation project are as 
follows: 

Original Allocation from 1988 Public Library 
Improvement Bond funds $355,750 

Supplemental Appropriation from 1988 Public 
Library Improvement Bond interest funds* 1,208,551 

Federal Grant 696,579 

1990 Earthquake Safety Bond funds (previously 
allocated) 100,000 

Anticipated Supplemental Appropriation Request 
from 1988 Public Library Improvement Bond 
interest funds 943 P 656 

Total $3,304,536 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 

* Of the amount of $1,208,551 which was reserved by the 
Board of Supervisors, $1,058,551 is still on reserve. The 
release of $584,250 of the total amount of $1,058,551 is the 
subject of this request. 

Comments: 1. The Attachment provided by DPW shows the total 

proposed project cost of $994,082 for DPW's design and 
construction management services, which includes $409,832 
of DPW's design and construction management services, 
which have been previously allocated from the 1988 Public 
Library Improvement Bond funds, and $584,250 which is the 
subject of this request. 

2. The Budget Analyst notes that DPW does not anticipate 
beginning construction for the Mission Branch Library 
renovation project until the Summer of 1996. Mr. Talatala 
advises that DPW will not need funding for DPW 
construction management services until such time as the 
construction begins. Therefore, the amount of $295,000 for 
construction management services should remain on reserve 
pending the presentation of a full construction budget by 
DPW. 

3. Mr. Talatala advises that Turner Construction entered 
into a Master Agreement with DPW in 1992, through a 
formal Request for Proposal (RFP) process, in order to 
provide consultation services (peer reviews) for DPW 
projects. Turner Construction is not an MBE/WBE firm. 
Turner Construction submitted a proposal to DPW for two 
peer reviews, for an amount of $50,000. Mr. Talatala advises 
that Turner Construction has completed the two peer 
reviews, as of March of 1995 for an amount of $50,000. 
However, Mr. Talatala advises that Turner Construction has 
only been reimbursed for $27,300. The balance of $22,700 is 
included in the proposed request for release of reserved 
funds. 

Recommendations: 1. Continue to reserve $295,000 for in-house construction 
management services pending submission of a full 
construction budget by DPW. 

2. Approve the release of $289,250 for the design phase, 
which is itemized in the above budget. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

H 



ATTACHMENT 



OtJmO>>>-0 

OSZraJJS 



= 2 I x X 



S9 



o o 



5 « 8 8 8! 



SS 



IS 



o - 1 «c 

■5 co S 

> 33 

Z 

D 

B- 2 



if 



s "ft 

ro a 



en 

H 
33 

C 

o 

H 

5 

z 

s 

> 

Z 

o 
m 

3 

-t 
to 

m 

33 

o 
m 
w 

CD 

c 
o 
o 



83 



tn tn 



09 
37 

m 

> 

1 



8 3 



O th 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Item le - File 101-94-89.1 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Public Works 
Recreation and Park 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $141,000 for 
improvements to Candlestick Park for the 1999 Super Bowl. 

$141,000 

Special Recreation and Park Revenue Funds 
Rent Credit from San Francisco 49ers 

On May 5, 1995 the Board of Supervisors approved a 
$325,000 supplemental appropriation to support design work 
on Candlestick Park capital improvements related to the 
1999 Super Bowl game to be held at Candlestick Park (Super 
Bowl XXXIII). A total of $141,000 of that supplemental 
appropriation was reserved pending submission of a detailed 
scope of work. The Department of Public Works (DPW) is 
now requesting release of the $141,000 reserve, in order to 
pay for design work to develop an electrical emergency 
backup system for Candlestick Park. 

Background on Super Bowl Bid and Related Capital 
Improvements 

In September of 1994 the Mayor's Office, the Recreation and 
Park Department (RPD), the San Francisco Convention and 
Visitors Bureau and the 49ers (collectively known as the 
Superbowl Task Force) submitted a bid to the National 
Football League (NFL) to host the 1999 Super Bowl. In 
November of 1994, the NFL selected San Francisco 
(Candlestick Park) as the site for the 1999 Superbowl. 

The Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 756-94 on 
August 29, 1994, which endorsed the efforts of the Super 
Bowl Task Force and encouraged the Task Force to submit a 
bid to the NFL on behalf of the City and County of San 
Francisco to host Superbowl XXXIII. 

The Board of Supervisors resolution endorsing the bid refers 
to a nine year, $30 million renovation project at Candlestick 
Park which had already been undertaken by the RPD. The 
resolution does not address future capital improvements to 
Candlestick Park. However, the cover letter from Mr. 
Edward DeBartolo, owner and Chairman of the Board of the 
San Francisco 49ers, to the Commissioner of the NFL, states 
that, "The City of San Francisco has committed itself to a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

1 A 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



stadium improvement program of $26,000,000 which will 
begin immediately upon receiving approval from the 
membership." Within the text of the bid, this commitment is 
reiterated. 

Although the bid to the NFL states a commitment to $26 
million in capital improvements, the bid itself did not include 
a full list of the proposed improvements. However, the $26 
million was derived from a list prepared by the RPD and the 
DP W, with input from the Mayor's Office. The list, which was 
previously provided to the Board of Supervisors in File 193- 
95-1, includes electrical emergency systems modifications. 

The Budget Committee held a hearing on April 12, 1995 (File 
193-95-1) at which Mr. Jim Lazarus, who is coordinating the 
project for the Mayor's Office, stated that the City is not 
legally required to carry out these improvements, but the 
NFL has the right to withdraw its Super Bowl offer if such 
capital improvements are not completed by the start of the 
1998 football season. Mr. Lazarus outlined a variety of 
possible funding sources for the capital improvements that 
were under consideration by the Mayor, including sale of the 
stadium name, advertising revenue from Super Bowl product 
sponsorships, and a potential bond issue, in addition to 
annual contributions by the RPD from rental fees paid by the 
49ers and the Giants, and the Stadium Operator Admission 
Tax. Mr. Lazarus also provided an estimate of up to $4.2 
million in additional tax revenues to the City that might be 
generated from hosting the Super Bowl game. 

Supplemental Appropriation for Super Bowl Capital 
Improvements 

As noted above, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
$325,000 supplemental appropriation in May of 1995 to 
enable the DPW to initiate design work for various capital 
improvements associated with Super Bowl XXXIII, to be 
played in Candlestick Park in 1999. This supplemental 
appropriation was funded through an advance by the 49ers of 
1995 parking lot rental fees that would otherwise have been 
due the City during the 1995 football season. At that time, 
the Board of Supervisors appropriated $184,000 for plumbing 
repair design, disabled access design and a study of 
alternatives for expansion of press box space. The remaining 
$141,000 was at that time slated for preparation of initial 
press box site work designs, following selection of an 
alternative for expansion of press box space. The $141,000 
was placed on reserve pending submission of a detailed scope 
of work to the Budget Committee. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 

Requested Release of Reserve 



Mr. Don Alameida, the DPW architect who is project 
manager for the Candlestick Park capital improvements, 
states that, although a press box expansion alternative has 
been selected, the DPW does not propose to commence work 
on press box site work designs until funding sources have 
been identified to cover the estimated $19 million cost of 
constructing the new press box. Instead, Mr. Alameida 
advises that the DPW proposes to use the $141,000 (a) to 
obtain bid-ready designs for the emergency electrical system 
($96,000), (b) to support DPW project management ($20,000), 
and (c) to provide a contingency fund for additional 
professional services ($25,000), all of which are related to the 
Candlestick Park improvements needed for Super Bowl 
XXXIII, as well as being necessary even if the City were not 
to host the Super Bowl. 



Comment: 



The RPD and the DPW have requested that this item be 
continued to the call of the Chair, in order to provide staff 
with sufficient time to conduct further review and detailing of 
the project scope, to ensure that it will adequately meet 
future Stadium needs. 



Recommendation: 



Continue this item to the call of the Chair, as requested by 
the RPD and the DPW. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 

Item If - File 28-95-10 

Department: Public Utilities Commission 



Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Resolution authorizing expenditure of San Francisco Water 
Department funds for emergency repairs at City chlorination 
facilities. 

$150,000 

San Francisco Water Department 

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) advises that the 
Water Department's 10 chlorination facilities located 
throughout the City, containing a total of 24 tanks, are at 
great risk to the public should there be an earthquake. Mr. 
Everett Hintze of the PUC advises that the State has 
previously inspected the tanks and found the tanks are not 
seismically adequate. According to Mr. Hintze, in the event of 
an earthquake, the tanks could topple over or become 
separated from the piping system which would put the health 
and safety of the public in danger. 

The California Department of Health Services (DOHS) 
advised the Water Department to install seismic restraints 
on the tanks. The Water Department had previously planned 
to install the restraints using in-house staff. However, after a 
substantial investigation, it was determined that the tanks 
would have to be replaced as they are not structurally 
adequate to accommodate the restraints (nearing the end of 
their service life), and as such the work could not be 
performed in-house. It was also determined by the 
Department that the work would not have been able to 
commence prior to February of 1996 under the Department's 
normal contracting procedures, which would mean that the 
work would not be completed prior to the next scheduled 
inspection by the DOHS. 

Therefore, in accordance with provisions of Section 6.30.2 of 
the Administrative Code, the PUC declared an emergency on 
June 13, 1995 and initiated an expedited contracting 
procedure in order to retain a contractor to repair the 
chlorination facilities. Mr. Hintze advises that the PUC has 
sent letters soliciting bids from approximately 100 firms, 
based on a list of firms provided by the Human Rights 
Commission. As of the writing of this report, the PUC has 
not, as yet, selected a contractor. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

1Q 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 

The PUC is now requesting authorization to expend 
$150,000 for the necessary emergency repairs. The PUC 
advises that the emergency repairs are scheduled to begin 
approximately August 1, 1995 and should be completed on or 
about November 30, 1995. 

Comment: The PUC reports that the funds to repair the 10 chlorination 

facilities and the applicable 24 tanks are available from 
previously appropriated Water Department capital 
improvement project funds. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 



Item 2 - File 101-95-4 



Departments: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Budget: 



Police Department 
Sheriffs Department 

Ordinance appropriating $1,267,862 from the General Fund 
Reserve for overtime, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, 
other non-personal services and services of other 
departments for costs associated with the UN 50 Celebration 
incurred by the Sheriff and the Police Departments in Fiscal 
Year 1995-96, providing for action previously taken. 

$1,267,862 

1995-96 General Fund Reserve Funds (An amount of 
$1,267,862 has been carried forward from FY 1994-95, and 
does not impact the FY 1995-96 General Fund Reserve of $10 
million). 

An Amendment of the Whole will be introduced that reflects 
an increase of $312,439 in the amount of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance from $955,423 to 
$1,267,862, and that provides for action previously taken. 
The increase in the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance reflects Police Department actual costs incurred, 
and revised Sheriffs Department expenditure projections. 
This report reflects the $1,267,862 requested in the 
Amendment of the Whole. 

Police Department 

Overtime $917,726 

Fringe Benefits 8,900 

Contractual Services 47,178 

Materials and Supplies 35,686 

DPW Work Order 5.800 

Subtotal Police Department $1,015,290 

Sheriffs Department 

Overtime (including premium pay) $215,427 

Fringe Benefits 2,163 

Materials and Supplies 34 r 982 

Subtotal Sheriffs Department 25&5_22 

TOTAL REQUESTED 

SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS $1,267,862 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 



Description: 



Comments: 



San Francisco was the host City for the 50th Anniversary of 
the United Nations which was held throughout the City, 
including the Civic Center area. The proposed supplemental 
appropriation request would pay for the costs incurred by the 
Police Department and the Sheriffs Department during the 
period June 23, 1995 through June 28, 1995 for the increased 
law enforcement activity associated with the UN 50 
Celebration. Specifically, the proposed supplemental funds 
would be used to fund the following: 

• Overtime personnel assigned to various UN 50 
Celebration key events, including the "We the People" 
celebration, the Royal Philharmonic concert, the 
Marilyn Home concert, the Opera de Lyon, and the 
UN Plaza ceremonies and luncheon; 

• Bomb Squad; 

• Diplomatic Protection; 

• Traffic Enforcement; 

• Trailer Security; 

• Various field support activities including standby 
for mass arrests, crowd control, transportation of 
arrestees; 

• Increase in Jail staff as required by the 
circumstances; 

• Station transfers. 

According to the Controller, there has been no formal 
commitment regarding Federal reimbursement of the 
expenses incurred by the City. Mr. John Kaye of the Police 
Department reports that negotiations are currently being 
held between the Police Department and the U. S. State 
Department to determine the amount of Federal 
reimbursement. Therefore, the proposed supplemental funds 
would be used to pay for all expenses incurred by the Police 
and Sheriff Departments associated with the UN 50 
Celebration event, prior to the receipt of any Federal funds. 

Police Department Expenditures 

1. The Attachment to this report provided by the Police 
Department details a summary of those events and activities 
in which Police Department overtime was used. This list of 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 






events was developed prior to the UN event. Based on the 
Controller's report detailing actual overtime costs incurred, 
the Police Department is now requesting the following funds 
for overtime and related fringe benefits: 

Overtime (approximately 22,943 hours 

at average hourly rate of $40, including 

premium pay) $917,726 

Related Fringe Benefits 8,900 

Total Police Department Overtime 
and Fringe Benefit costs $926,626 

2. The Police Department reports that the following 
materials, supplies and equipment totaling $35,686 had to be 
purchased to provide adequate security for the UN 50 event. 



50 night binoculars 


$2,029 


50 gas masks 


16,275 


18 helmets 


6,742 


Bomb X-Ray supplies 


1,454 


EOD Detonation Supplies 


4,512 


Food 


5.674 


Total Materials, Supplies and Equipment 


$35,686 



The Department has already purchased these items in order 
to ensure that adequate security was available, including 
providing supplies for potential bombing incidents, at the 
time that the UN 50 Celebration events occurred. 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 172-95-19) which authorized the Chief of Police to 
execute a hold harmless agreement for the loan from the U.S. 
Defense Department of radios and communications-related 
equipment to be used specifically for the UN 50 Celebration. 
The equipment on loan included 800 portable radios, 50 
undercover microphone sets, and 15 hand held metal 
detectors. 

Although the Police Department also requested that 
applicable Federal agencies lend other equipment to the 
Department, including additional metal detectors, such 
Federal agencies did not agree to loan any additional 
equipment. Therefore, those items had to be purchased or 
rented by the Police Department, according to Mr. Kaye. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 



3. The Police Department has provided the following 
breakdown of actual costs incurred for contractual services: 

Computer Rentals $6,203 
Magnetometer Rental (walk-through metal detectors)14,072 

Portable Potties 16,951 

Bomb Technician 2,200 

Van Rental 5,000 

Metal Detector (hand-held) 1,960 

Tables and Rope Rentals 792 

Total Contractual Services $47,178 

As previously noted, the Police Department has already been 
loaned 15 hand held metal detectors from the U. S. 
Department of Defense. However, according to Mr. Kaye, the 
hand held metal detectors on loan from the Department of 
Defense were not sufficient because it would take too long to 
use the hand held metal detectors on all of the attendees at 
the various functions. Therefore, the Department also had to 
rent walk-through metal detectors ($14,072), as well as to 
purchase additional hand-held devices ($1,960). 

4. Mr. Kaye reports that the $5,800 requested for the DPW 
work order would be used to pay for the costs associated with 
the relocation and hook-up of a DPW trailer that was used as 
a command center. 

Sheriffs Department Expenditures 

5. Based upon the Controller's report detailing actual 
overtime costs, the following funds for overtime, fringe 
benefits and premium pay were incurred by the Sheriffs 
Department: 

Field Support $62,811 

Emergency Services Unit (ESU) personnel were used as 
mobilized units to assist the Police Department in activities 
such as transportation from demonstration or event sites, 
standby for mass arrests, crowd control and transportation of 
arrestees. 

The ESU personnel were required for three days because the 
UN 50 events occurred on these three days, and Sheriffs 
personnel had to be on standby for mass arrests and crowd 
control to ensure that the UN 50 ceremonies were not 
disrupted. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 



Jail Staff Increase $23,282 

The Sheriffs Department increased jail staff at County jail 
facilities to allow for increases in bookings and 
transportation, during two shifts for three days. 

Station Transfers $14,636 

Additional overtime staff was also utilized to perform 
prisoner station transfers between District Police Stations. 
Five Deputies and one Senior Deputy were added for the 
period of 6/23/95 to 6/26/95. 

County Jail #9 $49,682 

The Sheriffs Department activated the new County Jail #9 
for the detention of persons engaged in civil disobedience. 
Approximately 278 persons were detained at this facility on 
June 26, 1995. Overtime personnel included 8 to 10 
employees, for three shifts for three days. 

Training/Crowd Control $43,489 

The Sheriffs Department provided training in crowd control 
for 240 Deputies to prepare for the UN 50 activities. Two 
training sessions were held on 6/2/95 and 6/10/95 for 240 
Deputy Sheriffs. 



Related Fringe Benefits $2,119 

Medicare and Unemployment, Social Security 

Premium a nd Standby Pav 1,113 

Additional Premium Pay and Standby Pay 
required from 278 additional arrests made on 
June 26, 1995. 



Total Sheriffs Department Overtime, 
Premium Pay and Fringe Benefits $197,132 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
appropriate a total of $217,590 ($215,427 for overtime and 
$2,163 for fringe benefits) for Sheriffs Department overtime 
and fringe benefits. However, as noted above, actual costs 
incurred for overtime and fringe benefits are $197,132. 
Therefore, the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance should be amended to reduce the amount by 
$20,458 to reflect actual overtime and fringe benefit costs. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 



6. The following funds are requested by the Sheriffs 
Department for materials, supplies and equipment: 

Meals (Emergency Services Unit during 

Field Operations/44 personnel) $767 

Meals (for 278 Inmates arrested during 

demonstration) 2,986 

Equipment 

21 Soft Body Armor Sets 7,542 

60 Avon Gas Masks 17,903 

6 Typewriters 2.279 

Total Sheriffs Department 

Materials and Supplies $31,477 

The Sheriffs Department reports that the body armor and 
the gas masks were used during the training sessions, but 
were not required for the UN 50 celebration. Sgt. Ridgeway 
reports that the Department can use the equipment for 
future special events. Sgt. Ridgeway also reports that the 
typewriters were required for County Jail #9, as the 
computerized booking system is not yet operational. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
appropriate $34,982 for materials and supplies. However, as 
noted above, actual costs incurred are $31,477. Therefore, the 
proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance should be 
amended to reduce the amount appropriated for materials 
and supplies by $3,505 ($34,982 less $31,477). 

7. According to Ms. Theresa Lee of the Mayor's Office, the 
Police Department and the Sheriffs Department are the only 
departments requesting supplemental funds for the UN 50 
Celebration at this time, and no other City Departments are 
anticipated to submit funding requests for the UN 50 
Celebration. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 19, 1995 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance by $20,458 to reflect actual overtime, premium pay 
and fringe benefit costs incurred by the Sheriffs Department. 

2. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance by $3,505 to reflect actual materials and supplies 
costs incurred by the Sheriffs Department. 

3. Reduce the proposed supplemental appropriation by a total 
of $23,963, from $1,267,862 to $1,243,899 as follows: 

Reduce Overtime from $215,427 to $195,013, a 
reduction of $20,414. 

• Reduce Mandatory Fringe Benefits from $11,063 to 
$11,019, a reduction of $44. 

• Reduce Materials and Supplies from $70,668 to 
$67,163, a reduction of $3,505. 

4. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 1 



UN 50 Events/Activities 

that Required Overtime by the 

Police Department 



1. We The Peoples - Saturday 6/24 

2. The Royal Philharmonic 6/24 

3. Marilyn Home Concert 6/24 

4. Reform and Renewal 6/25 

5. Opera de Lyon 6/25 

6. Interfaith Service 6/25 

7. Nobel Peace Prize 6/25 

8. Reception for UN Reps. 6/25 

9. Royal Philharmonic 6/25 

10. Staging Area 6/25 & 6/26 

11. Magnetometer (Metal Detectors) 

12. External Security 

13. Monday UN Plaza & Luncheon 6/26 

14. Closing Ceremony 6/26 

15. Command Post 6/24-25+ security 

16. Command Post Dispatch 6/24-25 

17. Dispatchers/ per event 6/20-26 +41hrs. 

18. MUNI 

19. Housing Task Force 

20. Bomb Squad (6/20-27) 

21. Rapid Deployment Force 

22. Trailer Security 

23. Diplomat Protection 

24. Traffic Enforcement 

25. Property 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 

Item 3 - File 172-95-27 

Department: Real Estate 

Item: Ordinance authorizing and approving sales of and grants of 

easements with respect to City-owned property (portions of 
Block 5268, Lot 7; Block 5269, Lots 2, 7 and 8; Block 5282, 
Lots 31 and 33; and Block 5284A, Lot 6) to the State of 
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in 
connection with the retrofit and maintenance of the 
Interstate 280 Freeway. 

Location: Selby Street between Innes and Kirkwood Avenues 

Description: The proposed ordinance pertains to sales of property and 

grants of easements by the City to Caltrans along a two block 
section of Selby Street that runs directly below Interstate 
280, and bisects the San Francisco Produce Market, a 
wholesale produce market in the Bayview district. The 
Department of Real Estate (DRE) granted permission in 1992 
for Caltrans to complete emergency seismic repairs to 
Interstate 280 in this area, including adding 8 new support 
columns, with the written understanding that Caltrans and 
the DRE would agree on a value for the temporary and 
permanent easements and sale of land for the new columns 
at a later date. The proposed ordinance would (a) approve the 
agreements that have been reached regarding compensation 
to the City and to the San Francisco Produce Market payable 
by Caltrans, and (b) give Caltrans the right to maintain the 
support columns and their foundations. 

The proposed ordinance would approve three separate 
Agreements with Caltrans. Mr. Harry Quinn of the DRE 
states that the reason for three separate Agreements is that 
each Agreement pertains to a particular Caltrans 
expenditure authorization for a portion of the freeway repair 
project in the subject area. 

The City leases the property along Selby Street to the San 
Francisco Market Corporation, a non-profit corporation 
established by the City in 1962 to build and manage the 
produce market. The Caltrans retrofit work reduced the 
availability of parking in the Produce Market parking lot and 
disrupted on- and off-loading of produce over the 2.5 year 
construction period. The Agreements that would be approved 
in the proposed Ordinance would require Caltrans to 
compensate the San Francisco Market Corporation, through 
payment for temporary easements. The settlement includes 
interest payments from the date the DRE granted Right of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Entry (which varies) to the settlement date of March 31, 
1995. 

In addition to temporary easements, the Agreements would 
convey to Caltrans the property for the 8 new support 
columns for Interstate 280, and grant permanent easements 
to repair and maintain the freeway structure. The City and 
its tenant, the San Francisco Market Corporation, would still 
be able to use the surface area above the permanent 
easements for parking and loading. Revenues from the 
property sales and permanent easements would be deposited 
to the DRE Land Surplus Fund, which can be used for future 
City property acquisitions. 

Payments to be made by Caltrans under the Agreements are 
as follows: 

Caltrans Payments 

to S.F. Market Caltrans Payments 
Corp. to City 

Temporary Easements 

Compensation to S.F. Market 

Corp. for loss of parking and 

disruption during 

construction. $125,669 - 

Permanent Easements 

For permanent right to 

maintain column 

foundations. — $7,515 

Consideration for Property Sales* 

For location of 8 new 

support columns - 2 P 889 

Total $125,669 $10,404 

*The property sales consist of the land on which portions of 
the 8 new support columns are located. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Quinn states that the $2,889 fee for sale of the 

property on which the columns are placed is based on a fair 
market land value of approximately $30.10 per square foot, 
for a total of 96 square feet, which was established through 
an appraisal obtained by Caltrans and approved as fair 
market value by the DRE. Mr. Quinn advises that the $7,515 
charge for the permanent easements is approximately 10 
percent of the estimated $75,000 property value, because the 
City would not lose the use of the property. He further 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



advises that the payment to the San Francisco Market 
Corporation totalling $125,669, is based on a range from 
$0.15 to $0.21 per square foot per month, depending upon the 
extent of lost parking and loading potential during the 
construction period. Mr. Quinn states that this compensation 
is based on comparable Caltrans and DRE parking lot lease 
rates. 

2. The three Agreements each state that Caltrans is 
purchasing and obtaining easements of property on an "as is 
with all faults" basis, which means that the Agreements 
release the City from any demands or legal claims on the part 
of Caltrans related to the condition of the property. 

3. As part of the Agreements, the San Francisco Market 
Corporation will execute a Quitclaim Deed, acknowledging 
that they are being fully compensated and releasing their 
interest in the property rights conveyed to Caltrans. 

4. Mr. Quinn states that the San Francisco Market 
Corporation plans to use the $125,669 payment from 
Caltrans to make roof repairs and other infrastructure 
improvements to the San Francisco Produce Market complex. 
Board of Supervisors approval is not required for such tenant 
improvements. 

5. In summary, the proposed ordinance would approve three 
Agreements that authorize sale of property and grants of 
easements to Caltrans in the area of the San Francisco 
Produce Market, along a two block section of Selby Street 
that runs directly below Interstate 280. The property sales 
(totaling $2,889) and easements (totaling $7,515) relate to 
seismic repairs to Interstate 280 completed by Caltrans 
between 1992 and 1994. The property on which portions of 8 
new support columns for Interstate 280 are located would be 
sold to Caltrans, while the easements would give Caltrans 
the permanent right to maintain the column foundations. 

In addition, under the proposed Agreements, Caltrans would 
compensate the San Francisco Produce Market (a non-profit 
corporation established by the City which leases the property 
along Selby Street from the City) with a payment of $125,669 
for the loss of parking and disruption that occurred during 
construction of the repairs to Interstate 280. Mr. Quinn 
advises that both the payments to the City and to the San 
Francisco Produce Market represent fair market value for the 
property sales and easements. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



File 200-95-2 



Item: Hearing to consider the cost to the City of the installation (utility 

connection costs) of public toilets when the manufacturer is limited to 
$20,000 per toilet for installation. 

Description: In July of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a final, amended 
Agreement between the City and J.C. Decaux United Street 
Furniture (J.C. Decaux) to provide for the placement of public toilets 
on public property in San Francisco in exchange for granting to J.C. 
Decaux the right to place public service kiosks on public property and 
sell advertising on those kiosks (File 115-93-8.1). 

Under the Agreement between the City and J.C. Decaux, J.C. Decaux 
is responsible for the entire cost of installing, maintaining and 
removing the toilets and kiosks. There is no cost to the City for such 
installation, maintenance or removal of the toilets and kiosks, 
according to Mr. Vitaly Troyan of the Department of Public Works. 

Under the Agreement between the City and J.C. Decaux, J.C Decaux 
is obligated to pay a maximum of $20,000 per toilet for the cost to 
connect each toilet to water, sewer, electrical, and telephone utilities 
(Section 2.05-C of the Agreement). In the event that the costs of 
these connections exceed $20,000 for a single toilet, J.C. Decaux has 
the right to request that the City designate an alternative location for 
the toilet. According to Mr. Troyan, this request is J.C. Decaux's only 
recourse if the cost of utility connections for a toilet exceeds $20,000, 
and in no case is the City required to share the costs of such utility 
connection, or any other costs to install or maintain the toilets or 
kiosks. If the new site designated by the City would also incur utility 
connection costs exceeding $20,000, J.C. Decaux may request another 
site, until a site is found which would not result in utility connection 
costs exceeding $20,000. J.C. Decaux is not required to install a toilet 
at a site where utility connection costs would exceed $20,000. 

Other major provisions of the Agreement between the City and J.C. 
Decaux are as follows: 

• There will be a two year trial period during which J.C. Decaux will 
install and operate 20 toilets and 90 kiosks. At the end of the two 
year trial period, the City would have the option either to; (a) have 
the toilets removed and have the kiosks removed three years 
thereafter (five years from the start of the contract), or, (b) to 
negotiate a new agreement with J.C. Decaux at the end of five years 
for purposes of the City being paid a portion of the advertising 
revenues from the kiosks beginning in the sixth year, if the toilets are 
removed. If the Board of Supervisors authorizes the toilet program to 
continue after the two-year trial period, a total of 27 toilets and 121 
kiosks would be installed, and, at the City's option, an additional 23 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

toilets and 104 kiosks could be installed for a maximum of 50 toilets 
and 225 kiosks. 

• J.C. Decaux must pay the City an initial fee of $25,000 for the first 
27 toilets annually and $500 per toilet for each toilet beyond 27, 
adjusted each year by the rate of inflation, for the City's costs to 
administer the program. 

• J.C. Decaux must pay the City a one-time fee of $350 per toilet and 
kiosk to defray the cost of holding public hearings and determining 
specific locations for the toilets and kiosks. 

• J.C. Decaux must pay the City 2% of the net revenues earned from 
the sale of advertising on the kiosks if such revenues exceed $18,000 
per kiosk annually for the first seven years of the program, and 5% of 
net revenues if such revenues exceed $18,000 per kiosk beginning in 
the eighth year of the program, or, if the net revenues exceed $25,000 
per kiosk, 7% of net revenues beginning in the eighth year of the 
program. 

• One of the three sides of the kiosks must be devoted to newsstands, 
City maps, public art, announcements, or other public service 
material. 

• J.C. Decaux must make an annual payment of $3,000 to the Art 
Commission for reproduction of art materials during the two year 
trial period. If the City decides to proceed with the additional 7 
toilets (27 in total) and 31 kiosks (121 in total) after the two year trial 
period, this payment by J.C. Decaux to the Art Commission increases 
to $17,200 annually. The materials reproduced with these funds, such 
as City maps, public art, or public service material, will be placed on 
the public service side of the kiosks. 

• J.C. Decaux must post a $2 million bond to guarantee the 
installation of the first 27 toilets within 5 years of the Agreement's 
beginning, and post an additional $350,000 letter of credit to 
guarantee compliance with the Agreement during years 6 through 20. 

• The public toilets require a 250 user fee to enter and use the 
facility. J.C. Decaux will also provide tokens for the use of homeless 
and/or disabled persons who do not have 250, with such tokens to be 
distributed by non-profit organizations and at nearby newsstands. 
J.C. Decaux is required to keep an estimated 10,000 tokens in 
circulation at all times, replacing tokens as necessary. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Troyan, as of July 14, 1995, only one of the toilets 
had been installed, at Market and Powell Streets. Site permits have 
been approved for all 20 of the initial group of 20 toilets and for 84 
out of the initial group of 90 kiosks. Construction of these toilets and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



kiosks is expected to begin in early August, 1995, with the 
installation to be completed by late October, 1995. The two-year trial 
period detailed in the Agreement will begin when all permits are 
issued, and conclude two years later, in approximately August of 
1997. 

2. Mr. Troyan reports that the DPW has expended a total of 
$67,279.62 through June 30, 1995 to administer the toilet program, 
and has received payments and reimbursements totaling $63,500 
from J.C. Decaux. Mr. Troyan notes that the annual fee ($25,000 for 
the first 27 toilets, adjusted each year for inflation) which J.C. 
Decaux must pay to reimburse the City for its costs to administer the 
program will not cover all of the DPW's costs to administer the 
program in the first year of the Agreement, however, Mr. Troyan 
anticipates that the annual fee will exceed the DPW's costs to 
administer the program beginning in year two or three of the 
Agreement, as the DPW staff time required to administer the 
program will substantially decrease after the toilets are installed and 
operating. 

3. Mr. Troyan reports that the cost of installing the toilet at Market 
and Powell Streets was entirely borne by J.C. Decaux. 

4. As previously noted, under the Agreement between the City and 
J.C. Decaux, J.C. Decaux is responsible for 100 percent of all costs to 
install the toilets and kiosks specified in the Agreement. 




[arvey M. Rose 



/^-~U2_^ 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 

Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Teng 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



//// MINUTES 

>* DOCUMENTS r>EP*r 

? y SPECIAL MEE TING 

BUDGET COMMITTEE filfP 9 

// BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

"7 Jjg Jr o- CnT A* COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

f /'7/7^ / PUBLIC LIBRARY 



WEDNESDAY. JULY 19. 1995 - 1:30 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 



MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS TOM HSIEH, BARBARA KAUFMAN, SUE BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:45 P.M. 

1. File 212-95-2 . [Mortgage Credit Certificates] Resolution authorizing an 

application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee to permit the 
issuance of Mortgage Credit Certificates. (Mayor's Office of Housing) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Joe LaTorre, Mayor's Office of Housing. IN SUPPORT: None. 
OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 1:50 P.M. 



■01 



CITY AND COUNTY 



// 




<2iiblic LiBraru, (Documents (Dept. 
Attn: Jane Hudson 



/ 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 

July 14, 1995 



// / 
TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: July 19, 1995 Special Budget Committee Meeting 



■-X f-sT i < 



DO r.i imcnts DEPT. 
JUL 1 8 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 1 - File 212-95-2 

Department: Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 

Item: Resolution authorizing an application to the California Debt 

Limit Allocation Committee to permit the issuance of 
Mortgage Credit Certification. 

Description: The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program is designed 

to assist first-time homebuyers in purchasing a single-family 
residence in San Francisco. The Program is directed towards 
households which would not be able to purchase housing 
without assistance, such as a Mortgage Credit Certificate. 
Specifically, the MCC Program provides assistance to first- 
time homebuyers by allowing an eligible purchaser to take an 
annual credit against Federal income taxes of up to 20 
percent of the annual interest payments on a single family 
residence. A homebuyer who is awarded an MCC and who is 
eligible for a tax credit on the interest expense paid on the 
mortgage, would still be able to deduct, for Federal income 
tax purposes, the remaining amount of the annual mortgage 
interest payments not claimed as a credit against the taxes. 
By reducing the Federal income tax burden, the individual is 
left with more disposable income with which to cover 
mortgage payments. 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Special Budget Committee Meeting 



On September 22,1993, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution authorizing the MOH to submit an application to 
the California Debt limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC). In 
October, 1993, the CDLAC approved the application 
previously submitted by the City which provided 
authorization for the MOH to issue $11,600,000 of either 
Mortgage Credit Certificates or Mortgage Revenue Bonds. 
The City elected to issue Mortgage Credit Certificates. Mr. 
Joe LaTorre of the MOH advises that by electing to issue 
Mortgage Credit Certificates, the amount of the allocation 
from the CDLAC was increased from $11,600,000 to 
$14,500,000 based on the allotment calculation used by the 
CDLAC. On January 23, 1995, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a resolution authorizing the MOH to submit a 
second application to CDLAC in the amount of $10,000,000. 
In May, 1995, the CDLAC approved the City's second 
application which provided authorization for the MOH to 
issue an additional $10,000,000 of either Mortgage Credit 
Certificates or Mortgage Revenue Bonds. The City again 
elected to issue Mortgage Credit Certificates which will, 
according to Mr. LaTorre, increase the amount of the 
allocation from CDLAC from $10,000,000 to $12,000,000. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the MOH to submit 
a third application to the CDLAC for an allocation of 
Mortgage Credit Certificates in the amount of $12,582,000. 
As was the case with the prior two resolutions authorizing 
the MOH's submission of applications to the CDLAC, the 
proposed resolution, in compliance with CDLAC regulations, 
would also authorize (1) that one percent of the amount of the 
requested allocation be held on deposit in connection with the 
submission of the application to the CDLAC, and (2) the 
Director of the MOH to certify to CDLAC that such funds are 
available. Based on one percent of the requested allocation of 
$12,582,000, the amount to be held on deposit for the subject 
application is $125,820. The deposit of $125,820 shall consist 
of a restriction of cash in the City's Home Mortgage 
Assistance Trust Surplus Fund, established pursuant to the 
Home Mortgage Assistance Trust Agreement of 1982. The 
Surplus Fund is a Fund that was created within the Home 
Mortgage Assistance Trust Fund and consists of cash 
accumulated from loan repayments by individuals 
participating under the City's 1982 First Time Homebuyers 
Bond Program. 

According to Mr. LaTorre, the above-noted deposit is required 
by CDLAC to ensure that the issuance requirements 
applicable to Mortgage Credit Certificates are met by the 
local agency, including the requirement that the first 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 19, 1995 Special Budget Committee Meeting 



Comment: 



Mortgage Credit Certificate be issued within 120 days of 
receipt of the allocation of Mortgage Certificates from the 
State. 

Since January, 1994, the MOH has administered the 
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, assisting 
approximately 100 low to moderate income households in 
purchasing homes in San Francisco. According to Mr. 
LaTorre, the MOH has reserved developer Mortgage Credit 
Certificate allocations for an additional 80 low and moderate 
income housing units to be constructed by the end of 1995. 

Mr. LaTorre advises that approval of the proposed resolution 
by the Board of Supervisors must be received by the State no 
later than July 31, 1995. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 

Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Teng 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



^ P~ h, d OC!.I«.«cm To ^ 

MINUTES s n.pn-r- 

\qO t O"7 REGULAR MEETING 

BUDGET COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WEDNESDAY. JULY 26. 1995 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 



MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, KAUFMAN, BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 



TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:10 P.M. 



GENERAL ITEM 

File 28-95-11 . [Emergency Repair, Seawall Lot 337] Resolution approving a 
declaration of emergency for contracted assistance to eliminate the fire 
hazard at 250 Terry Francois Boulevard, West Bay Resources in the amount of 
$7,000. (Port) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE , OJTES PAGE 2 



FISCAL ITEMS 



File 101-95-4 . [Appropriation, Police and Sheriff] Ordinance appropriating 
$1,243,899 from the General Fund Reserve for overtime, fringe benefits, 
materials and supplies, other non-personal services and services of other 
departments for costs associated with the UN 50 Celebration in the Sheriff 
and the Police Departments and other public safety activities performed by 
the Sheriff Department in late June 1995 for fiscal year 1995-96." Providing 
for ratification of action previously taken. 

(Consideration Continued from 7/19/95) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Ed Harrington, 
Controller; Maryanne Soza, Chief Deputy, Sheriff's Department; Lt. Ryan, 
Police Department; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Stephanine Carlisle, Office 
of the Chief Administrative Officer. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: QUESTION DIVIDED ON THE COSTS OF POLICE AND SHERIFF 
FOR UN 50 CELEBRATION AND OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY 
ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE SHERIFF IN LATE JUNE 
1995. SEE FILES BELOW. 

File 101-95-4 . [Appropriation, Police and Sheriff] Ordinance 
appropriating $1,218,888 from the General Fund Reserve for 
overtime, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, other 
non-personal services and services of other departments for costs 
associated with the UN 50 Celebration in the Sheriff and the 
Police Departments for fiscal year 1995-96. Providing for 
ratification of action previously taken. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

File 101-95-4.1 . [Appropriations, Sheriff Department] Ordinance 
appropriating $25,011 from the General Fund Reserve for 
overtime and materials and supplies for costs associated with 
other public safety activities performed by the Sheriff 
Department in late June 1995, for fiscal year 1995-96. Providing 
for ratification of action previously taken. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE » .UTES PAGE 3 



File 170-95-9 . [General Obligation Bonds] DRAFT motion awarding bonds 
and fixing definitive interest rate for General Obligation Bonds (Public Safety 
Improvement Projects, 1990), Series 1995A; and General Obligation Bonds 
(Golden Gate Park Improvements, 1992), Series 1995B. (Chief Administrative 
Officer) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Stephanine Carlisle, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 



ACTION: HEARING HELD. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PREPARED IN AND 
REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE. RECOMMENDED. NEW 

TOTE: "Awarding bonds and fixing definitive interest rates for 
$18,480,000 General Obligation Bonds (Public Safety Improvement 
Project, 1990), Series 1995 A; and $26,000,000 General Obligation 
Bonds (Golden Gate Park Improvements, 1992), Series 1995B." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 30-95-11 . [Patient Day Rates, Fiscal Year 1995-96] Resolution fixing 
patient day rates for services furnished by City and County health care 
institutions and rescinding Resolution No. 664-94. (Department of Public 
Health) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Monique Zumda, Department of Public Health. IN SUPPORT: 
None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
On Page 1, line 9, after "indicated" insert "retroactively". 
AMENDED TITLE: "Fixing patient day rates for services 
furnished by City and County health care institutions and 
authorizing retroactively the effective date of July 1, 1995, and 
rescinding Resolution No. 664-94." 



VOTE: 3-0. 

File 101-95-5 . [Appropriation, Dept. Public Works] Ordinance appropriating 
and certifying $49,101, Department of Public Works, for a capital 
improvement project (Candlestick Park Overhead Lane Traffic Signal Project) 
to cover ten (10) percent overage as per Charter Section 7.203; providing for 
ratification of action previously taken, for fiscal year 1995-96. (Controller) 
RO #95003 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE l -UTES PAGE 4 



File 101-95-6 . [Appropriation, Dept. Public Works] Ordinance appropriating 
and certifying $6,100, Department of Public Works, for a capital improvement 
project (Capital Avenue sewer repair) to cover ten (10) percent overage as per 
Charter Section 7.203; providing for ratification of action previously taken, 
for fiscal year 1995-96. (Controller) RO #95004 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 251-95-1 . [Bayshore Hester Assessment District] Resolution declaring 
the City and County's intent to form, and determining the boundaries for, a 
Special Assessment District designated "Bayshore Hester Assessment District 
No. 95-1" and approving the acquisition of improvements relating thereto; 
accepting the petitions of landowners relating to such Assessment District; 
directing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report; providing for 
the issuance of bonds and matters related thereto; and authorizing other 
official actions in connection therewith. (Supervisor Shelley) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Maggie Lynch, 
Administrative Aide to the President of the Board, Supervisor Kevin Shelley; 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller; Stephanine Carlisle, 
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Ted Lakey, Deputy City 
Attorney. IN SUPPORT: Kirk Miller, representing developer; Mark Kern, 
Suto and Co. OPPOSED: None. 



ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 
VOTE: 3-0. 

TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 2:05 P.M. 



i. £7 

hr 



CITY AND COUNTY 



// 




(PuBCic LiBram, (Documents (Dept. 
, Attn: Kate Wingerson 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



July 24, 1995 



TO: 



/// 

Budget Committee 



FROM: Budget Analyst ft e. c » ~ - ~ /■ ** 

SUBJECT: July 26, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



DO r.HMFNTS DEPT. 
JUL 2 5 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 1 -File 28-95-11 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Port of San Francisco 

Resolution approving a declaration of emergency for 
contracted assistance to eliminate the fire hazard at Seawall 
Lot 337, 250 Terry Francois Boulevard. 

$7,000 

Port Operating Fund 

The Port reports that on June 5, 1995, a major fire broke out 
on the Port Seawall Lot 337, which is located between Third 
Street, Terry Francois Boulevard, and Mission Rock Street. 
The fire was at a paper recycling facility operated by West 
Bay Resources. The San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) 
responded to the emergency and extinguished the major part 
of the fire. Many bundles of paper continued to smolder, 
constituting a fire hazard. SFFD informed Port officials that 
the smoldering paper bundles had to be broken apart and 
watered down to eliminate the remaining fire hazard. This 
work required construction equipment and temporary 
lighting that neither SFFD nor the Port own. 

In accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative Code, 
which permits departments to forego the normal competitive 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 

bidding procedures, the Port initiated an expedited 
contracting procedure in order to lease the necessary 
equipment. The Port contracted with the John Jenkins 
Company, an equipment supply company. The John Jenkins 
Company, a locally owned minority (MBE) firm, supplied 
construction equipment and temporary lighting for $7,000. 
The work was completed the morning of June 6, 1995. 

Comments: The Port Commission Resolution No. 95-54 of June 27, 1995, 

ratified the emergency actions taken by the President of the 
Commission to initiate the emergency work. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 

Item 2 - File 101-95-4 

Note: This item was continued at the Budget Committee meeting of July 19. 1995. 

Departments: 



Item: 



Amount: 



Police Department 
Sheriffs Department 

Ordinance appropriating $1,243,899 from the General Fund 
Reserve for overtime, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, 
other non-personal services and services of other 
departments for costs in connection with (a) the UN 50 
Celebration incurred by the Sheriff and the Police 
Departments and (b) other public safety activities performed 
by the Sheriffs Department in late June, 1995, providing for 
action previously taken. 

The Budget Analyst recommended reductions of $20,458 for 
Sheriffs Department Overtime, and $3,505 for Sheriffs 
Department Materials and Supplies, for a total reduction of 
$23,963. These reductions were implemented by the Budget 
Committee at its meeting of July 19, 1995 and have been 
incorporated into the proposed legislation, thereby reducing 
the supplemental appropriation ordinance from $1,267,862 to 
$1,243,899. Additionally, the proposed ordinance has been 
amended to reflect that other public safety activities 
performed by the Sheriffs Department, which related to the 
civil disobedience arrests occurring on June 26, 1995, were 
expenditures incurred separate and apart from the UN 50 
Celebration. 

$1,243,899 



Source of Funds: 1995-96 General Fund Reserve Funds (An amount of 
$1,243,899 has been carried forward from FY 1994-95, and 
does not impact the FY 1995-96 General Fund Reserve of $10 
million). 



Budget: 



Police Department 
Overtime 
Fringe Benefits 
Contractual Services 
Materials and Supplies 
DPW Work Order 

Subtotal Police Department 



$917,726 

8,900 

47,178 

35,686 

5.800 



$1,015,290 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET^ ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 

Sheriff's Department 

Overtime (including premium pay) $195,013 

Fringe Benefits 2,119 

Materials and Supplies 31.477 

Subtotal Sheriff's Department 228.609 

TOTAL REQUESTED 

SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS $1,243,899 

Description: San Francisco was the host City for the 50th Anniversary of 

the United Nations which was held throughout the City, 
including the Civic Center area. The proposed supplemental 
appropriation request would pay for the costs incurred by the 
Police Department and the Sheriffs Department during the 
period June 23, 1995 through June 28, 1995 for the increased 
law enforcement activity associated with the UN 50 
Celebration. Specifically, the proposed supplemental funds 
would be used to fund the following: 

• Overtime personnel assigned to various UN 50 
Celebration key events, including the "We the People" 
celebration, the Royal Philharmonic concert, the 
Marilyn Home concert, the Opera de Lyon, and the 
UN Plaza ceremonies and luncheon; 

• Bomb Squad; 

• Diplomatic Protection; 

• Traffic Enforcement; 

• Trailer Security; 

• Various field support activities including standby 
for mass arrests, crowd control, transportation of 
arrestees; 

• Increase in Jail staff as required by the 
circumstances; 

• Station transfers. 



BOARD OF STIPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 

Comments: Police Department Expenditures 



1. The Attachment to this report provided by the Police 
Department details a summary of those events and activities 
in which Police Department overtime was used. This list of 
events was developed prior to the UN event. Based on the 
Controller's report detailing actual overtime costs incurred, 
the Police Department is now requesting the following funds 
for overtime and related fringe benefits: 

Overtime (approximately 22,943 hours 

at average hourly rate of $40, including 

premium pay) $917,726 

Related Fringe Benefits 8.900 

Total Police Department Overtime 
and Fringe Benefit costs $926,626 

2. The Police Department reports that the following 
materials, supplies and equipment totaling $35,686 had to be 
purchased to provide adequate security for the UN 50 event. 



50 night binoculars 


$2,029 


50 gas masks 


16,275 


18 helmets 


6,742 


Bomb X-Ray supplies 


1,454 


EOD Detonation Supplies 


4,512 


Food 


5.674 


Total Materials, Supplies and Equipment 


$35,686 



The Department has already purchased these items in order 
to ensure that adequate security was available, including 
providing supplies for potential bombing incidents, at the 
time that the UN 50 Celebration events occurred. 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 172-95-19) which authorized the Chief of Police to 
execute a hold harmless agreement for the loan from the U.S. 
Defense Department of radios and communications-related 
equipment to be used specifically for the UN 50 Celebration. 
The equipment on loan included 800 portable radios, 50 
undercover microphone sets, and 15 hand held metal 
detectors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 



Although the Police Department also requested that 
applicable Federal agencies lend other equipment to the 
Department, including additional metal detectors, such 
Federal agencies did not agree to loan any additional 
equipment. Therefore, those items had to be purchased or 
rented by the Police Department, according to Mr. Kaye. 

The $5,674 budgeted for meals provided to the Police 
Department were provided to Officers who worked for six or 
more hours at a fixed post. The Police Department reports 
that although these meals are not required under an MOU, it 
was more efficient and economical to bring meals to the 
officers, rather than letting them leave their posts and 
finding backup officers for the fixed posts. 

The $5,000 budgeted for van rentals in contractual services 
was used to rent ten vans to carry overtime Police Officers to 
various fixed posts (12 to 15 officers per vehicle). The Police 
Department reports that after review, existing vehicles were 
not sufficient to carry overtime personnel to all the various 
UN 50 Celebration sites. 

3. The Police Department has provided the following 
breakdown of actual costs incurred for contractual services: 

Computer Rentals $6,203 
Magnetometer Rental (walk-through metal detectors)14,072 

Portable Potties 16,951 

Bomb Technician 2,200 

Van Rental 5,000 

Metal Detector (hand-held) 1,960 

Tables and Rope Rentals 792 

Total Contractual Services $47,178 

As previously noted, the Police Department has already been 
loaned 15 hand held metal detectors from the U. S. 
Department of Defense. However, according to Mr. Kaye, the 
hand held metal detectors on loan from the Department of 
Defense were not sufficient because it would take too long to 
use the hand held metal detectors on all of the attendees at 
the various functions. Therefore, the Department also had to 
rent walk-through metal detectors ($14,072), as well as to 
purchase additional hand-held devices ($1,960). 

4. Mr. Kaye reports that the $5,800 requested for the DPW 
work order would be used to pay for the costs associated with 
the relocation and hook-up of a DPW trailer that was used as 
a command center. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 



Sheriffs Department Exnenrii turps 

5. Based upon the Controller's report detailing actual 
overtime costs, the following funds for overtime, fringe 
benefits and premium pay were incurred by the Sheriffs 
Department: 

Field Support $62,811 

Emergency Services Unit (ESU) personnel were used as 
mobilized units to assist the Police Department in activities 
such as transportation from demonstration or event sites, 
standby for mass arrests, crowd control and transportation of 
arrestees. 

The ESU personnel were required for three days because the 
UN 50 events occurred on these three days, and Sheriffs 
personnel had to be on standby for mass arrests and crowd 
control to ensure that the UN 50 ceremonies were not 
disrupted. 

Jail Staff Increase $23,282 

The Sheriffs Department increased jail staff at County jail 
facilities to allow for increases in bookings and 
transportation, during two shifts for three days. 

Station Transfers $14,636 

Additional overtime staff was also utilized to perform 
prisoner station transfers between District Police Stations. 
Five Deputies and one Senior Deputy were added for the 
period of 6/23/95 to 6/26/95. 

County Jail #9 $49,682 

The Sheriffs Department activated the new County Jail #9 
for the detention of persons engaged in civil disobedience. 
Approximately 278 persons were detained at this facility on 
June 26, 1995 ($20,193). Overtime personnel also included 8 
to 10 employees, for three shifts for three days ($29,489). The 
Sheriffs Department reports that the civil disobedience 
arrests that occurred on the evening of June 26, 1995 were 
related to the protest on the Pennsylvania man's death 
sentence. These costs are not considered to be part of the 
expenses incurred for the UN 50 Celebration. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 



Training/Crowd Control $43,489 

The Sheriffs Department provided training in crowd control 
for 240 Deputies to prepare for the UN 50 activities. Two 
training sessions were held on 6/2/95 and 6/10/95 for 240 
Deputy Sheriffs. 

Related Fringe Benefits $2,119 

Medicare and Unemployment, Social Security 

Premium and Standby Pay 1.113 

Additional Premium Pay and Standby Pay 

required from 278 additional arrests made on 

June 26, 1995. 



Total Sheriff's Department Overtime, 
Premium Pay and Fringe Benefits $197,132* 

* As previously noted, the Budget Committee has 
incorporated the Budget Analyst's recommendation to reduce 
the amount budgeted for Overtime, Premium Pay and Fringe 
Benefits by $20,458 from $217,590 to $197,132 to reflect the 
actual costs incurred by the Sheriffs Department. 

6. The following funds are requested by the Sheriffs 
Department for materials, supplies and equipment: 

Meals (Emergency Services Unit during 
Field Operations/44 personnel) $767 

Meals (for 278 persons arrested during 
demonstration) 2,986 

Equipment 

21 Soft Body Armor Sets 7,542 

60 Avon Gas Masks 17,903 

6 Typewriters 2.279 

Total Sheriffs Department 

Materials and Supplies $31,477* 

* As previously noted, the Budget Committee has 
incorporated the Budget Analyst's recommendation to reduce 
the amount budgeted for Materials and Supplies by $3,505 
from $34,982 to $31,477 to reflect the actual costs incurred 
by the Sheriffs Department. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 



The Sheriffs Department reports that the body armor and 
the gas masks were used during the training sessions, but 
were not required specifically for the UN 50 celebration. Sgt. 
Ridgeway reports that the Department can use the 
equipment for future special events. Sgt. Ridgeway also 
reports that the typewriters were required for County Jail #9, 
as the computerized booking system is not yet operational. 

7. According to Ms. Theresa Lee of the Mayor's Office, the 
Police Department and the Sheriffs Department are the only 
departments requesting supplemental funds for the UN 50 
Celebration at this time, and no other City Departments are 
anticipated to submit funding requests for the UN 50 
Celebration. 

8. Although the UN 50 events were over by Monday 
afternoon, June 26, the Sheriffs Department was staffed 
with additional overtime personnel until Tuesday morning, 
June 27, in the event that mass arrests had to occur. 
However, the Police Department was fully staffed only until 
3 pm, on Monday June 26, 1995, with the exception of Police 
Officers that were guarding certain hotels until 6 am 
Tuesday, June 27, 1995. 

9. According to the Controller, there has been no formal 
commitment regarding Federal reimbursement of the 
expenses incurred by the City. Mr. John Kaye of the Police 
Department reports that negotiations are currently being 
held between the Police Department and the U. S. State 
Department to determine the amount of Federal 
reimbursement. Therefore, the proposed supplemental funds 
would be used to pay for all expenses incurred by the Police 
and Sheriff Departments associated with the UN 50 
Celebration event, prior to the receipt of any Federal funds. 

The Police Department reports that although some overtime 
was incurred for 278 mass arrests that occurred on the 
evening of June 26, 1995, the Police Department's overtime 
costs incurred are not included in the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance, but rather were funded through the 
Department's existing overtime budget. As previously noted, 
the Sheriffs Department incurred overtime and related costs 
in connection with the Civil Disobedience arrests. However, 
these costs, which total $25,011, are not related to the UN 50 
Celebration and, therefore, the Police Department is not 
requesting Federal reimbursement of this $25,011. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 



According to the Sheriffs Department, the costs included in 
this request of $1,243,899 which specifically pertain to the 
278 mass arrests are as follows: 

Overtime $20,193 

Related Fringe Benefits 612 

Premium and Standby Pay 1,113 

Meals for Sheriffs Deputies 107 

Meals for Arrestees 2.986 

Total Sheriffs Department Costs for Other 
Public Safety Activities (Non-UN 50 Celebration 
expenses) $25,011 

10. As requested by the Budget Committee, the proposed 
legislation is to be divided to indicate that the $25,011 
requested by the Sheriffs Department, for non-UN 50 
Celebration activities, would be used for other public safety 
related costs (for the 278 mass arrests) and not for the UN 50 
Celebration. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 1 



UN 50 Events/Activities 

that Required Overtime by the 

Police Department 



1. We The Peoples - Saturday 6/24 

2. The Royal Philharmonic 6/24 

3. Marilyn Home Concert 6/24 

4. Reform and Renewal 6/25 

5. Opera de Lyon 6/25 

6. Interfaith Service 6/25 

7. Nobel Peace Prize 6/25 

8. Reception for UN Reps. 6/25 

9. Royal Philharmonic 6/25 

10. Staging Area 6/25 & 6/26 

11. Magnetometer (Metal Detectors) 

12. External Security 

13. Monday UN Plaza & Luncheon 6/26 

14. Closing Ceremony 6/26 

15. Command Post 6/24-25+ security 

16. Command Post Dispatch 6/24-25 

17. Dispatchers/ per event 6/20-26 +41hrs. 

18. MUNI 

19. Housing Task Force 

20. Bomb Squad (6/20-27) 

21. Rapid Deployment Force 

22. Trailer Security 

23. Diplomat Protection 

24. Traffic Enforcement 

25. Property 



11 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 26, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 170-95-9 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Comment: 



Chief Administrative Officer 

Motion awarding bonds and fixing definitive interest rates for 
a total of $44,480,000 in General Obligation Bonds, including 
$18,480,000 in General Obligation bonds (Public Safety 
Improvement Projects 1990, Series 1995A), and $26,000,000 
in General Obligation Bonds (Golden Gate Park 
Improvements 1992, Series 1995B). 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 170-95-5) authorizing the public sale of a total of 
$44,480,000 in General Obligation Bonds consisting of the 
above-noted Series 1995A (Public Safety Improvement 
Projects, 1990), and Series 1995B (Golden Gate Park 
Improvements, 1992). That resolution also authorized the 
Budget Committee to award the bonds to the bidder whose 
bid represents the lowest true interest cost to the City. 
Accordingly, the proposed subject motion would award the 
bonds to the firm that bids the lowest true interest cost to the 
City for purposes of underwriting these City bonds. 

Projects to be funded under the Public Safety Improvement 
Bonds, Series 1995A, include asbestos removal, seismic 
safety improvements, and disabled access improvements to 
the War Memorial Opera House. Projects to be funded under 
the Golden Gate Park Improvement Bonds, Series 1995B, 
include construction and installation of a new irrigation 
system for certain areas of Golden Gate Park, improvements 
to lakes in the Park, and disabled access improvements in the 
Park. 

Ms. Stephanie Carlisle of the CAO's Office advises that the 
bids for the bonds are scheduled to be opened at 9:00 am on 
Wednesday, July 26, and that it is essential to get the Budget 
Committee's approval of the lowest bidder on that day. Ms. 
Carlisle reports that the Chief Administrative Officer will 
submit an Amendment of the Whole prior to the Budget 
Committee's scheduled meeting at 1:00 pm Wednesday, July 
26, which will list the winning bidder, the other bidders, the 
interest rate that each bidder has offered to the City, and the 
MBE/WBE status of each bidder. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGETJ ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 

Item A -File 30-95-11 

1. This item is a resolution to fix patient day rates for services furnished by 
City and County health care institutions. 

2. The proposed resolution would fix patient day rates for Fiscal Year 1995- 
96 for services provided by the Department of Public Health (DPH) and would 
rescind Resolution No. 664-94 (File 30-94-18) which established the prior rate 
schedule for Fiscal Year 1994-95. The proposed rates apply only to private payors 
(patients who pay their own medical bills) and third party payors (private insurance 
companies). Medi-Cal, Medicare and other State and Federal subventions are 
excluded from this rate structure. 

3. The attachment provides the current and proposed patient day rates for 
services provided by San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), Laguna Honda 
Hospital (LHH), Community Health Services (CHS), and the Department of Mental 
Health, Substance Abuse and Forensics (DMSF). The DPH reports that the revised 
fee structure is based on a variety of factors, including 1) generally prevailing rates 
charged by medical facilities in the Bay Area for similar inpatient and outpatient 
services, 2) reimbursement analysis and 3) the Consumer Price Index. 

Comments 

1. The DPH receives approximately 6 percent of its total revenues from 
private individuals or third party payors. The DPH's proposed Fiscal Year 1995-96 
budget includes approximately $42.7 million in patient revenues and third party 
payors. The $42.7 million included in the DPH Fiscal Year 1995-96 budget for 
private payors and third party payors is based on approval of the proposed increases 
in patient day rates for Fiscal Year 1995-96. 

2. The schedule of rates for laboratory services and certain other hospital 
services are not shown in the proposed resolution because SFGH and LHH have 
hundreds of prices for various lab and special services. The rates for these services 
are charged from a special price list and may change during the fiscal year based on 
cost accounting studies at the hospitals. 

3. As noted in the Attachment, the DPH advises that there is no increase in 
rates for Emergency Clinic and General Clinic services at SFGH because per unit 
costs for these services have not increased. 

4. Also as noted in the Attachment, DMSF rates for Mental Health Services 
and Medication Support have decreased by 40 percent and 14.29 percent 
respectively. Ms. Tangerine Brigham of the DPH advises that because the State 
and Federal governments changed the definition of Mental Health Services and 
Medication Support, some of the support costs associated with the provision of these 
services are now billed separately under another claiming mechanism. 

5. As further noted in the Attachment, CHS services for New and 
Established Patient Exams have increased between a range of 13.64 and 63.79 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 

percent. According to Ms. Brigham the increase in rates will bring exam fees in line 
with usual and customary reimbursements for such services. 

6. The proposed legislation fixes patient day rates for SFGH, LHH, CHS, and 
DMSF effective July 1, 1995. As such, the proposed legislation should be amended 
to authorize the DPH to retroactively fix the proposed patient day rates. 

7. As previously noted, the estimated revenues in the Fiscal Year 1995-96 
budget for patient revenues and third party payors are based on approval of the 
proposed increases in patient day rates which are the subject of this resolution. 

Rpcioinmendation 

Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the DPH to fix the proposed 
patient day rates for fiscal year 1995-96 retroactively, and approve the proposed 
resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 





Unit 


Current 

Rate 


Proposed 

Rate 


Percent 
Change 


SAN FRANCISCO 
GENERAL HOSPITAL 










Medical Surgical 


Day 


$ 925 


$ 962 


4.00 


Intensive Care 


Day 


2,188 


2,275 


3.98 


Coronary Care 


Day 


2,081 


2,165 


4.04 


Chest-Pulmonary 


Day 


2,117 


2,202 


4.02 


Stepdown Units 


Day 


1,427 


1,484 


3.99 


Pediatrics 


Day 


925 


962 


4.00 


Obstetrics 


Day 


925 


962 


4.00 


Nursery 










Well Baby 


Day 


562 


584 


3.91 


Observation 


Day 


925 


962 


4.00 


Semi-Intensive Care 


Day 


1,270 


1,321 


4.02 


Intensive Care 


Day 


1,834 


1,908 


4.03 


Labor/Delivery 


Day 


925 


962 


4.00 




Hour 


53 


55 


3.77 


Psychiatric Inpatient 


Day 


960 


998 


3.96 


Psychiatric Forensic Inpatient Day 


960 


998 


3.96 


AIDS Unit - 5-A 


Day 


925 


962 


4.00 


Security Unit - 7D 


Day 


925 


962 


4.00 


Surgical Services 










Minor Surgery Pre-Op 










Holding Room 


Room 


119 


124 


4.20 


Minor Surgery I 










(Come and Go) 


1/4 Hour 


170 


177 


4.12 




1/2 Hour 


338 


352 


4.14 




3/4 Hour 


508 


529 


4.13 




1 Hour 


677 


704 


3.98 


Add'l 1/4 Hour 


170 


177 


4.11 


Minor Surgery II 


1 Hour 


734 


763 


3.95 


Add'l 1/4 Hour 


366 


381 


4.09 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 







Current 


Proposed 


Percent 




Unit 


R^te 


R^te 


Change 


Major Surgery Pre-Op 










Holding Room 


Room 


$ 119 


$ 124 


4.20 


Major Surgery I 


1 Hour 


1,094 


1,138 


4.02 




Add'l 1/2 Hour 


382 


397 


3.92 


Major Surgery II 


lHour 


1,235 


1,284 


3.97 




Add'l 1/2 Hour 


394 


410 


4.06 


Major Surgery III 


lHour 


1,375 


1,430 


4.00 




Add'l 1/2 Hour 


508 


529 


4.13 


Extraordinary Surgery 


lHour 


1,552 


1,614 


3.99 




Add'l 1/2 Hour 


564 


587 


4.07 


Surgery 2 Teams 


Procedure 


2,150 


2,236 


4.00 




Add'l 1/2 Hour 


723 


751 


3.87 


Surgery 3 Teams 


Procedure 


2,789 


2,900 


3.98 




Add'l 1/2 Hour 


938 


976 


4.05 


Recovery Room 


1 Hour 


423 


440 


4.02 


2nd Add'l 1 Hour 


101 


105 


3.96 


3rd Add'l 1 Hour 


63 


66 


4.76 


Anesthesia 


1/2 Hour 


336 


349 


3.87 




Add'l Minute 


11 


11 


None 


Argon Laser Treatment Procedure 


1,109 


1,154 


4.06 


Therapeutic Abortion 


Procedure 


190 


190 


None 


Emergency Clinic 










Level 1 


Room 


70 


70 


None 


Level 2 


Room 


95 


95 


None 


Level 3 


Room 


120 


120 


None 


Level 4 


Room 


222 


222 


None 


Level 5 


Room 


507 


507 


None 


Level 6 


Room 


1,204 


1,204 


None 


Non-Critical Observation 0-2 Hours 


70 


70 


None 




2-4 Hours 


203 


203 


None 




4-6 Hours 


349 


349 


None 


Critical Observation 


0-2 Hours 


203 


203 


None 




2-4 Hours 


406 


406 


None 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 







BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 



Resuscitation 



Unit 

4-6 Hours 



Current 
Rate 

S 602 
1,204 



Proposed Percent 
Rate Change 



602 
1,204 



None 
None 



General Clinic 
Initial Patient Visit 



Brief Examination 


Visit 


67 


67 


None 


Initial Intermediate 


Visit 


113 


113 


None 


Initial Comprehensive 


Visit 


235 


235 


None 


Established Patient 










Brief Examination 


Visit 


44 


44 


None 


Intermediate 


Visit 


67 


67 


None 


Comprehensive 


Visit 


158 


158 


None 


Use of Examination Room 


Room 


32 


32 


None 


Ambulance Billing 










Advance Life Support 


Response 


551 


568 


3.09 


Basic Life Call 


Response 


306 


315 


2.94 


Per Mile 


Mile 


12 


12 


None 


Night Call 


Call 


65 


68 


3.03 


Oxygen 


Unit 


55 


57 


3.64 


Non-Transport 


Unit 


72 


74 


2.78 


LAGUNA HONDA HOSPITAL 








Regular Hospital Rates 










Acute 


Day 


850 


875 


2.94 


Rehabilitation 


Day 


850 


875 


2.94 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


Day 


250 


250 


None 


All-inclusive Rates 










Acute 


Per Diem 


1,075 


1,100 


2.33 


Rehabilitation 


Per Diem 


1,075 


1,100 


2.33 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


Per Diem 


270 


290 


7.41 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 







Current 




Unit 


Rate 


DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL 




HEALTH. SUBSTANCE ABUSE 




AND FORENSICS (DMSF 


) 




Community Mental Health 




Services (CMHS) 






24-Hour Service 






Hospital Inpatient 


24 Hours 


$ 850 


Crisis Residential 


24 Hours 


250 


Residential 


24 Hours 


125 


Day Services 






Rehabilitative 


Full Day 


110 


Intensive 


Full Day 


190 


Intensive (children) 


Half Day 


200 


Crisis Socialization 


4 Hours 


350 


Outpatient Services 






Case Management 


Hour 


90 


Mental Health Services 


Hour 


250 


Medication Support 


Half Hour 


140 


Crisis Intervention 


Hour 


375 


Communitv Substance 






Abuse Services (CSAS) 







Residential - Detoxification 24 Hours 
Residential Care 24 Hours 

Recovery Home 24 Hours 

Therapeutic Community 24 Hours 
Outpatient 

(Includes Detox) Per Contract 

Methadone Treatment Hour 

Naltrexone Treatment Per Contract 
Prevention/Intervention Hour 

Day Care - Habilitative Per Contract 



Proposed Percent 
Rate Change 



850 


None 


250 


None 


125 


None 


110 


None 


190 


None 


200 


None 


350 


None 


100 


11.11 


150 


(40.00) 


120 


(14.29) 


375 


None 



70 


70 


None 


80 


81 


1.25 


70 


70 


None 


70 


70 


None 


108 


108 


None 


26 


26 


None 


N/A 


45 




25 


25 


None 


108 


108 


None 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 







Current 




Unit 


Rate 


COMMUNITY HEALTH 






SERVICES (CHS) 






New Patient 






Comprehensive Exam 


Visit 


$ 134 


Extended Exam 


Visit 


80 


Interim Exam 


Visit 


58 


Limited Exam 


Visit 


45 


Established Patient 






Comprehensive Exam 


Visit 


99 


Extended Exam 


Visit 


66 


Intermediate Exam 


Visit 


39 


Limited Exam 


Visit 


27 



Proposed Percent 
Rate Change 



175 


30.60 


125 


56.25 


95 


63.79 


65 


44.44 


125 


26.26 


75 


13.64 


50 


28.21 


35 


29.63 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 



Item 5 - File 101-95-5 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Ordinance appropriating and certifying $49,101 for capital 
improvement projects to cover a 10 percent overage as per 
Charter Section 7.203, providing for ratification of action 
previously taken, Department of Public Works. 

$49,101 

Sales Tax funds 

Charter Section 7.203 requires that an expenditure in excess 
of ten percent of an original contract amount be authorized 
by the Board of Supervisors. The DPW was originally 
authorized $604,989 in Sales Tax funds for improved traffic 
flow in the Candlestick Park area. The capital project 
installed an overhead main traffic control signal to provide 
for more evenly distributed traffic patterns on the streets 
leading to various parking lots in the Candlestick Park area. 
A contract was awarded to King C. Electrical Inc., a City- 
certified MBE/WBE firm. The $604,989 included a ten 
percent construction contingency ($549,990 original contract 
amount, plus $54,999 in contingency). 

According to Mr. Chu-Shum Peng of the Department of 
Public Works (DPW), during the construction phase of the 
project, it was determined that there were insufficient power 
sources available from the closest PG&E service connection 
site, and therefore, the DPW had to install additional lengths 
of service conduits and wiring to link to a further PG&E 
service connection site. As a result, Mr. Peng reports that 
additional lengths of service conduit and wiring had to be 
obtained and installed by the contractor. In addition, 
unexpected vandalism resulted in the need to purchase heavy 
duty pull-box covers, which are used to cover electrical 
connections at the street level. 

The overage in the original contract is derived as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Budget Committee 
July 26, 1995 



Original Contract Amount $549,990 

Plus: Contractor costs associated 
with installing additional wiring 
and conduits 87,600 

Plus: Equipment (Pull-Box 

covers, conduits) 16.500 



Total Actual Contract Expenditures $654,090 

Original Construction Contract $549,990 

plus Contingency (10%) 54.999 

Total Amount Previously Appropriated 604.989 

Requested Amount of Supplemental Appropriation $49,101 

As noted above, the actual expenditures of $654,090 exceed 
the original construction contract amount (excluding 
contingencies) of $549,990 by $104,100, or approximately 19 
percent, which is in excess of ten percent of the original 
contract amount. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 25, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



File 101-95-6 



Department: Department of Public Work (DPW) 

Item: Ordinance appropriating and certifying $6,100 for a capital 

improvement project to cover overage above ten percent of the 
contracted amount, pursuant to provisions of Charter Section 
7.203, and providing for ratification of action previously taken. 

Amount: $6,100 

Source of Funds: Sewer Services Revenue Fund 



Description: 



The DPW advises that the proposed supplemental appropriation 
in the amount of $6,100 would be used to fund the completion of a 
sewer maintenance project, the Capitol Avenue Sewer Repair 
Project, under Capitol Avenue from Minerva Street to Montana 
Street. According to Mr. Norman Chan of the DPW, the DPW 
originally estimated that the contract services for this project 
would cost $6,800 (excluding the contract contingency of $680). 
Mr. Chan advises that the DPW now estimates that this project 
will cost $13,580, an increase of $6,780 or 99.7 percent more than 
the original estimate of $6,800. Mr. Chan reports that, through 
the DPW's Request for Bid process, the DPW received two bids 
and selected Pacific Pipeline to perform the above-noted sewer 
repair work. Pacific Pipeline is not a MBE or a WBE firm. 

Section 7.203 of the Charter requires the authorization of the 
Board of Supervisors if the amount of a contract is increased by 
more than ten percent of the original contract amount. 

The Capitol Avenue Sewer Repair Project consists of testing and 
chemical sealing of 75 joints in the existing sewer line, and the 
removal of side sewers and root intrusions. 

The budgetary details of the contract overage above ten percent of 
the original contract amount for the Capitol Avenue Sewer 
Repair Project are as follows: 

Additional testing and sealing for 44 joints in the 
sewer line 

Additional unanticipated site and equipment 
repairs required due to site conditions 
Subtotal 

Less Contingency Funds Available 

Balance Needed for Contract Overage 



$3,991 

2.789 
$6,780 

680 

$6,100 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 25, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Comment: Attached is a memo from Mr. Chan, which explains what caused 

a 99.7 percent increase in the cost of this project. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



ROARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Attachment 



City and County of San Francisco 




Department of Public Works 
Bureau of Engineering 



MEMORANDUM 



To: 



From: 



Sandy Brown-Richardson 
Budget Analyst Office 

Norman Chan /f y /%l+--^~^ 
Project Manager 
BOE, DPW 



Date: July 20, 1995 



Subject: Spec. No. 7523E - Capitol Avenue Sewer Repair 

Explanation of Cost Exceeding 10% of the Contracted Amount 



The project cost for Spec. No. 7523E, "Capitol Avenue Sewer Repair," exceeded the original bid 
of $6,800 by $6,780 because of the following factors: 

• The estimated number of joints to be tested for this project was 103 based on 3-foot long pipe 
sections. However, 2.5-foot long pipe sections were discovered in the field, thus increasing 
the number of joints to 119. 

• Instead of 75 joints to be sealed and retested, 1 19 joints were required to be chemically sealed 
and retested. 

• Differing site conditions: 

(i)Voids were created by leaking joints, so more chemical grout had to be pumped to fill the 
voids around the pipe joints. 

(ii) Protruding concrete and offset joints caused the machines to become stuck. Additional 
cost was added to extricate the equipment 

• Compensation was given to the Contractor for retagging the line and repairing their 
equipment 

If you have any further questions on this project, please call me at 554-8355. 



cc: 



Don Munakata 
P.T. Law 
Ramsis Attia 
Henry Anderson 



Mauricio Trigueros 
Christine Tang 
Foon Chow 



JO Vm M*n av» . Bin Flow, ton m»Ki*co, CA MtOJ-MOO 

ON* i* Enoinvarino (4 1 1| 668-4O0fVFu (4iS) H*in9 
(V T *-l"«" 1 «o«r»|«i".) 'MwOTu (415) KJK-'l 
OE3 OMmion MvwgM (415) 56»-4000ff«< (415) 1M-4053 
Sbvctural Dtvokm (415) VU» 4<Xftt»*« (415) 3B8-40&3 

Etodrtcaf Dhfekyi |i inj &&»~4000/F*x (4is) v.ii «ir-i 

M«»»r*olJ OMtlon (415) 5M^00CVFv (415) 5M-4063 



ino Mluton Str»»i, 2nd rtew. ton Franotoco, CA wim no Plwtp* UM, ton Frwictooo, CA Mill 

Lonoic^x. Englw»<l(| 1415) 454 K«J/F«« (415) 554*308 tirftnrrrmnul Engln--» v HIS) «4*-6»»I/F«» (416) 3B?-5J«0 

HydnuAe EngW^nng (415) 664-832WF.. (415) 5M-S3O0 M1r**mnce Cngln.e<1og (41S) «4» OMiTm (415) /BJ ■v^l 

^SKttKS% < SKSaSi t— W :.^ 5 ^^.' 5MM 



24 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 26, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



- File 251-95-1 



Item: 



Description: 



Resolution declaring the City and County's intent to form, 
and determine the boundaries for, a special assessment 
district designated "Bayshore Hester Assessment District No. 
95-1" and approving the acquisition of improvements relating 
thereto; accepting the petitions of landowners relating to 
such assessment district; directing the preparation of a 
preliminary engineer's report; providing for the issuance of 
bonds and matters related thereto; and authorizing other 
official actions in connection therewith. 

The proposed resolution states that the Board of Supervisors 
has determined that public benefits are derived from an 
adequate supply of single-family housing within the City and 
it is in the public's interest for the Board of Supervisors to 
assist in the development of such housing. 

Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, Bond Counsel for the City, 
advises that Bayshore Hestor Associates has requested the 
formation of Bayshore Hester Assessment District No. 95-1 
(Assessment District) for the purpose of financing certain 
improvements related to the development of 48 single-family 
housing units, located at Hestor Avenue and Bayshore Blvd. 
Pursuant to Section 185, Article VI of the City's Public Works 
Code and the State Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, the 
City is authorized to form special assessment districts to 
implement public works projects and improvements. 
Improvements in connection with the proposed single-family 
housing development would involve the construction of a new 
public right-of-way for 48 single-family houses, which would 
consist of the following: (1) excavation, (2) construction of 
retaining walls, (3) back filling of soil, off-hauling of excess 
soil, (4) construction of roads, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, (5) 
construction of a joint utilities trench for electricity, gas, 
telephone and cable television, (6) construction of a water 
line, and a sewer line, (7) the installation of lights and fire 
hydrants and (8) the relocation of street signs. 

The proposed resolution would (1) declare the City's intent to 
form the proposed Assessment District and to approve the 
implementation of the above-noted improvements, (2) accept 
the petitions, signed by the sole property owner, who has 
agreed to the formation of the proposed Assessment District 
and the waiver of certain rights, (3) direct the preparation of 
a preliminary engineer's report, which would include, in part, 
(a) an analysis of the cost of the proposed improvements, (b) a 
proposal for the amounts to be assessed against property 
owners to pay for the proposed improvements, based on a 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 26, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

formula that is related to the direct benefits to be derived by 
the property owners from the proposed Assessment District, 
and (c) a proposal for an additional annual charge to be 
assessed against the property owners to pay for all 
administrative costs incurred by the City, including the 
collection of any bonds issued, in connection with the 
establishment of the proposed Assessment District, and (4) 
provide for the issuance of Limited Obligation Improvement 
Bonds. 

Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds 

Bayshore Hestor Associates has requested that the City issue 
Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds to finance the 
improvements and the establishment of the proposed 
Assessment District. Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe advises 
that the purpose of these bonds would be to provide monies 
for the costs of the proposed improvements and for the costs 
of issuing the bonds, including the reimbursement of any and 
all costs incurred by the City. The estimated amount of the 
bonds is $1,300,000, which would be repaid from the 
assessments levied against and paid by the property owners 
within the Assessment District. According to Mr. Jesse Smith 
of the City Attorneys Office, the issuance of such bonds is 
standard practice for financing an assessment district of this 
type. 

Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe advises that the City will 
have no financial obligation in connection with the issuance 
of the proposed bonds other than to pay bondholders 
principal and interest on the bonds from the assessments 
levied against the property owners. Mr. Smith reports that 
the City would not be liable for the bonded indebtedness 
created by the issuance of the proposed bonds. According to 
Mr. Smith, the sole recourse for creditors would be against 
the real property within the proposed Assessment District. 

Additional legislation will be submitted, at a future date, to 
the Board of Supervisors requesting authorization for the 
issuance of the proposed bonds. 

Comments: 1. Separate legislation which will authorize (1) approval of 

the requested preliminary engineer's report and to call for a 
public meeting and public hearing on the proposed 
Assessment District and planned improvements, and (2) 
confirmation of the proposed Assessment District and 
planned improvements, is also scheduled to be submitted to 
the Board of Supervisors at a future date. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Budget Committee 

July 26, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

2. As noted above, the City is to be reimbursed entirely from 
the proposed bond funds for any expenditures incurred in 
connection with the administering and issuance of these 
proposed bonds. As such, no additional costs should accrue to 
the City. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Teng 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



mmuits 
<~> c regular meeting 

budget committee 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 2. 1995 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 



MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, KAUFMAN, BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:05 P.M. 

FISCAL ITEMS 



File 255-95-001 . [Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes] Resolution approving 
and authorizing the borrowing of funds for fiscal year 1995-1996 and the 
issuance and sale of City and County of San Francisco 1995-1996 tax and 
revenue anticipation notes therefor; approving official notice of sale of such 
notes and authorizing the distribution thereof; approving notice of intention 
to sell such notes and authorizing the publication thereof; authorizing the 
public sale of such notes; approving trust agreement, letter of credit, 
agreement and official statement relating to such notes; authorizing the 
delegation of the appointment of certain parties in connection with the 
issuance of such notes; and authorizing other special actions in connection 
therewith. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Ed Harrington, 
Controller; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: 
None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE A JTES PAGE 2 



File 101-95-7 . [Appropriation, Dept. Public Works] Ordinance appropriating 
$36,480,000, Department of Public Works, of 1990 Earthquake Safety Bond 
Proceeds and interest earnings and transferring $8,491,539 from Capital 
Improvement Projects at the Veterans Building and City Hall to Capital 
Improvement Project for seismic upgrading of the War Memorial Opera 
House, for fiscal year 1995-96. (Controller) RO #95006 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amend to place a reserve on $34,831,269 pending submission of 
budget details and the MBE/WBE status of the contractors to the 
Board of Supervisors. AMENDED TITLE: "Ordinance 
appropriating $36,480,000, Department of Public Works, of 1990 
Earthquake Safety Bond Proceeds and interest earnings and 
transferring $8,491,539 from Capital Improvement Projects at the 
Veterans Building and City Hall to Capital Improvement Project 
for seismic upgrading of the War Memorial Opera House, for fiscal 
year 1995-96. Placing a reserve on $34,831,269." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 101-95-008 . [Appropriations, Department of Parking & Traffic] 
Ordinance appropriating $200,000, Department of Parking and Traffic, of 
Parking Revenue Funds to Capital Improvement Project for soil remediation 
at St. Mary's Square Garage, for fiscal year 1995-96. RO #95016. 
(Department of Parking and Traffic) 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE SEPTEMBER 13, 1995, 
MEETING. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M 7TES PAGE 3 



File 101-95-009 . [Appropriation, Hetch Hetchy] Ordinance appropriating 
$650,000, Hetch Hetchy, of Hetch Hetchy Operating Funds to Capital 
Improvement Project to allow Hetch Hetchy to repair the Priest Reservoir 
Diversion Channel for fiscal year 1995-96. RO #95017. (Public Utilities 
Commission) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Reduce the appropriation by $2,985. Add a Section 2 to provide 
for ratification of action previously taken. AMENDED TITLE: 
"Ordinance appropriating $597,015, Hetch Hetchy, of Hetch 
Hetchy Operating Funds to Capital Improvement Project to allow 
Hetch Hetchy to repair the Priest Reservoir Diversion Channel for 
fiscal year 1995-96. Providing for ratification of action 
previously taken." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



5. File 101-95-010 . [Appropriations, Department of Social Services] Ordinance 
appropriating $55,000, Department of Social Services, of Federal Revenue to 
contractual services for the Independent Living Skills Program for fiscal year 
1995-96. RO #95020. (Department of Social Services) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amend title to reflect correct amount of appropriation of 
$55,431. AMENDED TITLE: "Ordinance appropriating $55,431, 
Department of Social Services, of Federal Revenue to contractual 
services for the Independent Living Skills Program for fiscal year 
1995-96." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M ,TES PAGE 4 



File 101-95-011 . [Appropriations, Mayor's Office] Ordinance appropriating 
$38,171, Mayor's Office of Community Development, of Dispute Resolution 
Program Funds, to continue contracts for dispute resolution services in 
1995-96; providing for ratification of action previously taken. RO #95018. 
(Mayor's Office of Community Development) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Reduce the appropriation by $4,649. AMENDED TITLE: 
"Ordinance appropriating $33,522, Mayor's Office of Community 
Development, of Dispute Resolution Program Funds, to continue 
contracts for dispute resolution services in 1995-96; providing for 
ratification of action previously taken." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 101-95-012 . [Appropriations, Recreation and Park Dept.] Ordinance 
appropriating $1,211,014 from the General Fund Reserve for salaries, 
mandatory fringe benefits, materials and supplies, equipment and the creation 
of seventy-eight (78) positions for the Recreation and Park Department for 
the fiscal year 1995-96. (Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman, Bierman) RO #95022 
(COMPANION TO THE FOLLOWING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amend to designate all positions as "L" rather than "N. 
(Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman and Bierman requested to be shown 
as sponsors.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 102-95-5 . [Annual Salary Ordinance, Recreation and Park Department] 
Ordinance amending the Annual Salary Ordinance for fiscal year 1995-96, 
Recreation and Park Department , reflecting the addition of seventy-eight 
(78) positions. (Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman, Bierman) (COMPANION TO THE 
PRECEDING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amend to designate all positions as "L" rather than "N. 
(Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman and Bierman requested to be shown 
as sponsors.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE k JTES PAGE 5 



9. File 101-95-13 . [Appropriations, Recreation and Park Department] 

Ordinance appropriating $502,223 from the General Fund Reserve for salaries 
- miscellaneous, mandatory fringe benefits, materials and supplies, equipment 
purchase/lease, services of other department and the creation of eight (8) 
positions for the Recreation and Park Department for fiscal year 1995-96. 
(Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman, Bierman) RO #95021 (COMPANION TO THE 
FOLLOWING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATTVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amend to designate all positions as "L" rather than "N. 
(Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman and Bierman requested to be shown 
as sponsors.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



10. File 102-95-4 . [Annual Salary Ordinance, Recreation and Park Department] 
Ordinance amending the Annual Salary Ordinance for fiscal year 1995-96, 
Recreation and Park Department , reflecting the addition of eight (8) 
positions. (Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman, Bierman) (COMPANION TO THE 
PRECEDING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amend to designate all positions as "L" rather than "N. 
(Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman and Bierman requested to be shown 
as sponsors.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 






BUDGET COMMITTEE i ,UTES PAGE 6 



11. File 101-95-14 . [Appropriations, Treasurer/Tax Collector] Ordinance 
appropriating $372,000 from the General Fund Reserve, Treasurer/Tax 
Collector for services of other department (City Attorney) for costs of the 
revisions in the San Francisco Tax Code and the creation of four (4) positions 
in the City Attorney's office for fiscal year 1995-96. (Supervisors Hsieh, 
Kaufman, Bierman) RO # 95019 (COMPANION TO THE FOLLOWING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Richard Sullivan, Tax Collector. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: 
None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Add a Section 3 placing a reserve on $186,000 pending receipt of 
the preliminary report to the Board of Supervisors. AMENDED 
TITLE: "Ordinance appropriating $372,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve, Treasurer/Tax Collector for services of other 
department (City Attorney) for costs of the revisions in the San 
Francisco Tax Code and the creation of four (4) positions in the 
City Attorney's office for fiscal year 1995-96. Placing a reserve 
on $186,000." (Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman and Bierman requested 
to be shown as sponsors.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



12. File 102-95-3 . [Annual Salary Ordinance, City Attorney] Ordinance 

amending the Annual Salary Ordinance for fiscal year 1995-96, City Attorney, 
reflecting the addition of four (4) positions. (Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman, 
Bierman) (COMPANION TO THE PRECEDING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Richard Sullivan, Tax Collector. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: 
None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. (Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman 
and Bierman requested to be shown as sponsors.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



13. File 65-95-6 . [Lease, Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc.] Ordinance approving a 
fifteen (15) year lease between the City and County of San Francisco and 
Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc., which provides for the operation of horse 
stables in Golden Gate Park. (Recreation and Park Department) 
(COMPANION TO THE FOLLOWING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Phil Arnold, Assistant General Manager, Recreation and Park 
Department; Richard Sullivan, Tax Collector. IN SUPPORT: Bob McCarthy; 
Jeff Norris; Helen Norris; Joe Gignan; Polly Dignan. OPPOSED: Carol 
Hamby. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE h UTES PAGE 7 



14. File 193-95-6 . [Expansion of Structures, Golden Gate Park Stables] 

Resolution authorizing erection, enlargement, and expansion of structures 
within the demised premises of the stables in Golden Gate Park. (Recreation 
and Park Department) (COMPANION TO THE PRECEDING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Phil Arnold, Assistant General Manager, Recreation and Park 
Department; Richard Sullivan, Tax Collector. IN SUPPORT: Bob McCarthy; 
Jeff Norris; Helen Norris; Joe Gignan; Polly Dignan. OPPOSED: Carol 
Hamby. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



FEE 



15. File 117-95-1 . [Fire Department Fees] Ordinance amending Part n, Chapter 
IV, Municipal Code (Fire Code), by amending Sections 3.104, 4.204, 4.207 and 
4.208 thereof, to increase the fees for reinspection of violations, service fees, 
high-rise inspection fees, fees for review of plans submitted with building 
permit applications and for inspection of building construction. (Fire 
Commission) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Deputy Chief Richard Condon, Fire Marshall; Captain Tom Harvey, 
Fire Department. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: Lorella Harris. NO 
POSITION TAKEN: Ed Lawson, Union Square Association. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE N UTES PAGE 8 



GENERAL ITEMS 



16. File 082-95-001 . [Vacation of Public Sewer/Utilities Easement] Resolution 
declaring intention of the Board of Supervisors to vacate a sewer and public 
utilities easement located within Block 735, Lot 26 in exchange for a new 
utility easement; setting a hearing date for all persons interested in the 
proposed vacation. (Supervisor Bierman) (COMPANION TO THE 
FOLLOWING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATRTE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Alisha Wilson. IN SUPPORT: Tom Jones, Asian Neighborhood 
Design. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Set the date of September 11, 1995, at 3:00 p.m. for the public 
hearing. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



17. File 082-95-001.01 . [Vacation, Sewer and Utilities Easement] Ordinance 

ordering the vacation of a sewer and public utilities easement located within 
Block 735, Lot 26 (1096 Eddy Street). (Supervisor Bierman) (COMPANION 
TO THE PRECEDING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Alisha Wilson. IN SUPPORT: Tom Jones, Asian Neighborhood 
Design. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. TO BOARD "WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION". 

VOTE: 3-0. 



18. File 251-95-002 . [Bayshore Hester Assessment District] Resolution 

approving a Preliminary Engineer's Report for a Special Assessment District 
designated "Bayshore Hester Assessment District No. 95-1"; calling a public 
meeting and public hearing thereon; directing the Clerk of the Board to 
provide notice thereof; and authorizing other official action in connection 
therewith. (Supervisor Shelley) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mindy Linetzky, 
Legislative Aide representing Supervisor Kevin Shelley, Board President; 
Victor Castillo, Deputy City Attorney, Laura Wagner-Lockwood, Office of 
the Chief Administrative Officer; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. IN 
SUPPORT: Kirk Miller, representing developer. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE PRESENTED IN 
COMMITTEE BY CITY ATTORNEY BEARING SAME TITLE. 
ADOPTED. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDED. 
Amendment sets the date of the public meeting for September 11, 
1995, at 3:00 p.m. and the date of the public hearing for 
September 25, 1995, at 3:00 p.m. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE K .UTES PAGE 9 



HEARING 

19. File 200-95-2 . [Cost of Installation of Public Toilets] Hearing to consider 
the cost to the City of the installation of public toilets when the 
manufacturer is limited to $20,000 per toilet for installation. (Supervisors 
Kaufman, Bierman) 

(Consideration Continued from 7/19/95) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Ted Lakey, Deputy 

City Attorney; Vitaly Troyan, Department of Public Works; 
Ed Seeto, Department of Public Works. IN SUPPORT: 
Donna Halmont, Council on Homelessness; Dominque Davis; 
Kenneth Jones; Faith Sonline; Morton Pefani; August Lund, 
Independent Housing Project. OPPOSED: David Reese, 
Merrill Drugs; Sela Hosely; Ed Lawson, Union Square 
Association; Steven Lagross, Blondie's; Dana Kobland; 
Yvonne Yeger, Northset Property Management. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE CALL 
OF THE CHAIR. 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 4:48 P.M. 









p 

3 



CITY AND COUNTY 



// 




<Pubtic LiBraru, Documents (Dept. 
of san PR^(* te Wmgenon 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



P^^ 



July 28, 1995 



TO: Budget Committee 

_ 
FROM: Budget Analyst K&eo* ■ 

SUBJECT: August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



n-r 



D0C , IMFNTS OB? ■ 

AUG 2 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 



File 255-95-1 



Departments: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Controller 

Item: Resolution approving and authorizing the borrowing of funds 

for FY 1995-96 and the issuance and sale of City and County 
of San Francisco 1995-96 Tax and Revenue Anticipation 
Notes (TRANs); approving official notice of sale of such notes 
and authorizing the distribution of said notes; approving 
notice of intention to sell such notes and authorizing the 
publication of said notes; approving the trust agreement, the 
letter of credit, and the letter of credit agreement and official 
statement relating to such notes; authorizing the delegation 
of the appointment of certain parties in connection with the 
issuance of such notes; and authorizing other special actions 
in connection therewith. 

Amount: Not to exceed $200 million 

Description: The City's revenues, such as property tax revenues, are not 

received at a uniform level throughout the year, but rather 
are received at the times when the different sources of 
revenues become due and payable to the City. In contrast, the 
City's expenditures, such as payroll expenditures, tend to be 
more uniform throughout the year. 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANs) are short-term 
(not longer than 15 months) tax exempt securities which are 
authorized pursuant to the California Government Code and 
which may be used to "smooth" the City's cash flow. The 
proceeds from the sale of these notes would be used to pay 
the City's expenses, when such expenses become due, in 
anticipation of the City's receipt of taxes, income, revenues, 
cash receipts, and other monies which will be paid at a later 
date to the City's General Fund. 

The CAO's Office reports that, the City has issued and repaid 
$325 million in TRANs for FY 1993-94 and $175 million in 
TRANs for FY 1994-95. These notes were issued without 
insurance and or credit enhancement. Such insurance or 
credit enhancement, which would guarantee repayment of 
the notes, is issued by bond insurance companies and banks. 
However, according to the CAO's Office, Orange County's 
inability to repay its FY 1994-95 TRANs has caused many 
investors to be more cautious about TRANs issued in the 
State of California. The CAO's Office advises that it has 
therefore arranged for bidders to have the option of 
competitively bidding on the TRANs, with or without a Letter 
of Credit. Such Letter of Credit would guarantee the 
repayment of the notes. The CAO states that should a bidder 
opt to include the Letter of Credit, it would add the Letter of 
Credit Rate (estimated at 0.1 percent) to their interest rate 
bid amount. The CAO advises that the TRANs will be sold to 
the bidder which bids the lowest interest rate. 

The Controller reports that the proceeds from the sale of the 
TRANs notes would be invested, until such time as the 
proceeds were needed, to meet the City's expenditure 
requirements. The Controller estimates that additional 
General Fund net interest income would be realized in FY 
1995-96 by investing the proceeds of the TRANs, during 
those time periods when the TRANs proceeds would not be 
fully needed to pay the City's bills. These additional revenues 
to the City would result from investing $100 million in 
proceeds from the sale of TRANs at an estimated interest 
rate of 5.6 percent, which would be 1.6 percent higher than 
the interest rate of 4.0 percent which the Controller 
estimates the City will pay out on the TRANs in order to 
borrow the funds. 

The proposed resolution would authorize and approve the 
issuance and sale of TRANs for FY 1995-96 in an amount not 
to exceed $200 million. According to the proposed legislation, 
the notes will be issued on or before November 1, 1995. The 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



r3~ 



Comments: 



Controller reports that $100 million in TRANs is planned to 
be issued. 

The proposed resolution would also approve the City's 
Official Statement relating to the proposed TRANs; authorize 
the distribution of an official notice inviting bids in 
connection with the notes; authorize the public sale of the 
notes; and authorize other official actions necessary in 
connection with the issuance and sale of the TRANs. 

According to the Controller, the TRANs are expected to be 
sold on or about September 6, 1995 and issued September 20, 
1995. The proposed resolution provides that the interest rate 
which the City would pay on the TRANs could not exceed 6 
percent. Although the current estimated interest rate to be 
paid by the City is 4 percent, the actual interest rate to be 
paid by the City will be determined after bids for the notes 
have been received, with the notes being issued to the bidder 
offering the lowest interest cost to the City. The TRANs 
would reach maturity on or before September 19, 1996, at 
which time they would be required to be repaid in full. 

1. In accordance with the Charter, the City currently is 
required to maintain a Cash Reserve Fund for use in 
alleviating cash flow shortages throughout any fiscal year. 
The City annually allocates funds to the Cash Reserve Fund 
equal to 10 percent of the current and prior property tax levy. 
Ms. Teresa Chow of the Controller's Office reports that the 
Cash Reserve Fund is currently $62,300,000. 

2. The amount of TRANs which can be sold is based on the 
City's maximum cumulative deficit of expenditures over 
revenues which is projected to occur within the first six 
months after the notes are issued, plus the City's historically 
and customarily maintained reasonable working capital 
reserve. 

3. Ms. Chow reports that the General Fund generally 
experiences a "maximum deficit" of expenditures over 
revenues in November of each fiscal year, before the first 
installment of the property tax revenues (due December 10 of 
each year) has been received. The amount of TRANs which 
will be issued is based on the Controller's projections of the 
maximum deficit which is anticipated to occur in November, 
1995, plus the City's maintained reasonable working capital 
reserve as described above. Ms. Chow reports that the City 
would be eligible to issue TRANs of approximately $100 
million in FY 1995-96, based on cash flow projections for the 
FY 1995-96 and the Federal tax regulations. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



4. While the proposed legislation would authorize an issuance 
of not to exceed $200 million in TRANs, Mr. Harrington 
reports that the TRANs would only be issued in an amount 
which he deems to be prudent, based in part on consultations 
with legal and financial consultants. Mr. Harrington also 
states that independent bond-rating agencies, which evaluate 
the City's financial status, recognize that the use of TRANs is 
an intelligent way for the City to manage its cash flow needs. 

5. As previously noted, the proposed resolution provides that 
the interest rate to be paid by the City on the proposed 
TRANs could not exceed six percent. Ms. Chow reports that 
the actual interest cost to the City is expected to be 
approximately 4 percent. The Budget Analyst notes that, at 
an interest rate of 4 percent on a principal amount of $100 
million the City's total interest costs over one year would be 
approximately $4 million. Since the FY 1995-96 TRANs will 
be issued in September, 1995 the Controller estimates that 
the City will incur approximately nine months of interest in 
FY 1995-96, or about $3.1 million. While the City would incur 
interest costs for the issuance of the TRANs, the Controller 
reports that the proceeds from the sale of the notes will be 
invested at an interest rate which is expected to be higher 
than the interest rate which the City will pay to finance the 
notes. 

Mr. Harrington reports that the City Treasurer expects to 
realize a 5.6 percent rate of return on the proceeds from the 
sale of the proposed TRANs. This estimated 5.6 percent rate 
of return would be approximately 1.6 percentage points 
higher than the projected 4 percent interest rate which the 
Controller estimates the City will pay to finance the TRANs. 
Mr. Harrington therefore estimates that, if the City issues 
$100 million in TRANs, the City could realize gross interest 
revenues, through investing the proceeds, for nine months, of 
$4.4 million, incur interest expenses of $3.1 million, thereby 
resulting in net additional General Fund interest revenues of 
approximately $1.3 million in FY 1995-96. 

6. The Budget Analyst concurs in the Controller's estimate of 
the potential net additional interest revenues to the City of 
approximately $1.3 million in FY 1995-96, assuming that 
$100 million in TRANs are sold and subsequently invested at 
an interest rate which is 1.6 percent higher than the City's 
interest-costs to finance the sale of the notes. 

The Budget Analyst notes that the City Treasurer maintains 
records of the average daily cash balance of the City's 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



r Public Libraru, 'Documents <Dept. 
REVISED 



Attn: Kate Wingerson 

File 255-95-1 



Comments: 



-M 



ITS DEPf • 



AUG 2 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Controller reports that $100 million in TRANs is planned to 
be issued. 

The proposed resolution would also approve the City's 
Official Statement relating to the proposed TRANs; authorize 
the distribution of an official notice inviting bids in 
connection with the notes; authorize the public sale of the 
notes; and authorize other official actions necessary in 
connection with the issuance and sale of the TRANs. 

According to the Controller, the TRANs are expected to be 
sold on or about September 6, 1995 and issued September 20, 
1995. The proposed resolution provides that the interest rate 
which the City would pay on the TRANs could not exceed 6 
percent. Although the current estimated interest rate to be 
paid by the City is 4 percent, the actual interest rate to be 
paid by the City will be determined after bids for the notes 
have been received, with the notes being issued to the bidder 
offering the lowest interest cost to the City. The TRANs 
would reach maturity on or before September 19, 1996, at 
which time they would be required to be repaid in full. 

1. In accordance with the Charter, the City currently is 
required to maintain a Cash Reserve Fund for use in 
alleviating cash flow shortages throughout any fiscal year. 
The City annually allocates funds to the Cash Reserve Fund 
equal to 10 percent of the current or prior property tax levy. 
Ms. Teresa Chow of the Controller's Office reports that the 
Cash Reserve Fund is currently $62,303,000. 

2. The amount of TRANs which can be sold is based on the 
City's maximum cumulative deficit of expenditures over 
revenues which is projected to occur within the first six 
months after the notes are issued, plus the City's historically 
and customarily maintained reasonable working capital 
reserve. 

3. Ms. Chow reports that the General Fund generally 
experiences a "maximum deficit" of expenditures over 
revenues in November of each fiscal year, before the first 
installment of the property tax revenues (due December 10 of 
each year) has been received. The amount of TRANs which 
will be issued is based on the Controller's projections of the 
maximum deficit which is anticipated to occur in November, 
1995, plus the City's maintained reasonable working capital 
reserve as described above. Ms. Chow reports that the City 
would be eligible to issue TRANs of approximately $100 
million in FY 1995-96, based on cash flow projections for the 
FY 1995-96 and the Federal tax regulations. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



4. While the proposed legislation would authorize an issuance 
of not to exceed $200 million in TRANs, Mr. Harrington 
reports that the TRANs would only be issued in an amount 
which he deems to be prudent, based in part on consultations 
with legal and financial consultants. Mr. Harrington also 
states that independent bond-rating agencies, which evaluate 
the City's financial status, recognize that the use of TRANs is 
an intelligent way for the City to manage its cash flow needs. 

5. As previously noted, the proposed resolution provides that 
the interest rate to be paid by the City on the proposed 
TRANs could not exceed six percent. Ms. Chow reports that 
the actual interest cost to the City is expected to be 
approximately 4 percent. The Budget Analyst notes that, at 
an interest rate of 4 percent on a principal amount of $100 
million the City's total interest costs over one year would be 
approximately $4 million. Since the FY 1995-96 TRANs will 
be issued in September, 1995 the Controller estimates that 
the City will incur approximately nine months of interest in 
FY 1995-96, or about $3.1 million. While the City would incur 
interest costs for the issuance of the TRANs, the Controller 
reports that the proceeds from the sale of the notes will be 
invested at an interest rate which is expected to be higher 
than the interest rate which the City will pay to finance the 
notes. 

Mr. Harrington reports that the City Treasurer expects to 
realize a 5.6 percent rate of return on the proceeds from the 
sale of the proposed TRANs. This estimated 5.6 percent rate 
of return would be approximately 1.6 percentage points 
higher than the projected 4 percent interest rate which the 
Controller estimates the City will pay to finance the TRANs. 
Mr. Harrington therefore estimates that, if the City issues 
$100 million in TRANs, the City could realize gross interest 
revenues, through investing the proceeds, for nine months, of 
$4.4 million, incur interest expenses of $3.1 million, thereby 
resulting in net additional General Fund interest revenues of 
approximately $1.3 million in FY 1995-96. 

6. The Budget Analyst concurs in the Controller's estimate of 
the potential net additional interest revenues to the City of 
approximately $1.3 million in FY 1995-96, assuming that 
$100 million in TRANs are sold and subsequently invested at 
an interest rate which is 1.6 percent higher than the City's 
interest costs to finance the sale of the notes. 

The Budget Analyst notes that the City Treasurer maintains 
records of the average daily cash balance of the City's 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



General Fund as well as other City Funds. Interest income 
from pooled investments is then allocated to each Fund based 
on these average daily cash balances. Cumulative deficits in 
the General Fund reduce the average daily cash balance of 
the General Fund on which pooled interest earnings are 
allocated. Based on the use of both General Fund and other 
City fund monies (pooled fund monies), the proceeds of the 
TRANs are available for investment for the entire year. As a 
result, net additional interest revenues earned on the 
proceeds of the TRANs for the entire year would result in an 
increase in General Fund revenue. 

7. Proceeds from the sale of the TRANs would be required to 
be deposited into a special fund within the General Fund (the 
Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note Fund, or "Note Fund"), 
which would be established by the proposed resolution. 
Interest earned on the investment of the proceeds of the 
TRANs would also be deposited to the Note Fund. 

The proposed resolution provides that amounts in the Note 
Fund could be withdrawn and expended by the City for any 
purpose for which the City is authorized to expend funds 
from the General Fund. However, funds could be expended 
from the Note Fund only after other unrestricted General 
Fund monies had been exhausted or were otherwise not 
available to meet the City's expenditure requirements. 

8. Repayment of the principal and interest on the proposed 
TRANs would be made from "taxes, income, revenue, cash 
receipts and other monies" which accrue to the General Fund 
as unrestricted revenues in 1995-96, and which are "lawfully 
available for the payment of current expenses and other 
obligations of the City." 

9. The proposed resolution would also establish a Tax and 
Revenue Anticipation Note Repayment Fund, into which 
General Fund revenues would be deposited as security for the 
TRANs. The proposed resolution includes the City's "pledge" 
that it will deposit General Fund revenues into the 
Repayment Fund as security for repayment of the TRANs. 
The resolution requires that 50 percent of the amount to be 
repaid must be deposited with an outside trustee on 
February 29, 1996, and the remaining 50 percent plus 
interest due must be deposited with the trustee on May 31, 
1996. The trustee, which would be a bank, has not, as yet 
been selected by the CAO's Office. 

Interest earned by the Repayment Fund would be deposited 
to the Repayment Fund, although interest accruing to the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Repayment Fund is available for budgetary purposes. On the 
maturity date of the TRANs, the Repayment Fund would be 
used to redeem the notes. Any excess funds in the 
Repayment Fund at that time would be transferred to the 
General Fund. 

10. The proposed resolution provides that the holders of 
TRANs would not have an option to redeem the notes prior to 
the maturity of the notes. Therefore, the City would not be 
required to repay the notes prior to the maturity date. 

11. In summary, the proposed sale of Tax and Revenue 
Anticipation Notes is a technique authorized under State law 
to provide a temporary source of revenues to alleviate cash 
flow shortages, pending the receipt of City and County 
revenues from a variety of sources. For FY 1995-96, it is 
estimated that the issuance of $100 million in Tax and 
Revenue Anticipation Notes would result in the City realizing 
net additional interest income of $1.3 million, based on an 
estimated interest rate earned of 5.6 percent and an 
estimated interest rate paid of 4 percent. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 2 - File 101-95-7 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Department of Public Works 

Ordinance appropriating $36,480,000 of 1990 Earthquake 
Safety Bond Proceeds and interest earnings and 
reappropriating $8,491,539 from unspent funds in Capital 
Improvement Projects at the Veterans Building and City 
Hall, for a total of $44,971,539, to Capital Improvement 
Projects related to seismic upgrading of the War Memorial 
Opera House, and construction management in the Civic 
Center area. 

$44,971,539 



Source of Funds: Funds for this appropriation are available from Earthquake 
Safety Bond Funds issued for the Opera House Project 
($18,480,000), and from Earthquake Safety Bond interest 
earnings ($18,000,000). Additional Earthquake Safety Bond 
funds are available for reappropriation from the City Hall 
Project ($5,591,448), because replacement funds have been 
received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) for City Hall, and from the Veterans Building 
Project ($2,900,000), as the CAO has determined that the 
Earthquake Safety Bond program does not have sufficient 
funds to start and finish the upgrade of the Veteran's 
Building, and the CAO anticipates proposing a future bond 
issue for this purpose. 

Description: The War Memorial Opera House is scheduled to close on 

January 1, 1996 for an 18-month retrofit period. The retrofit 
will include complete seismic upgrading, asbestos removal, 
disabled access improvements, and other improvements. The 
proposed ordinance would appropriate $42,371,539 for this 
project, and for a portion of the relocation costs of the San 
Francisco Opera and San Francisco Ballet, and for relocation 
of War Memorial furnishings and equipment from the 
building. The appropriation also includes $2,600,000 to fund 
construction management services provided by a private 
contractor for the entire Civic Center area. The budget for 
these items is shown below. Items marked with an asterisk 
are recommended for reserve (See Comment No. 1). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Budget: 

War Memorial Op era House 

Construction contract 

Construction cost $28,430,000 

Contingency (approximately 20% of contract amount) 5,886,000 

Hazardous materials abatement 345,127 
Sub-Total $34,661,127* 
Construction Management 
Department of Public Works 

5212 Const. Manager (250 hours @$100/hr.) 25,000 

A919 Contract Administrator (187.5 hours @$80/hr) 15,000 

5210 Res. Const. Manager (4,498 hours @$90/hr) 404,820 

5208 Field Engineer (3,806 hours @$75/hr) 285.450 

Sub-total 730,270 

Turner Construction Company/Business Development Inc. (BDI) 

Equipment, telephone, other reimbursable exp. 151,681 

On-site staff 250 months @ blended rate $3,950/mo. 987,600 

Project staff 310 hours @ blended rate $70/hr. 21,725 

Labor costs inflation @ 4% annually 59,256 

Employee Benefits 458,095 

Corporate Overhead and Profit 868,389 

Administrative costs and Markup 263,254 

Sub-total 2,810,000 

Other Items 

Inspection, testing, and permits 170,142* 

Opera and Ballet relocation (See Attachment 1) 1,370,350 

War Memorial relocation and storage 129,650 

Acceleration Contingency (See Comment No. 4) 2.500.000 

Sub-total 4 f 170 f 142 

Total War Memorial $42,371,539 

Earthquake Safety Program Management and Control 

Turner Construction Company 

Project Manager, 41 months @$7,950/month 325,950 

Secretary, 41 months @$3,000/month 123,000 

Controller, 41 months @$4,800/month 196,800 

Scheduling Engineer 41 months @$5,600/month 229,600 

Administrative cost and overhead 1,014,650 

On-call Management Services 220,000 

Equipment, telephone, other reimbursable expenses 240,000 

Profit and markup 250.000 

Total Program Management and Control 2,600,000 

TOTAL $44,971,539 

*The Budget Analyst recommends that funds for these items be placed on reserve. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. The Department of Public Works has not yet chosen 

contractors for those items marked above with an asterisk, 
including the construction contract (bids will be opened 
August 16), and inspection and testing services. The Budget 
Analyst recommends that funds for these two items, in the 
amount of $34,661,127 for construction, and $170,142 for 
inspection and testing services, for a total of $34,831,269, be 
reserved until budget details and the MBEAVBE status of the 
contractors have been submitted to the Board of Supervisors. 

2. In 1991, the Department of Public Works conducted a 
competitive bidding process in order to select a construction 
management firm for the Earthquake Safety Bond Program 
in the Civic Center area, which represents a total estimated 
cost of over $300 million. Turner Construction Company was 
the winning bidder in this process, and has been providing 
construction management services on a project by project 
basis since 1991. Turner Construction Company provides 
these services with 25 percent joint venture participation by 
Business Development Incorporated (BDI), which is a City- 
certified MBE firm. According to Mr. Bob Badgley of the 
DPW, overall construction management services are now 
required in addition to the project by project services because 
of the large number of construction projects which are 
underway in the Civic Center area, and because of projects 
which are increasingly dependent on each other, such as the 
Civic Auditorium, which must be completed in order for the 
Opera House Project to go forward. Mr. Badgley reports that 
the services to be provided by Turner under this portion of 
the contract will include development and updating of Master 
Schedules, providing options and estimates on cost-effectively 
purchasing materials for all Civic Center projects as a group, 
and estimating and tracking change orders on all projects. 

3. According to Ms. Tara Lamont, Project Manager for the 
Opera House, because the City's seismic upgrade of the 
Opera House will displace the Opera and the Ballet, the 
DPW is proposing that the City pay specific, temporary 
expenses which will be incurred in moving the Opera and 
Ballet to an alternate site. Attachment 1, provided by the 
DPW, details the estimated expenses included in the amount 
of $1,370,350 provided for relocation of the Opera and Ballet 
during the construction period. Ms. Lamont reports that the 
DPW is negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding, which 
will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval, 
between the City and the Opera and Ballet detailing the 
relocation costs and providing for a monthly report to the 
DPW of expenses as agreed under this MOU. The Budget 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Analyst considers approval of this item, in the amount of 
$1,370,350, to be a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 
In addition, an amount of $129,650 is provided in the project 
budget for relocating and storing furnishings and equipment 
belonging to the War Memorial. 

4. The CAO submitted an update report regarding Civic 
Center construction to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors 
dated March 7, 1995, in which the CAO noted that 
"acceleration costs" in the amount of $2,500,000 were being 
included in the Opera House budget in order to insure that 
the project can be finished within a period of 18 months. 
According to the CAO, this timeline is necessary in order to 
allow the Opera to miss only one season and the Ballet to 
miss only two seasons in the Opera House. These funds will 
allow "double shifting," or two full eight hour shifts daily paid 
at straight time rates, of construction work as necessary to 
complete the project. The Opera, Ballet, and War Memorial 
are also providing an amount of $500,000 to pay for 
acceleration. 

Recommendation: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to reserve an amount of 
$34,831,269, pending submission of budget details, and the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors, to the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2. Approval of the amount of $1,370,350 for relocation of the 
Opera and Ballet is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

3. Approve the proposed ordinance, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



SF OPERA AND BALLET 

ESTIMATE OF RELOCATION COSTS 



To: Tara Lamont From: John Priest 

Re: Relocation costs Date: March 2, 1995 

In consultation with the Ballet, I have come up with a total not- 
to-exceed cost for the round trip relocation of the Opera and 
Ballet during the eighteen month closure of the Opera House 
of $1,370,350. This .figure includes the following reimbursable 
expenses : 

Office rental (net of War Memorial allowance) $673,585 

Rehearsal space rental 77,550 

Storage rental 234,215 

Moving costs (to movers) 100,000 

Moving costs (to stage hands) 50,000 

Tenant improvements 35,000 

Computer relocation 50,000 

Telecom costs 90,000 

Utilities . 35,000 

Contingency 25 f 000 

Total: $1,370.350 

It should be emphasized that most of these figures are necessarily 
estimates rather than hard quotes and as such contain what we 
consider to be a prudent level of insurance. It is almost certain, 
for instance, that the costs for rehearsal space will decline as a 
result of negotiations with the War Memorial. Telephone and 
computer costs may also go down, while stage hands' costs may run 
over our allowance. Needless to say, since we will be invoicing 
you only for our out of pocket expenses, any savings will be passed 
on. to the City and, assuming the eighteen month schedule is 
maintained, in no event will the total be exceeded. 

Please let me know if you need any further back up for these 
figures. 



cc: M. Abramson, J. Basler, A. Jacobus, G. McCoy, M. Savage 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Item 



- File 101-95-8 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$200,000 in Parking Revenue Funds to a capital 
improvement project for soil remediation at St. Mary's 
Square Garage. 

$200,000 

Parking Revenue Fund (previously known as the Off-Street 
Parking Fund) 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a 
supplemental appropriation ordinance in the amount of 
$245,000 to pay for the removal of eight underground storage 
tanks at the St. Mary's Square Garage (File 101-93-98). 
These eight tanks were removed in March of 1994. However, 
the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) reported at 
that time that soil contamination had resulted from the 
leakage of some of these tanks and that soil remediation 
work would have to be performed at the site in order to 
remove the contamination. As such, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a second supplemental appropriation ordinance in 
the amount of $120,000 to pay for a consultant to prepare a 
work plan and bid specifications for the remediation (i. e., 
clean up of toxic wastes) work (File 101-94-60). The proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance would appropriate 
$200,000 in Parking Revenue Funds to begin implementation 
of the remediation plan. 

Mr. Kevin Hagerty, Director of Off-Street Parking reports 
that the DPT is requesting that this item be continued to the 
Budget Committee meeting on September 13, 1995, in order 
to (1) allow this item to be considered in closed session by the 
Budget Committee, and (2) provide additional time for the 
Department of Public Works and the City Attorney's Office to 
provide budget details for the proposed supplemental 
appropriation request. Mr. Hagerty advises that this item 
needs to be heard in closed session because the owner of the 
property located adjacent to the St. Mary's Square Garage, 
the Shorenstein Company, has filed a lawsuit against the 
City for damages which it claims resulted from the leakage of 
the above-noted underground storage tanks. The City 
Attorney's Office is currently processing this litigation. 

Continue the proposed ordinance to the Budget Committee 
meeting on September 13, 1995, as requested by the DPT. 



BO AR D OF SUPER VIS OR S 
BUDGET ANALYST 



12 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Item 4 - File 101-95-9 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Hetch Hetchy 

Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Supplemental appropriation of $650,000 of Hetch Hetchy 
Operating Funds for a Capital Improvement Project to allow 
Hetch Hetchy to repair the Priest Reservoir Diversion 
Channel for FY 1995-96. 

$650,000 

Hetch Hetchy Unappropriated Fund Balance 

In June of 1995, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
declared an emergency in accordance with Section 6.30 of the 
San Francisco Administrative Code for repair of storm 
damage at the Priest Reservoir Diversion Channel. The 
Priest Reservoir Diversion Channel was built in 1993 to 
divert overflow from Rattlesnake Creek from entering the 
Priest Reservoir, which provides temporary storage for all 
water that enters the San Francisco water supply system. 
During heavy rains in March of 1995, erosion occurred, 
sections of the diversion pipeline were damaged, and the 
reservoir was contaminated. 

In order to prevent further contamination of Priest Reservoir, 
which effects all water destined for San Francisco, the PUC 
proposes to complete all repairs to the Diversion Channel 
that are need as a result of the rain damage in March of 1995 
prior to the onset of the winter rainy season. The PUC has 
requested a waiver of normal contracting procedures in 
accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative Code due 
to the existence of an emergency. Project Manager Mr. Ralph 
Herrera states that the PUC Utilities Engineering Bureau 
(UEB) plans to complete design work by August 4, obtain 
construction bids by August 25, award a construction 
contract by September 4, and complete the repair work by 
November 4, 1995. 

Mr. Herrera states that the breakdown of the total project 
budget of $650,000 is as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 

Utilities Engineering Bureau (UEB) 

Engineering and Inspection Services $230,000 

Construction Contract 325,000 

Hetch Hetchy Services 15,000 

Environmental Consultants 30,000 

Construction Contingency 50,000 

Total $650,000 

Comments: 1. Attachment 1 to this report provides the construction cost 

estimate prepared by UEB staff. Under normal 
circumstances, the Budget Analyst would recommend 
reserving the $325,000 construction contract amount pending 
selection of a contractor and provision of information 
regarding the contractor's MBE/WBE status. However, as 
noted above, the PUC has requested a waiver of normal 
contracting procedures in accordance with Section 6.30 of the 
Administrative Code, in order to facilitate completion of the 
repair work to the Priest Reservoir Diversion Channel prior 
to the start of the winter rainy season. Because 
contamination of the Priest Reservoir effects all water 
destined for San Francisco, the Budget Analyst does not 
recommend reserving the construction contract amount from 
the proposed supplemental appropriation. 

2. Mr. Herrera reports that the UEB has notified MBE and 
WBE contractors whose names appear on a list provided by 
the Human Rights Commission (HRC) that a contract for 
repair of the Priest Reservoir Diversion Channel is expected 
to be bid in mid-August. 

3. Attachment 2 to this report, prepared by Mr. Herrera, 
provides the cost details of the UEB Engineering and 
Inspection Services. These details indicate that the actual 
cost estimate for UEB Engineering and Inspection Services 
totals $227,665, rather than $230,000, as stated in the 
project budget. Therefore, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation should be reduced by $2,335 ($230,000 less 
$227,665). 

4. Mr. Herrera advises that the PUC selected EIP Associates, 
an environmental consulting firm, to evaluate the site and 
the repair methods to identify any environmental issues that 
might effect the project and to monitor the project during the 
construction period to ensure environmental regulatory 
compliance. Mr. Herrera reports that, based on a prior RFP 
process, the UEB has an as-needed contract with EIP 
Associates, which is not an MBE or WBE firm, to handle all 
UEB environmental work on a fee for service basis. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 

The firm commenced work on June 21, 1995 and is expected 
to provide a total of approximately 322 hours of 
environmental consulting services at a cost of $50 to $125 per 
hour (depending upon the type of staff involved), for a total 
cost not to exceed $29,350, rather than the $30,000 that was 
included in the project budget. Therefore, the proposed 
supplemental appropriation should be further reduced by 
$650 ($30,000 less $29,350). 

5. Mr. Herrera states that Hetch Hetchy in-house staff will 
remove a piece of equipment that is no longer functional, and 
remove sediment in the pipeline deposited by the storm, at 
an estimated cost of $15,000 for 240 hours of labor at $62.50 
per hour. 

6. The budgeted contingency amount of $50,000 represents 
approximately 8 percent of the total project budget of 
$650,000. The contingency will remain at approximately 8 
percent of the reduced total project budget of $597,015 
(excluding the $50,000 contingency amount) if the 
supplemental appropriation is amended as recommended. 

7. Mr. Herrera advises that the UEB started design and 
engineering work for the project immediately after the storm, 
in March of 1995. In addition, as noted above, the UEB 
authorized EIP Associates to commence environmental 
consulting work on June 21, 1995. Therefore the proposed 
legislation should be amended to provide for retroactive 
approval of the subject supplemental appropriation. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation to 
reduce the total funds by $2,985, from $650,000 to $597,015, 
based on actual cost estimates provided by the UEB. 

2. Amend the proposed legislation to include retroactive 
approval in accordance with Comment No. 7. 

3. Approve the proposed ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



ATTACHMENT 1 



Post-It™ brand fax transmittal memo 7671 






-^Jl**j* *2 



f^ = £ . To-W* 



Co 



V\t blEWBLKA 



Dept. 



Fax* 



252-0461 



# Of p«u«« v I 



R UCK.RCM 



Fix /pes 



£S4 oi is 



7^ £>/Ce*Si«j h wh f>nt ternary c*V Wftooj** wrf£ 



7?e bar-** '?«"•.. 
2>t)/UJ TUrs 

Alio***** fir Qti* ^^^ 

TZTAL ~ 

Access £oip 
CC'< ~D 4 Cl\t<*\ 



p/Z,crro 

i ZS orro 



ft 2 GO, 



GTSti 



SO o oo 



3 ZZ° 



oo 



16 



MARION E. OT3EA 

pnestoeNT 

YASIN SALMA 

VICE PA£siD&fr 

MORTON MII±ER 

E. DENNIS NORMANDY 

R06£RT K. WERBE 



ATTACHMENT 2 

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

FRANK M. JORDAN, MAYOR 

ANSON S. MORAN, GEH&W. UANAGER 

UTILITIES ENOINEER1NQ BUREAU 
RICHARD E. BRANDT, UANAOER 




WATER DEPARTMENT 



HETCHHETCHY 
WATER AND POWER 



MEMORANDUM 



To: 



From: 



Eve Sternberg 
Budget Analyst 

Ralph Herrera (f^AAJS^ 
PUC/UEB ^^ 



Date: July 26, 1995 

Subject: Emergency Contract HH-850E 

Priest Reservoir Diversion Channel 



The following is the estimated cost breakdown for UEB Project Management, Engineering and 
Construction Management services for the subject project: 



Position (Class 1 ) 




Dailv Rate 


Total Davs 


Cost 


Project Mgr. 


5504 


580 


40 


23,200 


Civil Chief 


5210 


625 


15 


9,375 


Project Engr. 


5208 


540 


45 


24,300 


Engineers 


5206 


445 


170 


75,650 


Draftsperson 


5202 


360 


55 


19,800 


Construction Mgr. 


5210 


625 


22 


13,750 


Resident Engr. 


5208 


540 


6 


3,240 


Inspector 


6318 


500 


90 


45,000 


Survey Chief 


5314 


475 


15 


7,125 


Surveyor 


5312 


415 


15 
TOTAL 


6.225 
$227,665 



The estimated cost of $15,000 for Hetch Hetchy personnel is for the removal of a steel trash rack 
and cleanout of storm sediment in an existing pipeline. The cost was estimated to require 30 
mandays at $500.00 per day. 



1166 MARKET STREET. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 - (416) 684-0700 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Item 5 - File 101-95-10 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of Social Services (DSS) 

Ordinance appropriating Federal revenue to contractual 
services for the Independent Living Skills Program at the 
Department of Social Services for Fiscal Year 1995-96. 

$55,431 

Federal Independent Living Program Fund from the Health 
and Human Services Agency of the Federal Government 

The Independent Living Skills Program (ILSP) provides 
training and other support services to foster care youths 
(aged 16 to 18), including life-skills training, vocational 
assessment, academic tutoring, computer training, and SAT 
workshops. The proposed supplemental funds would be used 
for ancillary support for the participating foster children, and 
to purchase equipment related to an educational resource 
library. 

The ILSP is currently operated through a contract with The 
Family School, a non-profit agency. This contract, based upon 
a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process, was 
awarded for the term February, 1995 through June 30, 1996. 
The contractor, Family School, would use the proposed 
supplemental funds for the following items: 



Library materials on colleges, and 
financial aid and vocational/educational 
assessment tools, and SAT Registration 

Clothing for 30 individuals who begin 
college ($700 per each youth) 

Clothing for 10 individuals that will begin 
working ($700 per each youth) 

Book purchases for youth graduating 
from the ILSP 

Conference Fees (10 youths sent to the 
State-wide California Youth Conference) 

1-Computer and 1-printer (purchase of 
equipment by Contractor for life-skills 
program) 



$5,730 

21,000 

7,000 

7,501 

3,000 

4,100 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Comments: 



Computer Services (database design, 
development and maintenance) 

Bilingual Software (software to make 
computer more accessible to bilingual 
youth) 

Video Cameras/Tapes (to be used to 
practice job interviews, and to tape ILSP 
events) 

Audio Visual Materials (educational films 
on sexually-transmitted diseases, self- 
esteem and job skills) 

Total Proposed Supplemental Funds 



3,100 



1,000 



1,000 



2.000 
$55,431 



1. The DSS reports that because the State Department of 
Social Services had not yet informed the DSS regarding the 
availability of additional Federal funds, the proposed Federal 
funds were not included in the DSS's FY 1995-96 budget. 
Therefore, this request is to obtain appropriation approval of 
the Federal funds. 

2. As noted in the above budget, a total of $28,000 would be 
used to purchase clothing for ILSP participants. ($21,000 for 
college clothing and $7,000 for work clothing). According to 
Ms. Julie Murray Brenman of the DSS, because youths 
reaching the age of 18 are no longer eligible for assistance 
from their foster family, many youths are forced to live on 
their own and do not have sufficient funds to purchase 
clothing. Ms. Murray Brenman reports that the contractor, 
Family School, determines who will receive the clothing 
allowance based upon those youths that have been accepted 
into colleges (30 individuals) and that have been hired for 
employment (10 individuals). 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 6 -File 101-95-11 



Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance of $38,171 to 
continue contracts for dispute resolution services in FY 
1995-96; providing for ratification of action previously 
taken. 

$38,171 

Dispute Resolution Program Fund 

The Dispute Resolution Program Fund was established by 
the Board of Supervisors (Ordinance No. 494-86) in 
December, 1986 for the purpose of providing alternative 
means for the resolution of disputes. It is part of a 
Statewide effort to provide a less costly alternative to 
litigation through arbitration and mediation. The Program 
has been funded by a set-aside of $3.00 in court filing fees 
paid to the San Francisco Superior Court. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation of funds would be 
expended for the continuation of the following three 
professional services contracts: 



Community Board Program, Inc. 
California Community Dispute Services 
California Lawyers for the Arts 
Total 



$19,574 

16,692 

1.905 

$38,171 



Under the proposed ordinance, these dispute resolution 
services would continue to be provided for a two-month 
period, from July 1 through August 31, 1995. 

The proposed ordinance provides for ratification of action 
previously taken because the contractors have incurred 
costs while continuing to provide their dispute resolution 
services since July 1, 1995. 

1. According to Ms. Barbara Kolesar of the Mayor's Office of 
Community Development, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance would provide services for a period 
of only two months because the Mayor's Office is currently 
exploring the possibility with the Controller's Office to 
extend the three dispute resolution contractors' agreements 
for a period of two years. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2(1 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

2. The Mayor's Office reports that, as of July 28, 1995, there 
is a $211,478 unreserved fund balance in the Dispute 
Resolution Program Fund. 

3. The Mayor's Office reports that the cost per case and the 
number of cases to be handled by each of the three 
contractors are as follows: 

Number Cost Total 

Contractor of Cases p er Case Cost 

Community Board Program, Inc. 192 $89.84 $17,250 

Calif. Comm. Dispute Services 180 81.14 14,606 

California Lawyers for the Arts 34 49.00 1.666 

Total 406 $33,522 

4. Based on the above actual cost per case and the number 
of cases to be handled by each of the contractors, the 
proposed supplemental appropriation should be reduced by 
a total of $4,649, as reflected below: 

Supplemental Actual 
Contractor Request Amount Difference 

Community Board Program, Inc. $19,574 $17,250 $2,324 

Calif. Comm. Dispute Services 16,692 14,606 2,086 

California Lawyers for the Arts 1.905 1.666 239 

Total $38,171 $33,522 $4,649 

5. Based on the proposed revised two month supplemental 
appropriation request of $33,522 for these three 
contractors, the total annualized amount that would be 
required is $201,132. In addition, in FY 1994-95, the 
Mayor's Office of Community Development received ten 
percent of the total contractors' program costs to cover the 
costs of administration. Based on an annualized total 
program cost of $201,132, ten percent for the Mayor's Office 
of Community Development represents approximately 
$20,113, or a total projected expenditure of $221,245 for the 
City's Dispute Resolution Program. 

Recommendation: Reduce the proposed supplemental appropriation request 
by $4,649 as shown in Comment 4 above. 

Approve the proposed ordinance, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 

Items 7. 8. 9 and 10 - Files 101-95-12. 102-95-3. 101-95-1.3 and 102-95-4 

Department: Recreation and Park Department (RPD) 

Items: Item 7, File 101-95-12 is a supplemental appropriation 

ordinance appropriating $1,211,014 from two General Fund 
reserves established in the FY 1995-96 budget for salaries, 
mandatory fringe benefits, materials and supplies and 
equipment to provide enhancements for park maintenance, 
recreational programming, golf course maintenance and 
related support services. 

Item 8, File 102-95-3 is an ordinance amending the 1995-96 
Annual Salary Ordinance to reflect the addition of 78 
positions. 

Item 9, File 101-95-13 is a supplemental appropriation 
ordinance appropriating $502,223 from a General Fund 
reserve established in the FY 1995-96 budget for salaries, 
mandatory fringe benefits, equipment and services of other 
departments to provide improvements to building 
maintenance at recreation centers. 

Item 10, File 102-95-4 is an ordinance amending the 1995-96 
Annual Salary Ordinance to reflect the addition of eight 
positions. 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



File 101-95-12 
File 101-95-13 
Total 

Reserve established by the Board of 
Supervisors in the FY 1995-96 budget for 
the Recreation and Park Department 

Displacement Reserve of $1.8 million 
established in the FY 1995-96 budget 
through an agreement between the City 
and SEIU Local 790 
Total 



$1,211,014 

502.223 

$1,713,237 



$1,502,223 



211.014 
$1,713,237 



Description: During the FY 1995-96 Budget Review process, the Board of 

Supervisors set aside a reserve in the amount of $1,502,223 
for increased Recreation and Park services as a result of 
savings identified during the budget hearings. 

In addition, according to the Mayor's Office, under an 
agreement between Service Employees International Union 
(SEIU), Local 790, and the Mayor's Office, the Mayor's Office 
agreed to allocate an additional $211,014 to the Recreation 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



and Park Department's (RPD) 1995-96 budget to expand 
hours for temporary employees and to convert temporary 
employees to permanent employees in the Recreation 
Division. This agreement was approved by the Board of 
Supervisors (File 93-95-49). 

The RPD submitted two supplemental appropriation requests 
totaling $1,752,223, of which $1,713,237 was approved by the 
Mayor's Office (Files 101-95-12 and 101-95-13). This 
$1,713,237 request would be expended as follows: (a) 
$233,580 to form a six-person crew to perform athletic field 
renovation; (b) $130,145 to form two custodial crews to 
provide weekend cleaning of the City's restrooms and 
playgrounds and to perform deferred custodial maintenance 
at the City's recreational facilities; (c) $181,761 to restore 
full-year operation at the King and Coffman swimming pools 
and to increase hours at other City pools; (d) $434,306 to 
increase program hours at 32 recreation centers and to 
expand program hours during school vacation periods, for day 
camps and for Latchkey programs; (e) $170,000 to purchase 
equipment and expand facilities maintenance for the Golf 
Program; (f) $61,222 for new administrative positions to 
provide support services; and (g) $502,223 to implement a 
maintenance program for the City's recreation facilities. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinances include 
funding for 27 new positions and 59 positions to be converted 
from temporary to permanent status. The 27 new positions 
would be funded for the period from approximately November 
6, 1995 through June 30, 1996 (17 pay periods), based on the 
RPD's estimated time needed to recruit and hire the new 
employees. The 59 positions to be converted from temporary 
to permanent status would receive permanent status starting 
on approximately November 6, 1995. 

The proposed budget for these two supplemental 
appropriation requests, totaling $1,713,237 is shown below. 

FILE 101-95-12 

Athletic Field Renovation ($233.580) 

This request of $233,580 would allow for the formation of an 
athletic field renovation crew. Six new positions would be 
added, consisting of three Gardeners and one General 
Laborer to renovate athletic fields, one Operating Engineer to 
operate bulldozers and other large machinery and one Truck 
Driver to operate large mowers. The RPD advises that there 
is currently no regular athletic field renovation program. 
The RPD anticipates that this crew could renovate 15 athletic 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



fields on an annual basis, which represents 25 percent of the 
RPD's 60 athletic fields. In addition, the requested funds 
would provide for the purchase of related equipment and 
materials and supplies. A breakdown of this request is as 
follows: 



Personnel 








Amount 




No. of 


Biweekly 


No. of Pay 


of this 


Position 


Positions 


Salary 


Periods 


Request 


3417 Gardener 


3 


$1,243 


17 


$63,393 


7514 General Laborer 


1 


1,203 


17 


20,451 


7328 Operating Engineer 


1 


2,166 


17 


36,822 


7355 Truck Driver 


1 


1,890 


17 


32.130 


Subtotal - Salaries 


6 






$152,796 


Fringe Benefits (20%) 








30.559 


Total - Personnel 








$183,355 



Equipment 

One one-ton crew cab for Gardeners and General Laborer 20,225 

Materials and Supplies 

Includes sod, seed, fertilizer, dirt, tools and other items 30,000 

Total Request - Athletic Filed Renovation $233,580 

Custodial Maintenance ($130.145) 

This request of $130,145 would allow for the formation of two 
mobile custodial crews to maintain restrooms and 
playgrounds on weekends and to perform deferred custodial 
maintenance at recreational facilities during the week. 
Specifically, this request would provide for the addition of 
four new custodial positions and for the purchase of related 
equipment and materials and supplies. The RPD advises 
that this request would allow the RPD to clean an additional 
20 to 24 restrooms and playgrounds on weekends and to 
complete deferred custodial maintenance at approximately 
six recreational facilities per week. A breakdown of this 
request is as follows: 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Personnel 




Amount 


No. of Biweekly 


No. of Pay 


of this 


Position Positions Salarv 


Periods 


Request 


2708 Custodian 4 $1,003 


17 


$68,204 


Fringe Benefits (20%) 




13.641 


Total - Personnel 




$81,845 


Equipment 






Two vans for each of the two mobile custodial crews 






(2 vans x $19,150 per van) 




38,300 


Materials and Supplies 






Custodial supplies 




10.000 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Total Request - Mobile Custodial Crews 



$130,145 



Aquatics Pr ogram ($181.761) 

This request of $181,761 would allow for the addition of 
seven new Lifeguard positions and the conversion of five 
existing temporary Pool Cashier positions to permanent 
status in the Recreation Division. The RPD advises that this 
would permit both King Pool, which is currently open only 
during the summer, and Coffman Pool, which is currently 
closed during the summer months, to operate on a year-round 
basis. In addition, the RPD advises that the City's seven 
other pools, at which hours have been reduced in recent years 
due to budgetary constraints, could expand their hours. As of 
the writing of this report, the RPD had not yet determined 
the number of additional hours per week that the City's 
swimming pools could operate. A breakdown of this request 
is as follows: 









Amount 




No. of 


Biweekly 


No. of Pay of this 


Position 


Positions 


Salarv 


Periods Request 


3208 Lifeguard 


7 


$882 


17 $104,958 


3204 Pool Cashier 


Jl 


547* 


17 46,509 


Subtotal - Salaries 


12 




$151,467 


Fringe Benefits (20%) 






30.294 



Total - Aquatics Program 



$181,761 



* This amount represents the additional amount needed to fund this 
position on a full-time basis. The biweekly salary for a Pool Cashier is 
actually $1,220. The $673 difference between the $1,220 and the $547 
shown here would be funded from temporary salaries. 

Recreation Programs ($434.306) 

This request of $434,306 would allow for the conversion of 54 
part-time, temporary Recreation Director positions to full- 
time, permanent status in the Recreation Division. The 
Recreation Directors are responsible for supervising 
programs and activities at the RPD's 65 recreational 
facilities. The RPD advises that the increased hours for 
Recreation Directors would allow the expansion of program 
hours at 32 of the RPD's 65 recreational facilities, at which 
hours have been reduced in recent years due to budgetary 
constraints. In addition, this request would allow for an 
increase in the Recreation Division's budget for temporary 
salaries by $236,587. The RPD reports that this would allow 
the RPD to provide approximately 14,000 hours of additional 
services, including (a) additional programs during school 
vacation periods; (b) the expansion of the summer day camp 
program; and (c) the expansion of the Latchkey program, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



which is an after-school day care program for children ages 
eight through 12. A breakdown of this request is as follows: 



P o sitio n 

3284 Recreation Director 
Fringe Benefits (20%) 
Total - Permanent Salaries 







Amount 


No. of 


Biweekly 


No. of Pay of this 


Positions 


Salary 


Periods Request 


54 

es 


$179* 


17 $164,766 

32.953 

$197,719 



Temporary Salaries 

14,000 hours @ approximately $14.07 per hour $197,000 

Fringe Benefits related to Temporary Salaries (20%) 39.587 

Total - Temporary Salaries $236,587 

Total - Recreation Programs $434,306 

* This amount represents the additional amount needed to fund this 
position on a full-time basis. The biweekly salary for a Recreation 
Director is actually $1,152. The $973 difference between the $1,152 and 
the $179 shown here would be funded from temporary salaries. 

Golf Course Equipment and Maintenance ($170.000) 
This request of $170,000 would permit the RPD to purchase 
equipment and to enhance facilities maintenance for the Golf 
Program. A breakdown of this request is as follows: 

Equipment 

Two new fairway mowers needed to enhance golf course 
grooming (2 mowers x $60,000 per mower) $120,000 

Facilities Maintenance 

Needed to improve cart paths and rebuild tees 50.000 

Total- Golf Course Maintenance $170,000 

Support Services ($61.222) 

This request of $61,222 would allow the addition of two new 
positions and the purchase of related materials and supplies. 
The RPD advises that the new Senior Account Clerk position 
would be used to support the Department's payroll, 
accounting and purchasing sections, which would experience 
an increased workload if this supplemental appropriation 
request were approved. The RPD advises that the 
Management Information Systems (MIS) Technician position 
would be used to (a) automate the RPD's permits and 
reservations system; (b) convert the softball reservation 
system to a new software format; and (c) improve the new 
golf course reservation system. A breakdown of this request 
is as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Personnel 






Amount 


No. of 


Biweekly 


No. of Pay 


of this 


Position Positions 


Salary 


Periods 


Request 


1632 Senior Account Clerk 1 


$1,191 


17 


$20,247 


1818 MIS Specialist II 1 


1,565 


17 


26.605 


Subtotal - Salaries 2 






$46,852 


Fringe Benefits (20%) 






9.370 



Materials and Supplies 

Printing materials needed to reproduce additional Recreation 
Program information for public 

Total - Support Services 

Total Supplemental Appropriation Request 
(File 101-95-12) 



$56,222 

5.000 
$61,222 

$1,211,014 



FILE 101-95-13 

Building Maintenance Program ($502.223) 
This request of $502,223 would allow the addition of eight 
new positions and the purchase of related equipment and 
materials and supplies needed in order to develop a regular 
maintenance program for the RPD's 65 recreation centers 
and clubhouses. The RPD advises that there is currently no 
preventative or regular maintenance program for these 
facilities, but that maintenance work is primarily limited to 
responses to emergencies. In addition, the requested funds 
would be used for two work orders with the Department of 
Public Works (DPW) to perform paving and glazing work and 
to perform hazardous materials abatement at 11 RPD 
facilities. A breakdown of this request is as follows: 





No. of 


Biweekly 


No. of Pay 


of this 


Position 


Positions 


Salary 


Periods 


Request 


7344 Carpenter 


2 


$2,014 


17 


$68,476 


7347 Plumber 


2 


2,319 


17 


78,846 


7346 Painter 


2 


1,827 


17 


62,118 


7395 Iron Worker 


1 


1,927 


17 


32,759 


7311 Cement Mason 


1 


1,765 


17 


30.005 


Subtotal - Salaries 


8 






$272,204 


Fringe Benefits (20%) 








54,441 


Total - Personnel 








$326,645 



Materials and Supplies 

Includes lumber, paint, tools, plumbing materials, cement, 
fencing materials and other items 



29,128 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



27 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Equipment 

Three one-ton vans for the new Carpenter positions, the 
new Plumber positions and the new Painter positions 
($19,150 per van x 3 vans) $57,450 

Services of Other Departments (DPW) 

Work order with DPW to perform paving and 
glazing work $20,000 

Work order with DPW to perform hazardous 
materials abatement at 11 facilities 69,000 

Total - Work Orders 89,000 

Total - Supplemental Appropriation Request 
(File 101-95-13) $502,223 

Total of Two Supplemental Appropriation 
Requests $1,713,237 

The proposed ordinance (Files 102-95-3) would amend the 
1995-96 Annual Salary Ordinance to reflect the addition of 78 
permanent positions, including 19 new positions and 59 
positions to be converted from temporary to permanent 
status, as follows: 









Maximum 




No. of 


Biweekly 


Annual 


Position 


Positions 


Salarv 


Salarv 


1632 Senior Account Clerk 


1 


$1,203/$1,457 


$38,028 


1818 MIS Specialist II 


1 


1,596/1,936 


50,530 


2708 Custodian 


4 


1,013/1,226 


31,999 


3204 Pool Cashier 


5 


1,008/1,220 


31,842 


3208 Lifeguard 


7 


89171,078 


28,136 


3284 Recreation Director 


54 


1,152/1,394 


36,383 


3417 Gardener 


3 


1,243/1,506 


39,307 


7328 Operating Engineer 


1 


1,543/2,166 


56,533 


7355 Truck Driver 


1 


1,484/1,890 


49,329 


7514 General Laborer 


1 


1,203/1,457 


38,028 


Total 


78 







The proposed ordinance (File 102-95-4) would amend the 
1995-96 Annual Salary Ordinance to reflect the addition of 
eight new permanent positions, as follows: 



Position 
7344 Carpenter 
7347 Plumber 
7346 Painter 
7395 Iron Worker 
7311 Cement Mason 
Total 







Maximum 


No. of 


Biweekly 


Annual 


Positions 


Salarv 


Salarv 


2 


$1,658/$2,014 


$52,565 


2 


1,909/2,319 


60,526 


2 


1,506/1,827 


47,685 


1 


1,558/1,890 


49,329 


1 
8 


1,457/1,765 


46,067 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Comments: 



1. The proposed 27 new positions and the 59 positions to be 
converted from temporary to permanent status would be 
designated as "N" positions ("new" positions) in the 1995-96 
Annual Salary Ordinance. However, although an on-going 
source of funding for the proposed enhancement in 
Recreation and Park services is currently being sought by the 
RPD, such a funding source has not yet been established. 
Thus, the Budget Analyst recommends that the proposed 
ordinances (Files 102-95-3 and 102-95-4) should be amended 
to designate these 86 positions as "L" positions ("limited 
tenure" positions) rather than "N" positions, pending the 
establishment of an on-going funding source beginning in FY 
1996-97. 



Recommendations: 



2. These two supplemental appropriation requests contain 
$1,027,547 in funding for salaries and fringe benefits for the 
proposed 27 new positions and the 59 positions to be 
converted from temporary to permanent status. However, 
funding for these 86 positions is being requested only for the 
period from approximately November 6, 1995 through June 
30, 1996 (approximately eight months). The salary and 
fringe benefit cost of the 27 new positions on an annual basis 
would be an estimated $1.3 million, and the additional salary 
and fringe benefit cost of the 59 positions to be converted to 
permanent status would be an estimated $450,000 on an 
annual basis, for a total additional annual cost of $1,750,000 
for these 86 positions. 

1. Amend the proposed ordinance (File 102-95-3) to 
designate all 78 positions as "L" positions rather than "N" 
positions, in accordance with Comment No. 1. 

2. Amend the proposed ordinance (File 102-95-4) to 
designate all eight positions as "L" positions rather than "N" 
positions, in accordance with Comment No. 1. 

3. Of the 86 proposed positions, the Budget Analyst 
recommends approval of the 59 positions which would be 
converted from temporary to permanent status. However, 
the Budget Analyst did not have sufficient time to thoroughly 
analyze the requests for the remaining 27 new positions, or 
for materials and supplies, equipment and services of other 
departments. As such, the Budget Analyst is not prepared at 
this time to make a recommendation regarding these other 
requests. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Items 11 and 12 -Files 101-95-14 and 102-95-14 



Departments: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Treasurer— Tax Collector 
City Attorney 

Supplemental appropriation of $372,000 from the General 
Fund Reserve for City Attorney services for the costs of the 
revisions to the San Francisco Tax Code and creating four 
new positions for Fiscal Year 1995-96. 

Ordinance amending the Annual Salary Ordinance for FY 
1995-96 reflecting the addition of four new positions. 

$372,000 

A General Fund reserve established by the Board of 
Supervisors in the FY 1995-96 Budget. 

The proposed supplemental ordinance would appropriate 
$372,000 from a General Fund reserve established by the 
Board of Supervisors for additional City Attorney services 
for the Tax Collector's Office. The additional City Attorney 
services would be used to identify substantial revisions to 
Part III of the City's Municipal Code pertaining to taxes 
and fees and related City Codes that would be affected by 
such revisions. 

The proposed changes to the FY 1995-96 Annual Salary 
Ordinance would include the addition of the following four 
positions: 



Classification 
and Title 



Number of Maximum Total 

Positions Annual Salary Max. Salary 



8176L Trial Attorney 2 $69,061 $138,122 

8180L Principal Attorney 1 99,598 99,598 

1458L Legal Secretary I 1 45,179 45.179 

Total 4 $282,899 

The proposed budget, according to the Tax Collector's Office 
is as follows: 



Number of 
Hours 



Estimated 
Cast 



Uniform Due Date 800 $81,278 

Revise more than 200 Code Sections to establish uniform 
due dates for many fees. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



in 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Number of Estimated 

Hours Cost 



Business/Pavroll Taxes 2,000 $211,116 

Modernize Business and Payroll Tax Ordinances to reflect 
the structure of today's local economy and avoid revenue 
losses. 

Common Administr ative Provisions 240 24,869 

Eliminate separate administrative provisions (e.g., relating 
to determinations, appeals, penalties, interest, enforcement, 
etc. ) in Articles 7, 9, 10, 10A, 11, 12-A and 12-B of Part III 
and replace with a new article providing common 
administrative provisions. The purpose is to eliminate 
inconsistencies between articles and thereby avoid 
confusion in the Tax Collector's collection process. 

Utility Users Tax 160 20,003 

Revise the Utility Users Tax to bring it up to date with the 
current structure of the utility industry and to avoid 
revenue losses resulting from outdated language. 

Stadium Operator Admissions Tax 160 15,256 

Revise article to eliminate inconsistencies and avoid 
confusion. 

Hotel Tax 2QQ 19 r 695 

Revise article to eliminate inconsistencies and avoid 
confusion. 

Total 3,560 $372,217 

The total costs above reflect an average hourly rate of 
$104.56. 

Comments: 1. In April of 1995, the Budget Analyst completed a 

management audit of the Tax Collector's Office. As part of 
this audit, the Budget Analyst recommended various 
legislative changes that are needed to standardize tax due 
dates and consolidate procedures for the Tax Collector's 
Office. Many of these changes recommended by the Budget 
Analyst are incorporated in the proposed scope of work. 

According to Ms. Julia Friedlander of the City Attorney's 
Office, Part III of the City's Municipal Code has been 
.. amended on a piecemeal basis over many years, and the 
proposed effort would enable a comprehensive review and 
evaluation of inconsistent provisions, outdated language 
and confusing regulations. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



2. According to Ms. Friedlander, the estimates of the 
number of hours to provide the above tasks was based on 
the professional judgment of the City Attorney's staff. 
According to Ms. Marty Moore of the City Attorney's Office, 
the estimated number of hours were multiplied by the City 
Attorney rates that would be assigned to the proposed 
project, including fringe benefits, administrative and 
support staff and other office expenses in these rates. Ms. 
Moore reports that existing City Attorney and Legal 
Secretary staff are anticipated to perform the work, as 
described above, for the Tax Collector's Office. Ms. Moore 
reports that the four new positions are proposed to be hired, 
at the same classification levels as the existing staff that 
will provide the proposed Tax Collector services, to back-fill 
these existing positions and, if necessary, to provide other 
City Attorney services. 

3. Ms. Moore notes that based on the actual number of 
hours calculated, the proposed supplemental appropriation 
actually reflects the addition of slightly more than two FTE 
City Attorney positions (although the proposed Salary 
Ordinance includes three City Attorney positions) and 
slightly more than one FTE Legal Secretary position 
(although the proposed Salary Ordinance includes one 
Legal Secretary position). According to Ms. Moore, the Tax 
Collector would only be billed for the actual hours worked 
on the proposed project at the actual billing rate for the 
particular employee. 

4. All of the proposed four new positions are "L" or limited 
tenure positions. Depending on the guidance received from 
the Tax Collector and the Board of Supervisors, Ms. 
Friedlander reports that the proposed project is anticipated 
to be completed during FY 1995-96. After the completion of 
the project, the four new positions would be eliminated. 

5. Ms. Moore reports that the proposed budget, as 
submitted by the City Attorney to the Tax Collector's Office, 
contained an additional $25,000 for private consulting 
services. These consultant services included two 
consultants for $20,000 to assist in the Business/Payroll 
Taxes section and another $5,000 for a consultant to assist 
in the Utility Users Tax section. Therefore, the City 
Attorney's Office reports that the proposed work would cost 
an estimated $397,000, including the $25,000 costs for 
consulting services, instead of $372,000. Ms. Gail 
Hemenway of the Tax Collector's Office reports that, if 
$25,000 of additional funds are required to provide the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



necessary consulting services, the Tax Collector could 
provide such funds through its existing FY 1995-96 budget 
allocation. 

6. The Budget Analyst questions the need to provide a total 
of 3,560 hours of City Attorney Office time at a cost of 
$372,000, to complete this review of Part III of the City's 
Municipal Code. The Budget Analyst notes that in March, 
1995, the Board of Supervisors appropriated $99,976 of 
General Fund monies to provide extensive legal assistance 
to fully revise the City's Charter. This legal assistance was 
based on an estimate of 812 hours of City Attorney time and 
some expenses for materials, printing and postage. The 
proposed request is three to four times greater than this 
previous request to revise the City's entire Charter. 

7. Given the proposed scope of work, the Budget Analyst 
also questions the need to use two Trial Attorneys and one 
Principal Attorney rather than less expensive paralegal 
staff to conduct much of this work. This would be 
particularly relevant in the Uniform Due Date section, 
(with which the Budget Analyst is most familiar) which will 
involve numerous hours of research and similar changes to 
more than 200 Code Sections. The current maximum 
annual salary for a paralegal is $48,128, in contrast to the 
lowest City Attorney position proposed in this supplemental 
appropriation which pays an annual maximum salary of 
$69,061, or a difference of $20,933 in salary alone. In 
response, Ms. Friedlander of the City Attorney's Office 
reports that she believes that more experienced City 
Attorneys are required for the proposed work. The Budget 
Analyst disagrees. 

8. Mr. Richard Sullivan of the Tax Collector's Office reports 
that he anticipates that the requirements for compatible 
due dates and simplified and consolidated procedures would 
be completed first, to facilitate the immediate collection of 
additional revenues for the City. In fact, legislation to place 
the City's Rent Board fees on a consolidated property tax 
bill is currently pending before the Housing and Land Use 
Committee. According to Ms. Friedlander, the City Attorney 
anticipates providing a preliminary report to the Tax 
Collector and the Board of Supervisors in January, 1996. 
Based on input and guidance provided by the Tax Collector 
and the Board of Supervisors, the City Attorney would then 
be able to pursue additional policy changes and revisions to 
the City's Municipal Code. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

9. Given the questions raised by the Budget Analyst 
regarding the ability to use less expensive paralegals for 
portions of this project, and the cost of this request as 
compared to the costs for City Attorney services to revise 
the City's Charter, together with the potential major 
business tax and City revenue policy implications that may 
result from the proposed work (e.g., the City Attorney 
reports that due to recent major changes in the 
telecommunications industry, there may be more 
appropriate alternatives and increased opportunities for 
Utility Users Tax revenues for the City), the Budget 
Analyst recommends reserving $186,000, or approximately 
one-half of the proposed $372,000 appropriation. The 
immediate allocation of the remaining $186,000 should be 
sufficient to complete the City Attorney's preliminary report 
by January, 1996. The Board of Supervisors would be 
presented with a preliminary report by the City Attorney in 
January, 1996 that should be the basis for more precisely 
determining the additional needed scope of work and the 
required City Attorney hours and costs to complete such 
work. 

Recommendations: Reserve $186,000 of the proposed $372,000 supplemental 
appropriation, pending receipt of the preliminary report to 
the Board of Supervisors (File 101-95-14). 

Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance, as amended (File 101-95-14). 

Approve the proposed amendment to the Annual Salary 
Ordinance (File 102-95-14). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 

Items 13 and 14 - Files 65-95-6 and 193-95-6 



Department: 
Items: 



Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

Lessee: 

No. of Sq. Ft: 

Monthly and Annual 
Rental Revenue: 



Amount Paid Under 
Existing Lease: 



Recreation and Park Department (RPD) 

Item 13, File 65-95-6 is an ordinance approving a 15-year 
lease between the City and County of San Francisco, 
acting through and by the Recreation and Park 
Commission, and Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc., which 
provides for the operation of the horse stables in Golden 
Gate Park. 

Item 14, File 193-95-6 is a resolution authorizing the 
erection, enlargement and expansion of structures on the 
premises of the Golden Gate Park Stables. 

Golden Gate Park Stables, adjacent to Golden Gate Park 
Stadium (Polo Fields), located in Golden Gate Park 

Operation of public horse stables, which include 75 horse 
stalls and related service structures 

Recreation and Park Commission 

Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. 

83,448 square feet 



Because the lessee (Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc.) would 
be performing various capital improvements at the stables 
at its sole expense, the proposed lease provides for an 
initial two-year rent-free period for the lessee (See under 
"Description" below). Beginning in the third year of the 
proposed lease, Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. would pay 
the Recreation and Park Department (RPD) a minimum 
annual rental or a percentage of gross receipts, as 
specified below, whichever is greater: 

(a) Minimum Annual Guarantee 
$2,000 per month or $24,000 per year 
($0,024 per square foot per month) 

OR 

(b) 3% of all gross receipts below $700,000; plus 
8% of all gross receipts $700,000 and above 



The rent paid by the current lessee, Golden Gate Park 
Stables, Inc., is the higher amount of the minimum 
annual guarantee or seven percent of gross receipts, as 
specified below: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal; 



Description: 



(a) Minimum Annual Guarantee 
$400 per month or $4,800 per year 
($0,005 per square foot per month) 

OR 

(b) 7% of gross receipts 



Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: No 



The Golden Gate Park Stables have been operated on a 
month-to-month basis by Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. 
since the expiration of the prior lease with Golden Gate 
Park Stables, Inc. in December of 1991 (see under 
"Description" below). The proposed new lease would have 
a term of 15 years, commencing on approximately 
September 15, 1995 and expiring on September 15, 2010. 

There would be one option to renew for a five-year period. 
The renewal option would be subject to a higher negotiated 
percentage and minimum annual rent, which would 
reflect prevailing market rates. Such rental rates would 
not be subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. 
However, the annual rent could not be less than seven 
percent of all gross receipts or $50,000 annually, 
whichever is greater. 

Section 7.401-1 of the Charter authorizes the Board of 
Supervisors to review and approve by ordinance a lease 
entered into by a department, board or commission for a 
period of time in excess of ten years or having anticipated 
revenue to the City of $1 million or more. 

The Golden Gate Park Stables were operated under a lease 
agreement between Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. and 
the RPD from April of 1990 through December of 1991 (21 
months). That lease, which was previously approved by 
the Board of Supervisors, contained a provision allowing 
the RPD to extend the lease upon its expiration on a 
month-to-month basis for an indefinite period of time, as 
shown in Attachment 1. As such, since January of 1992, 
Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. has operated the Golden 
Gate Park Stables on a month-to-month basis. 

The proposed ordinance (File 65-95-6) would approve a 
new lease for the operation of the Golden Gate Park 
Stables. Through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, 
the RPD awarded a new lease agreement for the operation 
of Golden Gate Park Stables to Golden Gate Park Stables, 
Inc. (See Comment No. 3). This lease provides for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



36 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



equestrian instruction, guided trail rides, the boarding of 
privately-owned horses and other activities (such as the 
option to offer carriage rides to the public) by Golden Gate 
Park Stables, Inc. Specific provisions of the proposed 
lease are as follows: 

• Public programs such as trail rides and riding lessons 
would take precedence over the boarding of privately 
owned horses. At least 25 horses would have to be 
made available by the lessee for rental and instruction. 
Of the remaining 50 horse stalls, up to 25 stalls could 
be used to board privately-owned horses and up to two 
stalls could be used for horses owned by Golden Gate 
Park Stables, Inc. The number of stalls to be used by 
horses for carriage rides would be at the discretion of 
the lessee, subject to approval of the Recreation and 
Park Commission. 

• Under this proposed lease, Golden Gate Park Stables, 
Inc. would be required to continue operation of the 
stables at the existing rates for lessons and trail rides. 
The proposed lease agreement provides that the RPD 
may consider fee increase proposals on an annual 
basis after the substantial completion of capital 
improvements by the lessee. A cumulative rate 
increase of 20 percent would be permitted over the 15- 
year term of the lease, not including annual Consumer 
Price Index (CPI) adjustments. Any rate increases 
would not require approval by the Board of Supervisors. 
A schedule of the existing rates is shown in 
Attachment 2. 

• The lessee would also have the option to engage in the 
sale of horse care supplies, tack, saddles, hats, boots, 
items of equestrian clothing, food and beverages. The 
prices for such items would be determined by the 
lessee. In addition, the lessee would also have the 
option of offering carriage rides in Golden Gate Park to 
the public. The revenues generated by the sale of such 
items and of carriage rides would be included in the 
calculation of gross receipts, of which, as previously 
noted, the RPD would receive three percent of the 
amount under $700,000 plus eight percent of the 
amount above $700,000. 

• The rates for boarding, riding lessons, trail rides and 
carriage rides would be subject to approval by the 
Recreation and Park Commission. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



• The lessee would be required to maintain a list of 
boarders and a waiting list. 

• Horses for trail rides and riding lessons would be 
available to the public seven days per week on a year- 
round basis. 

• Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. would be required to 
provide security on a 24-hour basis. The proposed lease 
requires that a night manager be employed by Golden 
Gate Park Stables, Inc. to patrol the stables on a 
regular schedule between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 
8:00 a.m. This schedule would be determined by the 
lessee and would require approval by the Recreation 
and Park Commission. In addition, such rounds 
would have to be documented by an electronic 
verification system to be purchased and installed at the 
lessee's sole expense. 

• Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. would be responsible 
for proper disposal of animal waste, purchasing and 
installing laundry appliances, cleaning and supplying 
restrooms, maintaining and cleaning drainage 
systems, maintaining and repairing horse rings and 
arenas, and maintaining and repairing buildings and 
structures on the premises. 

• The proposed lease requires that Golden Gate Park 
Stables, Inc., at its sole expense, perform various 
capital improvements at the stables in accordance with 
a specified schedule. Such improvements include 
performing upgrades in order to comply with the San 
Francisco Building Code, rebuilding the arenas, 
renovating the horse stalls, constructing an office and 
on-site residence and rebuilding the barns. The 
estimated cost of these improvements is approximately 
$650,000. Attachment 3 contains a detailed listing of 
the capital improvements, the schedule on which these 
capital improvements are to be completed and the 
estimated costs of all capital improvements to be paid 
for 100 percent by Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. In 
return, the RPD has agreed to a long-term lease and to 
a two-year rent-free period for the lessee. Failure by 
the lessee to meet the capital improvement schedule 
would be grounds for termination of the lease. 

Section 3.552 of the San Francisco Charter requires that 
the erection, enlargement or expansion of buildings or 
structures in Golden Gate Park be approved by a two- 
thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors. The proposed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 

resolution (File 193-95-6) would authorize the capital 
improvements described in the foregoing paragraph to be 
completed at the Golden Gate Park Stables. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Phil Arnold of the RPD, the higher 

amount of the (a) minimum annual rent of $24,000 or (b) 
three percent of gross receipts below $700,000 plus eight 
percent of gross receipts of $700,000 or more, is based on a 
review and analysis by the RPD of the stables' expected 
income, operating costs and capital improvement costs 
over the next 15 years. According to Mr. Arnold, the 
minimum rent was set at a level that would allow rates to 
the public for instruction and riding to be maintained at a 
reasonable level. 

2. The RPD reports that the Department has received an 
average rent of $37,000 per year over the past three years 
from Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. The RPD estimates 
that the proposed lease would generate revenues to the 
City of between $24,000 and $37,000 per year beginning in 
the third year of the proposed lease agreement. 

3. In response to an RFP issued in March of 1994 for the 
operation of the Golden Gate Park Stables, the RPD 
received two bids. This RFP was advertised in the San 
Francisco Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle on 
three weekdays and two weekends during March, 1994, 
and a letter was mailed to 44 interested parties. Among 
other requirements, the RFP stipulated that the bidder (a) 
have a minimum of three years experience in operating a 
public stable; (b) submit a plan for completing specified 
capital improvements; and (c) pay a minimum annual 
rental of $50,000 or ten percent of gross receipts, 
whichever was greater. However, both bids, one from 
Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. and one from the San 
Francisco Equestrian Center (SFEC), were rejected by the 
RPD for failure to meet the financial requirements of the 
RFP. 

The RPD issued a second RFP in October of 1994 which 
eased the financial requirements of the bidders by 
reducing (a) the minimum annual rent from $50,000 to 
$24,000 and (b) the percentage of gross receipts from ten 
percent of all gross receipts to three percent of gross 
receipts of less than $700,000, plus eight percent of gross 
receipts of $700,000 or more. In addition, the second RFP 
allowed the bidder to have a rent-free period of up to two 
years. The second RFP was not advertised in any 
newspapers but was issued to between 20 and 25 interested 
parties which had requested a copy of the original RFP. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Still, only two bids were submitted: one from the San 
Francisco Equestrian Center and one from Golden Gate 
Park Stables, Inc. Attachment 4, provided by the RPD, 
summarizes and compares both bids. 

In ranking the two bids, the staff of the RPD awarded 100 
points to the San Francisco Equestrian Center and 79 
points to the Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc., out of a 
possible score of 100 points. As such, RPD staff initially 
recommended to the Finance Committee of the Recreation 
and Park Commission that the lease be awarded to the 
San Francisco Equestrian Center. However, at a meeting 
of the Finance Committee in November of 1994, a number 
of questions were raised about the qualifications and plans 
of operation submitted by both the San Francisco 
Equestrian Center and Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc., 
and the Committee requested that the RPD staff conduct a 
second review. 

After reviewing further documentation provided by both 
bidders and after interviewing horse care professionals 
and operators of other public stables, RPD staff 
recommended to the Commission instead that the 
contract be awarded to Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc., 
even though San Francisco Equestrian Center had 
received a higher score in the initial ranking. According 
to Mr. Arnold, the recommendation to award the contract 
to Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. rather than the San 
Francisco Equestrian Center was based on the RPD's 
determination that (a) Golden Gate Park Stables, Inc. was 
better qualified to manage a public stable; (b) the 
allegations against both bidders regarding poor horse care 
were unfounded; (c) the allegations against both bidders 
regarding financial responsibility were unfounded; and 
(d) issuing a third RFP would likely require the RPD to 
further ease the financial requirements of the bidders, 
thereby potentially shifting a portion of the cost of capital 
improvements to the City. In addition, in a memo dated 
June 9, 1995 addressed to the Recreation and Park 
Commission, Mr. Arnold states that "as a result of this re- 
evaluation, staff has concluded that SFEC has not 
provided the documentation required in the Request for 
Proposal to demonstrate that the management team of 
SFEC meets the minimum requirements for management 
of the stables in Golden Gate Park." As such, the 
Recreation and Park Commission approved a resolution 
in June- of 1995 which, recommended that the contract to 
operate Golden Gate Park Stables be awarded to Golden 
Gate Park Stables, Inc. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



40 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Recommendation: 



As noted above, in ranking the two bids received, the staff 
of the RPD awarded 100 points to San Francisco 
Equestrian Center and 79 points to Golden Gate Park 
Stables, Inc. Although the RPD staff had initially 
recommended awarding the lease agreement to San 
Francisco Equestrian Center, the Finance Committee of 
the Recreation and Park Commission requested that the 
RPD staff further review the bids. After further review, 
RPD staff recommended to the Recreation and Park 
Commission that the lease agreement to operate Golden 
Gate Park Stables be awarded to Golden Gate Park 
Stables, Inc., rather than San Francisco Equestrian 
Center, even through Golden Gate Park Stables had 
received a lower score in the initial ranking by RPD staff. 
As previously noted, this reversal was partially based on a 
re-evaluation of the experience of the management team 
of San Francisco Equestrian Center, in which the RPD 
staff concluded that "SFEC has not provided the 
documentation required in the Request for Proposal to 
demonstrate that the management team of SFEC meets 
the minimum requirements for management of the 
stables in Golden Gate Park." As such, the Budget 
Analyst considers approval of the proposed ordinance 
(File 65-95-6) and the proposed resolution (File 193-95-6) to 
be policy matters for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



•95 1Y.-29 FROM- 



Attachment .1 



United States mall, postage prepaid, and addressed to Lasaee at 
100 Calif ornia Street, suit* 12Uo, San Pranclseo, California 9U111. 
All notices required to be given to Lessor hereunder or by Law 
shall be deemed given to lessee by depositing sane In the United 
States mall, postage prepaid, and addressed to the Recreation and 
Park C omm ission, McLaren Lodge, Oolden date Park, Pell and stanyun 
streets, Sen Francisco, California 9^117. 
1*9. AUTHORITY OPAffETffS OP LESSOR . 

Ko agent or representative of the Lessor has any authority 
to vary the terms of this agreement, or to extend the rights and 
privileges, as herein set forth, or to make any statements or 
representations concerning this lease, or the rights and privileges 
herein set forth, except such aa may be endorsed hereon in writing, 
and then only after approval by the Commission. 
50. BDLDTWO .OVT SR. 

Any holding over of the tern creeted, as subject to- the 
option to renew contained in paragraph 5^ of this Lease, shall be 
a tenancy from month to month only, at the rental sat forth is 
Section k hereof, and otherwise be on the um terse and conditions 
herein specified. 
-^51, HOADS ATO PAJH3 EXCLUDED , 

The demised premises m shown en the attached Exhibit "A" 
shall not be deemed to include exclusive use of any road or path 
peaalng through the area* marked. 
s_51a. HB a T HIlTlO WS OB USE 0? TOADS ASP PATHS , 

Leaaor agrees to maintain re strict ion on the use of any 
road or path passing through the areas marked on Exhibit "A" for 
the aafe management of horses and all functions described in 
paragraph t of this Laaae. 
52. WAIVES . 

The waiver by the City of any breach of any term, covenant 
or condition b«rein contained shell not be deemed to be a waiver 
of such term, covenant or condition for any subsequent breach of 
the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. 
The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by the City shall not 
be deemed to be a waiver of any prior occurring breach by Lessee' 
of any term, covenant or condition herein contained regardless of 

17 



Attachment 2 



GOLDEN GATE PARK STABLES LEASE Rates and Charges 

Recreation and Park Commission Minutes 
Thursday, December 16, 1993 

GOLDEN GATE PARK STABLES 



RES. NO. 16795 



RESOLVED, That this Commission approves monthly board fees effective 
February I, l 994 for Golden Gate Park Stables, as follows: 

APPROVED 



, ; . 



Monthly Board : daily ration of 
bale bedding, one flake of 
alfalfa & two flake oats. 



/3 



$325 effective 
2/1/94 



FURTHER RESOLVED, 
effective January 
Lessons 



That this Commission approves 
l 994 for Golden Gate Park Stables 



oth 
as 



Hr, Private 

Hr, Semi-private (2 People) 
Hr, Semi-private (3 People) 
Hr, Group (4 *■ persons) 
Hr, Group (6 Lesson Pkg -Pre Paid) 
No Show Fee: 



Jumpi ng 

Summer Camp 

Ages 8-12 Includes approximately 20 hrs or riding per week 

Trai l ride s : l Hr W/Guide 

Private 

Group 2 - l 

Group of 4 + with advance reservation 

Extra Feed (Boarder) 



Extra Bedding (Boarder) 



New Services 



Infant' s Pony Ride assisted, 10 min. 
Discounts available for groups of 4+ 
Student Leasing 
School horse 4 times per month 



er fee changes 
fol lows : 

$35 
$25 
$22 

$20 per person 
$18 per person 
Operator t< 
keep 507. of pei 
lesson f?e 
$25 
$300/week 



$35 
$20 
$18 
$70 
$50 

$ 4 



:-.• ■-: 



$50 



SOU^ <** «** ST*** 5 LEA5C ^'^ ^ C ^^ l**'******* 

v vmarm w cpb*™, sub^cTto MWW. W us*« 

G0lDEH6ATEiWSTABlES.hc 

YEAR (W£: . *l*<5flfiO 

Ltl Speedway Arena JK'ggg 

Central Arena. Reo'mt- \5000 

feiuooA Arena ------ J« a**) 

Haybarn J. East Ring £ooO 

ArcK/EnaIneeerirt9 - - -J* 

plans & permits \ . -. , SfiOO 

Plan I Krrft Revtev' j^^ 

Farrier Structure — --' — y 

Boarder Fee4. • *.M° 

Boarding Stablest 3 5 OOO 

Arch/EnqM 3,960 

J 45 ofioo 

YGARTHW^ *|50 0<?0 

/v»P ffeUR; 0^*0?/ Caretaker 5^000 

porch t Deck ----- - ■ iit'octf) 

Tack %r Instruct I oft - - • { ^ oO 
Arch/Planning ----- -T^HOOO 

ScKool Barn- : ----- - - . 7X'«^ n 

WPA Sta» t fcrter i ors . - - - . -»J £gg 
Arch/Engineer lag . r^fe^ 

YEAkSA^: * £3,000 

Grandstand Stall* "To 000 

Parking Lot* ,: > - - ' qqQ 

txtenor tight mfl ,.-.-• VnQO 

Demolition, etc- t'nnn 

Arch/Fnglft/PUnniJis, . - -g-J^~~^ 



w 



Attachment 4 
Page 1 of 2 



Kj «j 


L 




















o 


-J dJ 


•n u 




o 


"1 * 








c 








•-• «e 


a o 




l " 




o o. 




c 


© ■" 






01 




V r— 




4 






c 


J 


Oi CTi 


1— '0 






=- C 


jcf L- 




a 


>iUJ 






DO 




o. — 


Q3 





o o o — 

O <z> O <7* 

o o o 

1/1 fvl fsl 



u C «i 

«) 1^ w 

L- -ji *j o O 

•O -— CL 



■OBI 
► • — <T V* 



-UliOr- 



O CD C3 <ZJ O O 

O O O - - - 

• - -«n o o 

>^3 n m f ni «— ci 



UJ a, M U. 



IS CJ u > <- o 
i cr • c m 4; i- 

I U i - -1 .c 1 



WOO OC OO W 

OOPOOO i 

o o u~> o o o 



E £ 





oa 








vn 




























■ •« 












X 




O. 












c «I 




















a jl 








a 
















X 












c 
















- * 




- . ra -» 




O L 




o 




i 




«• o 




3 




-o c 




U HI 




g 






y- 


<b C3 


•n C 










■- c 


C 






>- 


Ui 


* (\j 


L. — 


C X 


OC 


c £ 




"4- *> 


«l 


o 








L. LA 


O 


a « 


< 
















'.'■« 


o 


'Z - 


6 '- 








w <fl 










<r 


-c rc. 


ft! 


Q 










a> 










o 




— .J 




Si 




a> 








CD 


i> 


ui -J 






>■ 


[NJ 


V> :< 




i_ 




< 








cr ** 


1 


»_> o 




\ — 




>» 




CL 








4i CT 








C t* 




























CO 
















««1 c 










< 




a 










fl. <0 


'-J 


•J O 








— ' 




M 


4/ O 


% "* 


■/"> 








o 














a c 


« 






3 C 






PC 




a 






E «- 


u < 




■a O 


■i) 


o 


s 




■ C T> 






• c <o 




UJ 


jt 




1/-I 


3 


•i — . ._ 




""" 


CO "-" VI 



























Attachment 
Page 2 of 



a es < 

ci r- 

*- <M UJ 



£2 



TO —I 

I— CO CO 



o •-< 



—4 o a 

• — e 

• c o 
a9 —• o 






at id id 
i- a t 





~J V *A 


'0 


1/1 k 


1- 


dj CTl Cm 


Qj 


S C c» 


a. 


.^ ig 


o 






</> 3 <fl 




e e e 


a 


M 






c 


C" .C f 




<S Oi en 






Q. 


Q. C C 



— 1 ^ 



-~ »J o 



c C7> 

— <^ 
-J c 



i— 111 c 



~ r- ^ 



•.-s 






■- c; 
E 11 



,- C "S, 



8T :39yd 



T9b0SSS:Ql 



46 



:W0yj 2.0 :£T S6 12-1 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Item 15 - File 117-95-1 

Department: 

Item: 



Fire Department 

Ordinance amending the Fire Code by amending Sections 
3.104, 4.204, 4.207 and 4.208, to increase the fees for 
reinspection of violations, service fees, high-rise inspection 
fees, fees for review of plans submitted with building permit 
applications and for inspection of building construction. 

Description: Sections 3.104, 4.204, 4.207 and 4.208 of the Fire Code list 

the fees that the Fire Department is authorized to charge for 
various fire hazard inspection services. The proposed 
ordinance would increase the existing fees charged by the 
Fire Department for the fire hazard inspection services 
specified in Sections 3.104, 4.204, 4.207 and 4.208 of the Fire 
Code in order to recover a greater portion of the costs 
associated with providing these services. The proposed fee 
increases, which will become effective 30 days after approval 
by the Mayor, are described below. 

Plan Review Fee 

Section 4.208(a) of the Fire Code authorizes the Fire 
Department to charge a fee for reviewing the construction 
plans that accompany a building permit application for 
potential fire hazards. The existing fees are based on the 
dollar value of the construction work to be performed and 
would be modified by the proposed ordinance as follows: 



Value of 
Work 



Existing 
Fee 



Proposed 



$0 - $1,000 $25.00 



$1,000 -- 
$5,000 



$5,000 - 
$10,000 



$10,000 
$50,000 



$25.00 plus 
$7.50 
per $1,000 
over $1,000 

$55.00 
plus $5.00 
per $1,000 
over $5,000 

$80 plus 
$2.50 
per $1,000 
over $10,000 



$33.00 

$33.00 plus 
$10.00 
per $1,000 
over $1,000 

$73.00 plus 
$6.60 
per $1,000 
over $5,000 

$106 plus 
$3,325 per 
$1,000 over 
$10,000 



% 
Increase 

32% 

32% 



32.7% 



33.5% 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to 
August 2 


Budget Committee 
, 1995 










Value of 
Work 


Existing 
Fee 


Proposed 
Fee 


% 
Increase 




$50,000 -- 
$100,000 


$180 plus 
$1.60 per 
$1,000 over 
$50,000 


$239 plus 
$2.12 per 
$1,000 over 
$50,000 


32.8% 




$100,000 -- 
$500,000 


$260 plus 
$.70 per 
$1,000 over 
$100,000 


$345 plus 
$.925 per 
$1,000 over 
$100,000 


32.7% 




$500,000 -- 
$2,500,000 


$540 plus 
$.38 per 
$1,000 over 
$500,000 


$715 plus 
$.51 per 
$1,000 over 
$500,000 


32.4% 




$2,500,000 -- 
$5,000,000 


$1,300 plus 
$.24 per 
$1,000 over 
$2,500,000 


$1,735 plus 
$.314 per 
$1,000 over 
$2,500,000 


33.5% 




$5,000,000 -- 
$15,000,000 


$1,900 plus 
$.15 per 
$1,000 over 
$5,000,000 


$2,520 plus 
$.20 per 
$1,000 over 
$5,000,000 


32.6% 




$15,000,000 -- 
$30,000,000 


$3,400 plus 
$.09 per 
$1,000 over 
$15,000,000 


$4,520 plus 
$.12 per 
$1,000 over 
$15,000,000 


32.9% 




$30,000,000 -- 
$50,000,000 


$4,750 plus 
$.0675 per 
$1,000 over 
$30,000,000 


$6,320 plus 
$.09 per 
$1,000 over 
$30,000,000 


33.1% 




$50,000,000 -- 
$100,000,000 


$6,100 plus 
$.05 per 
$1,000 over 
$50,000,000 


$8,120 plus 
$.066 per 
$1,000 over 
$50,000,000 


33.1% 




$100,000,000 
and above 


$8,600 plus 
$.03 per 
$1,000 over 
$100,000,000 


$11,420 plus 
$.04 per 
$1,000 over 
$100,000,000 


32.8% 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



48 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Field Inspection Fee 

Section 4.208(b) of the Fire Code authorizes the Fire 
Department to charge a fee for conducting on site field 
inspections to certify that building construction and 
construction plans are in compliance with fire safety 
regulations. The existing fees associated with these 
inspections are based on the dollar value of the work being 
performed and would be modified by the proposed ordinance 
as follows: 



Value of 
Work 


Existing 
Fee 


Proposed 
Fee 


% 
Increase 


$0 - $10,000 


$62.50 


$68.50 


9.6% 


$10,000 - 
$50,000 


$62.50 


$128.00 


104.8% 


$50,000 - 
$5000,000 


$125.00 


$187.50 


50% 


$500,000 and 
above 


$187.50 plus 
$62.50/hour 
of inspection 
time above 3 
hours 


$281.25 plus 
$68.50/hour 
of inspection 
time above 3 
hours 


50% and 9.6% 


ReinsDection of Violation Fee 





Section 3.104(a) of the Fire Code authorizes the Fire 
Department to charge a fee for reinspecting property 
previously cited for violation of fire safety regulations. The 
existing fee charged for reinspecting this property would be 
modified by the proposed ordinance as follows: 



Existing Fee 

$60 



Proposed Fee 

$68.50 



% Increase 
14.2% 



Service Inspection Fee 

Section 4.204(b) of the Fire Code authorizes the Fire 
Department to charge a fee for responding to requests from 
persons or firms seeking a preliminary site inspection or 
survey of a premise for compliance with fire safety 
regulations. The existing fee for this inspection would be 
modified by the proposed ordinance as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 



Comments: 



Existing Fee 

$62.50 



Proposed Fpp 

$68.50 



% increase 

9.6% 



High Rise Inspection Fee 

Section 4.207 of the Fire Code authorizes a fee to be charged 
by the Fire Department for conducting inspections of high 
rise structures. The existing fee for this inspection would be 
modified by the proposed ordinance as follows: 



Existing Fee 

$4 per 
1,000 sq. ft, 



Proposed Fee 

$4.91 per 
1,000 sq. ft. 



% Increase 



22.8% 



1. According to Mr. Robert Fuller of the Fire Department, 
actual revenues in the amount of $1,376,379 were generated 
by the above-noted existing fees in FY 1993-94. The 
Department estimates that the proposed ordinance would 
generate an additional $435,203 in revenues annually from 
the proposed increased fees, for total estimated annual 
revenues of $1,811,582. Based on an estimated effective 
implementation date of October 1, 1995, and based on prior 
inspection service levels, the above-noted fees would produce 
an estimated $1.7 million in total revenues in FY 1995-96. 

2. The estimated increase in revenues that are projected to 
result from increasing the above-noted fees were not included 
in the Fire Departments FY 1995-96 budget, as adopted by 
the Board of Supervisors, according to Mr. Fuller. Such 
additional revenue would accrue to the General Fund. 

3. The proposed fee increases for High-Rise Inspection (Fire 
Code Sec. 4.207), Plan Review (Fire Code Sec. 4.208(a)), and 
Service Inspection (Fire Code Sec. 4.204(b)) will permit the 
Fire Department to recoup the costs incurred by providing 
these services, according to Mr. Fuller. However, the 
increase in fees charged for both Field Inspection (Fire Code 
Sec 4.208(b)) and Reinspection of Violation (Fire Code Sec. 
3.104(a)) will only cover a portion of the expenses incurred by 
the Fire Department for providing these services. The Fire 
Department plans to request a gradual phase-in of the 
necessary fee increases for these latter services over a three- 
year period, according to Captain Thomas Harvey of the Fire 
Department. 

4. Mr. Fuller advises that the required fees for Field 
Inspection (Fire Code Sec. 4.208 (b)), Plan Review (Fire Code 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



50 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 

Sec. 4.208(a)), and Service Inspection (Fire Code Sec. 
4.204(b)) were last increased in 1991. The required fees for 
High-Rise Inspection (Fire Code Sec. 4.207) and Reinspection 
of Violation (Fire Code Sec. 3.104) were last increased in 

1988. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 

Item 16 and 17 - File 82-95-1 and 82-95-1.1 

Department: Real Estate Department 

Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Item: Item 16, File 82-95-1 - Resolution declaring intention of the 

Board of Supervisors to vacate a sewer and public utilities 
easement located within Block 735, Lot 26 (1096 Eddy Street) 
in exchange for a new utility easement; setting a hearing 
date for all persons interested in the proposed vacation. 

Item 17, File 82-95-1.1 - Ordinance ordering the vacation of a 
sewer and public utilities easement located within Block 735, 
Lot 26 (1096 Eddy Street). 

Description: The Real Estate Department reports that the owners of 

property located at 1096 Eddy Street have requested the 
vacation and exchange of an existing City public sewer and 
utilities easement for a new utility easement. According to 
Mr. John Panieri of the Real Estate Department, the owners 
of the 1096 Eddy Street property, Mr. Ralph Dayan, Mrs. 
Sarah Dayan and Skyline Realty, have entered into a 
contract to sell the property to Progress Foundation, a non- 
profit organization, and its affiliate Eddy Street Apartments, 
also a non-profit organization, which plans to develop 21 low 
income residential units for mentally disabled adults on the 
parcel of land. The Real Estate Department reports that the 
Progress Foundation and Eddy Street Apartments cannot 
proceed with the proposed low income housing development 
without the relocation of the City's easement because the 
current terms of the easement prohibit construction over the 
easement area. As such, the easement must be vacated prior 
to the property being sold to the Progress Foundation. 

The proposed ordinance (File 82-95-1.1) would order the 
vacation of the City's public sewer and utilities easement 
located within Block 735 Lot No. 26 (1096 Eddy Street), in 
exchange for a new easement. The existing City-owned 
utility easement contains approximately 6,153 square feet, 
and the proposed new utilities easement contains 
approximately 2,869 square feet or 3,284 square feet less 
than the existing easement. 

The Department of City Planning reports that the proposed 
vacation and exchange of the sewer and public utilities 
easement for a new utility easement is consistent with the 
City's Master Plan and the Eight Priority Policies of Planning 
Code Section 101.1. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

■52 



Memo to Budget Committee 
August 2, 1995 

Comments: 1. The proposed resolution (File 82-95-1) would schedule a 

hearing regarding the proposed vacation and exchange of 
easements. Therefore, if the Budget Committee wishes to 
approve the proposed resolution, the legislation should be 
amended to set the date and hour of the hearing. 

2. If the finding by the Board of Supervisors at the public 
hearing is in favor of the proposed vacation and exchange of 
the easements, the proposed ordinance (File 82-95-1.1) which 
orders the vacation of the easement, would then be 
considered by the Board of Supervisors. 

3. The Real Estate Department reports that the vacation of 
the City's public sewer and utilities easement in exchange for 
a new easement would be implemented at no cost to the City. 
Mr. Panieri advises that $2,500 has been paid by the 
Dayan's, to the City, for DPW administrative costs associated 
with the easement exchange. Mr. Panieri also advises that 
although the proposed new easement is 3,284 square feet less 
than the City's existing easement, the decrease in square 
footage will have no negative impact on the City's usage of 
the easement. 

4. The Real Estate Department reports that the following 
agencies have utility lines within the City's existing 
easement: PG&E, Pacific Bell, DPW, and the Department of 
Electricity. According to Mr. Panieri, the previously noted 
agencies have been notified of and confirm the vacation and 
exchange of the existing utilities easement. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution (File 82-95-1) to set the 
date and hour of the public hearing and approve as amended. 

2. Refer the proposed ordinance (File 82-95-1.1) to the Board 
of Supervisors without recommendation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 18 - File 251-95-2 



Item: 



Description: 



Resolution approving a Preliminary Engineer's Report for a 
special assessment district designated "Bayshore Hester 
Assessment District No. 95-1'; calling for a public meeting 
and hearing, and directing the Clerk of the Board to provide 
notice thereof; and authorizing other official action in 
connection therewith. 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation, 
which, in part, (1) declared the City's intent to form the 
Bayshore Hester Assessment District No. 95-1 (Assessment 
District), at the request of Bayshore Hester Associates, for 
the purpose of financing certain improvements related to the 
development of 48 single-family housing units, located at 
Hester Avenue and Bayshore Blvd., (2) directed the 
preparation of a preliminary engineer's report in connection 
with this proposed Assessment District, and (3) provided for 
the issuance of Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds (File 
251-95-1). 

Pursuant to Section 185, Article VI of the City's Public Works 
Code and the State Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, the 
City is authorized to form special assessment districts to 
implement public works projects and improvements. 
Improvements in connection with the proposed single-family 
housing development would involve the construction of a new 
public right-of-way for 48 single-family houses, which would 
consist of the following: (1) excavation, (2) construction of 
retaining walls, (3) back filling of soil, off-hauling of excess 
soil, (4) construction of roads, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, (5) 
construction of a joint utilities trench for electricity, gas, 
telephone and cable television, (6) construction of a water 
line, and sewer line, (7) the installation of lights and fire 
hydrants and (8) the relocation of street signs. 

The proposed resolution would (1) approve the Preliminary 
Engineer's Report for the proposed Assessment District, and 
(2) would set the time and date for a public meeting and 
hearing and direct the Clerk of the Board's Office to provide 
notice thereof. 

The Preliminary Engineer's Report was prepared by Moran 
Engineering, a firm hired by Bayshore Hester Associates. 
The preliminary engineer's report states that the cost of the 
improvements which are 1 planned under the proposed 
Assessment District are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Construction $996,465 

Permits and Fees 122,235 

Incidental Costs 424.500 

Total Costs $1,543,200 
Less Developer's (Bayshore Hester Associates) 

Contribution ($283.200) 

Balance to Assessment District $1,260,000 

Attachment I, provided from the Preliminary Engineer's 
Report, details the estimated expenditures noted above. 
Included in the $424,500 for Incidental Costs is an estimated 
$10,000 for administrative costs incurred by the City up to 
the time that the bonds are issued. Such costs would include, 
but not necessarily be limited to (1) bond issuance, 
coordination, and oversight by the CAO and City Attorney's 
Office, (2) placement of assessments on the rolls and billing of 
property owners by the Tax Collector, and (3) verification of 
the cost estimates, included in the Preliminary Engineer's 
Report, for the improvements by the Department of Public 
Works. 

The Developer's Contribution of $283,200 is the difference 
between the estimated amount of the improvements, which is 
$1,543,200, and the maximum amount of bonds that the 
developer estimates can be issued, which is $1,260,000. The 
maximum amount of bonds which can be issued is based on 
the value of the subject property. 

Bayshore Hester Associates has requested that the City issue 
Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds to finance the above- 
noted improvements and the establishment of the proposed 
Assessment District. The purpose of these bonds would be to 
provide the upfront monies for the costs of the proposed 
improvements and to pay for the costs of issuing the bonds, 
including the reimbursement of any and all costs incurred by 
the City. The estimated amount of the bonds is $1,300,000, 
which would be repaid from the assessments levied against 
and paid by the property owners within the Assessment 
District. 

The Preliminary Engineer's Report advises that the proposed 
Assessment District will be sub-divided into 20 lots. As 
previously noted, the actual number of housing units planned 
for the proposed housing development is 48. However, the 
Preliminary Engineer's Report reflects the number of lots, at 
20. The 20 lots are included in the subdivision map that is 
currently on file with the City. According to Mr. Mark 
Curran, a consultant to Bayshore Hester Associates, a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

revised subdivision map, which reflects 48 lots, will be filed 
with the City at a later date. The Preliminary Engineer's 
Report proposes an assessment of $31,500 each on 18 of the 
lots for a total of $567,000 plus $283,500 and $409,500 
respectively for lots 19 and 20, for total assessments of 
$1,260,000 for 20 lots to pay for the proposed improvements 
in the Assessment District. Based on 48 lots, if the lots are 
subdivided equally, the total assessment against each 
property owner would be $26,250 ($1,260,000 divided by 48 
lots). This assessment amount would be paid off by the 
property owners in monthly installments. 

Additionally, the Preliminary Engineer's Report states that 
in the event there is not sufficient monies from interest 
earnings on the bond funds to reimburse the City fully for on- 
going administrative costs associated with the administering 
of the bond funds, the City will levy an annual assessment 
against each of the planned 48 lots within the Assessment 
District, to acquire full reimbursement. On-going 
administrative activities that would be performed by the City 
would include secondary market disclosure reports, required 
by Federal law, which contain information on any material 
event in connection with the bond funds which could 
jeopardize the repayment of the bonds (e. g., foreclosures on 
assessed property) and management of the bond funds. Mr. 
Curran estimates that the processing of the disclosure 
reports would cost the City a total of approximately $3,000 
annually and the management of the bond funds would cost 
the City approximately $2,500 annually, for a total of 
approximately $5,500. According to the Preliminary 
Engineer's Report, the maximum amount of such annual 
assessment for the entire Assessment District shall be equal 
to 4.28 percent of the annual installment levied against each 
assessed lot for the proposed improvements. 

Comments: 1. Attachment II is a table, prepared by Mr. Curran, which 

outlines the total estimated monthly payments, including 
mortgage payments, property taxes and assessments that 
would be paid by property owners within the proposed 
Assessment District for a single family home costing 
$250,000. Mr. Curran calculated the assessment amount 
based on 48 housing units within the proposed Assessment 
District. 

2. Mr. Curran advises that the planned 48 housing units, 
which consist of three and four bedroom single-family houses, 
will range in price from approximately $250,000 to 
approximately $270,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Comment: 



Recommendations: 



3. Mr. Olson Lee of the Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 
advises that Bayshore Hester Associates agreed to pay the 
City the sum of $135,000, to be deposited to the Citywide 
Affordable Housing Fund, in lieu of Bayshore Hester 
Associates designating three of the planned 48 housing units 
as "affordable" housing. Attachment III, is a memo from Mr. 
Olson which references the $135,000 amount. 

Since the proposed resolution would call for a public meeting 
and hearing, if the Board of Supervisors chooses to approve 
the proposed resolution, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to set the date, time and the place of the public 
meeting and hearing. 

1. As previously noted, the Preliminary Engineer's Report, 
and the subdivision map that is on file with the City, 
currently references 20 lots, instead of the 48 lots which are 
planned by Bayshore Hester Associates. Mr. Victor Castillo of 
the City Attorney's Office advises that the proposed 
legislation cannot be amended to change the information in 
the Preliminary Engineer's Report to reflect 48 lots instead of 
20 lots. Mr. Castillo adds that Bayshore Hester Associates 
would not be required to submit any further legislation 
regarding the number of lots contained within the proposed 
Assessment District. As such, the Budget Analyst has no 
recommendation on this proposed legislation. 

2. If the Board of Supervisors approves the proposed 
legislation, the legislation should be amended to set the date, 
time and place for the proposed public meeting and hearing. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



j. -2-6'.95 



:01 CCSF PUBLIC F 



TEL:415 554 41 



Attachment I 



EXHIBIT "B* 
ENGINER'S ESTIMATE OF COSTS 
BAYSHORE HESTER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 95-1 . 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



COST 



Grading and hauling 


$134,069 




Retaining Walls 


$358,864 




Road, curb, gutter, sidewalk 


$81,532 




Sewer 


$84,160 




Utilities Trench 


$67,000 




Water 


$135,680 




Street Lights 


$14,000 




Street Trees 


$31,160 




Sign Relocation 


$40,000 




Contingency 


$50,000 




Subtotal Construction 




$996,465 


Permits and City Inspection 


$74,735 




Engineering Fees 


$47,500 


122,235 


Subtotal Permits & Fees 




Assessment appraisal, printing, etc. 


$12,000 




Trustee/Paying Agent 


$4,500 




Bond Discount 


$35,000 




Co-Bond Counsel 


$40,000 




City Administrative Costs 


$10,000 




Financial Advisor 


$10,000 




Reserve Fund 


$124,000 




Capitalized Interest 


$189,000 




Subtotal Incidental Costs 




424,500 


TOTAL COSTS 




$1,543,200 


Less Developer's Contribution 




($283,200) 


Balance to Assessment District 




$1,260,000 



Attachment II 



g c 



ct> 


SI 


o 


o 


co 

& 


3 
co 


> 


•2 


i 


TI 


CO 


3 


</) 


"D 


3 

(Tl 


3 


g_ 


H 




§ 



03 CO CD _ 

<Q <Q <D S 

<D CD <» ,°2 

^ 3 5" 3 

3<D O = 



x a: 

3 £ 



¥ a 



S a 



& a 



oo 



N> 2. 



# 



a 
5 
* 
5 



I 

to 



K 



s K a & 

!S 55 -» o 



80/90 - d 



T9t>0SS2 01 £S£I S6£ 



59 



iand oains ad zz-.pi S6. az "in; 



07/28/4.995 14:36 415-554-8940 



MAYOR OFF HOUSING 




MAYOR'S OFFICE OF HOUSING 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



Attachment III 



FRANK M. JORDAN 
MAYOR 

TED DIENSTFREY 

DIRECTOR 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: 

FROM; 
DATE: 



Sandy Brown Richardson 
Office of the Budget Analyst 

Olson Lee &~^ 

July 27, 1995 



Po8t.lt" 1 brand fax transmittal memo 7671 




SUBJECT: Bayshore Hestor Project 

The Mayor's Office of Housing reviewed the Bayshore Hestor project as part of its ongoing 
responsibilities with the Department of City Planning to administer the City's inclusionary 
housing program. In 1991, as indicated by Planning Commission Motion 13005, File 
89.126ECS, the Project Sponsor received approval for 80 residential units of which 5 units 
were to be affordable to first time home buyers at 120% of median income. In 1994, the 
Project Sponsor applied for an amendment to the Conditions of Approval reducing the number 
of units from B0 to 48. The Project Sponsor also requested a proportionate reduction in the 
number of affordable units from 5 to 3. This proposal was reviewed on February 16, 1995, 
a copy of the memorandum to Gerald Green is included for your review. 

The Mayor's Office of Housing and the Project Sponsor, as represent by Kirk Miller, discussed 
the implementation of the City Planning Department's Inclusionary Policy including the fact 
that the price established in the February 16, 1995 memo was a price ceiling rather than a 
floor. After further discussions, the Project Sponsor and the Mayor's Office of Housing 
proposed to the Department of City Planning that in-lieu of the 3 affordable units that the City 
accept a payment of $1 35,000 in three installments for use in the development of affordable 
housing. 

The in-lieu payment of $50,000/unit is based upon the City's average cost of subsidizing the 
construction of new affordable housing. The figure of $45,000 per inclusionary unit for this 
particular project was accepted in part because the inclusionary units at 120% of median 
income would serve a near market rate buyer. The funds received from the developer would 
likely be used to serve households earning less than 60% of median income. 



Ted Dienstfrey, MOH 
Joe LaTorre, MOH 



10 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA, SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102 

TDD (415) 554-6749 



• (415)554-6777 • FAX (415) 554-6940 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 19 - File 200-95-2 

Note: This item was continued from the Budget Committee meeting of July 19 
1995. 

Item: Hearing to consider the cost to the City of the installation (utility 

connection costs) of public toilets when the manufacturer is limited 
to $20,000 per toilet for installation. 

Description: In July of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a final, amended 
Agreement between the City and J.C. Decaux United Street 
Furniture (J.C. Decaux) to provide for the placement of public 
toilets on public property in San Francisco in exchange for granting 
to J.C. Decaux the right to place public service kiosks on public 
property and sell advertising on those kiosks (File 115-93-8.1). 

Under the Agreement between the City and J.C. Decaux, J.C. 
Decaux is responsible for the entire cost of installing, maintaining 
and removing the toilets and kiosks. There is no cost to the City for 
such installation, maintenance or removal of the toilets and kiosks, 
according to Mr. Vitaly Troyan of the Department of Public Works. 

Under the Agreement between the City and J.C. Decaux, J.C 
Decaux is obligated to pay a maximum of $20,000 per toilet for the 
cost to connect each toilet to water, sewer, electrical, and telephone 
utilities (Section 2.05-C of the Agreement). In the event that the 
costs of these connections exceed $20,000 for a single toilet, J.C. 
Decaux has the right to request that the City designate an 
alternative location for the toilet. According to Mr. Troyan, this 
request is J.C. Decaux's only recourse if the cost of utility 
connections for a toilet exceeds $20,000, and in no case is the City 
required to share the costs of such utility connection, or any other 
costs to install or maintain the toilets or kiosks. If the new site 
designated by the City would also incur utility connection costs 
exceeding $20,000, J.C. Decaux may request another site, until a 
site is found which would not result in utility connection costs 
exceeding $20,000. J.C. Decaux is not required to install a toilet at a 
site where utility connection costs would exceed $20,000. 

Other major provisions of the Agreement between the City and J.C. 
Decaux are as follows: 

• There will be a two year trial period during which J.C. Decaux 
will install and operate 20 toilets and 90 kiosks. At the end of the 
two year trial period, the City would have the option either to; (a) 
have the toilets removed and have the kiosks removed three years 
thereafter (five years from the start of the contract), or, (b) to 
negotiate a new agreement with J.C. Decaux at the end of five years 
for purposes of the City being paid a portion of the advertising 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



revenues from the kiosks beginning in the sixth year, if the toilets 
are removed. If the Board of Supervisors authorizes the toilet 
program to continue after the two-year trial period, a total of 27 
toilets and 121 kiosks would be installed, and, at the City's option, 
an additional 23 toilets and 104 kiosks could be installed for a 
maximum of 50 toilets and 225 kiosks. 

• J.C. Decaux must pay the City an initial fee of $25,000 for the first 
27 toilets annually and $500 per toilet for each toilet beyond 27, 
adjusted each year by the rate of inflation, for the City's costs to 
administer the program. 

• J.C. Decaux must pay the City a one-time fee of $350 per toilet and 
kiosk to defray the cost of holding public hearings and determining 
specific locations for the toilets and kiosks. 

• J.C. Decaux must pay the City 2% of the net revenues earned 
from the sale of advertising on the kiosks if such revenues exceed 
$18,000 per kiosk annually for the first seven years of the program, 
and 5% of net revenues if such revenues exceed $18,000 per kiosk 
beginning in the eighth year of the program, or, if the net revenues 
exceed $25,000 per kiosk, 7% of net revenues beginning in the eighth 
year of the program. 

• One of the three sides of the kiosks must be devoted to 
newsstands, City maps, public art, announcements, or other public 
service material. 

• J.C. Decaux must make an annual payment of $3,000 to the Art 
Commission for reproduction of art materials during the two year 
trial period. If the City decides to proceed with the additional 7 
toilets (27 in total) and 31 kiosks (121 in total) after the two year trial 
period, this payment by J.C. Decaux to the Art Commission 
increases to $17,200 annually. The materials reproduced with these 
funds, such as City maps, public art, or public service material, 
will be placed on the public service side of the kiosks. 

• J.C. Decaux must post a $2 million bond to guarantee the 
installation of the first 27 toilets within 5 years of the Agreement's 
beginning, and post an additional $350,000 letter of credit to 
guarantee compliance with the Agreement during years 6 through 
20. 

• The public toilets require a 25 <Z user fee to enter and use the 
facility. J.C. Decaux will also provide tokens for the use of 
homeless and/or disabled persons who do not have 25(2, with such 
tokens to be distributed by non-profit organizations and at nearby 
newsstands. J.C. Decaux is required to keep an estimated 10,000 
tokens in circulation at all times, replacing tokens as necessary. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

- 62 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

• J.C. Decaux is required to pay City fees for excavation permits as 
needed for its toilets and kiosks at the standard rate of $50 per 
excavation, plus 80<2 per total square foot of excavation. In addition, 
J.C. Decaux is required to pay City fees for sewer connection 
permits for the toilets at the standard rate of $250 for a connection of 
50 linear feet. Mr. Troyan reports that the DPW estimates that the 
total amount collected from J.C. Decaux for the excavation and 
sewer connection permits will be between $15,000 and $20,000. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Troyan, as of July 14, 1995, only one of the 
toilets had been installed, at Market and Powell Streets. Site 
permits have been approved for all 20 of the initial group of 20 toilets 
and for 84 out of the initial group of 90 kiosks. Construction of these 
toilets and kiosks is expected to begin in early August, 1995, with 
the installation to be completed by late October, 1995. The two-year 
trial period detailed in the Agreement will begin when all permits 
are issued, and conclude two years later, in approximately August 
of 1997. 

2. Mr. Troyan reports that the DPW has expended a total of 
$67,279.62 through June 30, 1995 to administer the toilet program, 
and has received payments and reimbursements totaling $63,500 
from J.C. Decaux. Mr. Troyan notes that the annual fee ($25,000 for 
the first 27 toilets, adjusted each year for inflation) which J.C. 
Decaux must pay to reimburse the City for its costs to administer 
the program will not cover all of the DPW's costs to administer the 
program in the first year of the Agreement, however, Mr. Troyan 
anticipates that the annual fee will exceed the DPWs costs to 
administer the program beginning in year two or three of the 
Agreement, as the DPW staff time required to administer the 
program will substantially decrease after the toilets are installed 
and operating. 

3. Mr. Troyan reports that the cost of installing the toilet at Market 
and Powell Streets was entirely borne by J.C. Decaux. 

4. As previously noted, under the Agreement between the City and 
J.C. Decaux, J.C. Decaux is responsible for 100 percent of all costs 
to install the toilets and kiosks specified in the Agreement. 

5. At its hearing on July 19, 1995, the Budget Committee requested 
that information be provided on provisions in the Agreement 
between the City and J.C. Decaux under which J. C Decaux agrees 
that it will not acquire a "Possessory Interest" in City property 
under this Agreement (Sections 2.01(B) and 3.01(B)), as shown in 
the Attachment. Ms. Julia Ten Eyck of the City Attorney's Office 
reports that the City Attorney is further researching this issue in 
response to the Budget Committee's request, and that a memo will 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Budget Committee 

August 2, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



be submitted to the Board of Supervisors prior to the Budget 
Committee's August 2, 1995 meeting. "Possessory Interest Tax" is 
a property tax determined by the Assessor and is normally levied on 
the value of the "fair market rent" of public property during the 
period of a rental, and is assessed at a property tax rate of 1.163 
percent. As of the writing of this report, the Offices of the Assessor 
and the Controller had developed a preliminary estimate showing 
that approximately $51,000 annually would be due if the Assessor 
determines that Possessory Interest Tax is in fact due for the City 
property being used by J.C. Decaux during the period of the 
Agreement. 

6. At its meeting of July 19, 1995, the Budget Committee requested 
further information on Planning Code amendments pertaining to 
advertising on the kiosks allowed under the Agreement between the 
City and J.C. Decaux. According to Mr. Gerald Green of the 
Planning Department, "General advertising" of the type to be placed 
on the advertising kiosks specified under the Agreement between 
the City and J.C. Decaux is prohibited under Article 6, Sections 
6.06, 6.05 and 6.08 of the Planning Code. An amendment to 
Planning Code Section 6.03 "Exempted Signs" was modified to 
permit the J.C. Decaux advertising kiosks. Modifications of this 
type have been adopted in the past by the Planning Commission and 
the Board of Supervisors for specified uses, including the MUNI 
shelters program which includes advertising on bus shelters and 
on Gannett kiosks. Such a modification requires an amendment to 
the Planning Code, a certification of environmental review, and a 
finding that the modification is consistent with the City Master 
Plan. All of these items and findings were approved by the 
Planning Commission, and by the Board of Supervisors, through 
their respective public hearing processes, in December of 1993 and 
in March of 1994. 




[arvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh Supervisor Migden 

Supervisor Kaufman Supervisor Teng 

Supervisor Bierman Clerk of the Board 

President Shelley Chief Administrative Officer 

Supervisor Alioto Controller 

Supervisor Ammiano Teresa Serata 

Supervisor Hallinan Robert Oakes 

Supervisor Kennedy Ted Lakey 
Supervisor Leal 



B OAR D OF SUPERVIS O R S 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 



1.23. Initial Capital . 

As of the Start Date, CONTRACTOR shall have shareholders' 
equity capital, calculated in accordance with generally 
accepted accounting principles, of at least One Million 
Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) and shall 
provide to CITY within forty-five (45) days after the 
Start Date a certificate to that effect audited by an 
independent certified public accountant. 

1.24. Guaranty of Obligation . 

CONTRACTOR shall, prior to the Effective Date, provide a 
guaranty of its obligation to install the Automatic Public 
Toilets in the Initial Phase, as provided hereunder from 
JCDecaux USA, which guaranty shall be substantially in the 
form attached hereto as Appendix E. 

Part 2. Automatic Public Toilet Installation. 

2.01. Installation of Automatic Public Toilets . 

A. CONTRACTOR shall install Automatic Public Toilets 
only for which (i) the design complies with the 
requirements of Section 2.08, Automatic Public Toilet 
Design, below, (ii) all required permits have been 
issued and all applicable fees have been paid by 
CONTRACTOR, and (iii) locations have been determined 
pursuant to Section 2.05, Locations and Sites of 
Automatic Public Toilets, below. CONTRACTOR shall be 
and shall keep fully informed of the CITY Charter, 
codes, ordinances and regulations and of all state, 
local and federal laws in any manner affecting the 
performance of this Agreement, including but not 
limited to local and state planning, public works, 
electrical, plumbing and other applicable codes, and 
shall at all times comply with said codes. Citation 
of specific code sections in this Agreement shall not 
exonerate CONTRACTOR from its obligation of 
compliance with all applicable local, state, federal 
laws and ordinances. 

B. CONTRACTOR agrees that it shall neither have nor 
acquire any possessory interest in any property on 
which an Automatic Public Toilet has been installed 
pursuant to this Agreement. 



6115\7.0 
4/21/94 



Attachment 
Page 1 ofT 



Part 3. Publio service Kiosk License. 

3.01. Installation of Public Service Kiosks . 

A. CONTRACTOR shall have the right, subject to the terms 
and conditions of this Agreement, to install Public 
Service Kiosks only for which (i) the design complies 
with the requirements of Section 3.08, Public Service 
Kiosk Design , (ii) all required permits have been 
issued, and (iii) locations have been determined 
pursuant to Section 3.05, Location and Sites of 
Public Service Kiosks , and all applicable fees have 
been paid by the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall be and 
shall keep fully informed of the CITY Charter, codes, 
ordinances and regulations and of all state, local 
and federal laws in any manner affecting the 
performance of this Agreement, including but not 
limited to local and state planning, public works, 
electrical, plumbing and other applicable codes, and 
shall at all times comply with said codes. Citation 
of specific code sections in this Agreement shall not 
exonerate CONTRACTOR from its obligation of 
compliance with all applicable local, state, federal 
laws and ordinances. 

B. CONTRACTOR agrees that it shall neither have nor 
acquire any possessory interest in any property on 

r^< which a Public Service Kiosk has been installed 

pursuant to this Agreement. 

3.02. Permit Approvals Required For Public Service Kiosks . 

A. CONTRACTOR must obtain all applicable permits before 
proceeding with installation of any Public Service 
Kiosk. Within ninety (90) days after the Director 
has issued the Notice to Proceed, CONTRACTOR shall 
submit to the Department of Public Works location 
drawings for one hundred twenty one (121) Public 
Service Kiosks in the Initial Phase, together with an 
encroachment fee of Three Hundred Fifty Dollars 
($350) for each Public Service Kiosk. The Department 
of Public Works shall review each location drawing, 
and inspect each location and site and hold public 
hearings, if required, on each proposed Public 
Service Kiosk location and site, and thereafter, 
unless the site is determined to be unsuitable for 
installation of a Public Service Kiosk, shall approve 
and issue encroachment and excavation permits for 
each proposed Public Service Kiosk site. CITY shall 
use its best efforts to assist CONTRACTOR to receive 



6im7.0 
4/21/9« 



66 



). 07 



BOARD of SUPERVISORS 







City Hall 

San Francisco 94102 

554-5184 



NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETINGS 
, BUDGET COMMITTEE 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled meetings of 
the Budget Committee for the following Wednesdays: August 9, 1995, 
August 16, 1995, August 23, 1995, August 30, 1995 and September 6, 
1995, have been cancelled. 

The next regular meeting of the Budget Committee will be held 
on Wednesday, September 13, 1995, at 1:00 p.m., in the Room 410, 
Veterans Building, 401 Van Ness Avenue. 




'John L. Taylor 
Clerk of the Board 



POSTED: AUGUST 1, 1995 



DOC' iMFNTS DEPT. 
AUG 2 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



p