tv Government Access Programming SFGTV September 19, 2019 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT
ending process, but it is also a much bigger issue in that we can be as effective as we possibly can on helping people on the streets and i think we are very effective, but as long as for every person we help new people, this is going to continue to be a struggle. >> i agree. supervisor stefani? >> thank you. one more thing, i do want to confer with supervisor mandelman on looking with the r.f.p. i think we can do a much better job on that. one other thing that you said, jeff, which i think there are so many people you do help, and you said our successes are invisible , and i absolutely think we need to find a way to make them visible. i think that we will reassure people that the dollars that we are spending are helping people, and if people know that, not that is going to put them at greater ease because of what the conditions are right now, but because those stories need to be
told, and i know you have a new p.i.o. in the budget, and a.c. that we approved that. i really do think that those stories need to be told and we need to know how those -- and i know there is privacy and there's a lot of issues, but we need to know what is actually working and i never said that judging this -- judging these by x number of homeless as a way to measure of success, that is not what owes getting at. but when you said our successes are invisible, i think we need to find a way to make them visible and then tell us what is actually helping people in terms of these contacts that are being made. i know they are working. >> yes, i thank you for that and agree that think chair fewer and the entire board for approving this. it showed our outreach staff and
public relations staff, relative to almost every other big department in the city was a small fraction of what other departments have, and we do appreciate the adding of a few staff members to help with what you are talking about. i also want to acknowledge that the 2014 r.f.p. prepared by the department of public health, i agree has a lot of challenges in it, and i invite you, and i can -- i believe we provided your office a copy of the new metrics i think i also agree that it is a stopgap measure until we can get a new r.f.p. out. but we have change the expectations around what we need from the department of health in terms of outcomes tied directly to it. that is an an amendment to the contract. it does change the outcomes and also the data we are collecting. >> thank you very much. i want to say in closing that i think that the work the h.o.t.
team does is really important. i think they should be part of our city family instead of contracted out. i think it could be more seamless and actually work better under your direction, also, as a team, rather than being contracted out, but it also just want to say for those of us who holds public meetings in our neighborhoods, and some of your staff, we are constantly sort of defending the strategy that we are using as a city, but i think what we need to remember is that we cannot arrest our way out of this problem. a lot of people say, just arrest them. we cannot conserve people and our way out of this problem. in my neighborhood alone, i have lost 500 units of affordable housing in the last ten years. i think that whenever we say, i
think as board members, build, build, build, what you are saying is adding to this problem because we have not built enough affordable housing. i think that we are on a pathway now to dedicated funds for affordable housing. we are looking at those deep subsidies that people need to prevent homelessness, to keep them, particularly our lowest income folks. i think we are also working on behavioral mental health issues. we are also investing in a housing bond of $600 million we hope that the city, the voters will improve. i think we are taking steps to help stop the flow and to address the needs issues of not enough places for people to live , especially people who, i think we feel our working class
folks in san francisco. many people are right on the edge. i get that constituents get very angry about it and that they have had it and they have said, i don't care where it is, but not on my block. that sort of solution is not a solution to homelessness, it is actually -- people are at that point where they just don't care i wanted to say that you are right, i think that everyone has to work on this, but i also think that when we have companies that are actually paying employees a starting salary, which, as for these employees you will never see, unless you are the mayor, that that this creates a push out effect of people in their homes that are not protected. i also think that the h.o.t. team shouldn't be blamed for the
ongoing homelessness when we, as legislators, also do not know how to legislate human beings. i just want to also say that i have taken into account what my colleagues have said and the need for what we are hearing is a little bit more of accountability. i also just want to say in my neighborhood, where homelessness has been the point in time count has gone up 50%, then i need a hot -- that i need a h.o.t. team out in my district. i get that it kind of moves it around, but i'm not getting service in my district, and they want a h.o.t. team in my district and i want one that will stay. what you what you -- what you have said to me is it is about relationships. and when a h.o.t. team keeps moving in a revolving cycle, there is no way you can actually form a really cohesive relationship and a deep relationship. so i'm going to ask you a little bit about the retention rate
because i lost my ho tea team -- i lost my h.o.t. team. i don't know who to call. i need a h.o.t. team designated just for my district. and someone we can communicate with about our most vulnerable and people who have been on the street for the longest period of time, and to work with my project homeless connect, which we fund out of an ad back because actually we don't have any services in my district, which i think is not right. homelessness is all over san francisco. on the west side, we are experiencing homelessness, too. i just want to say, that when we start to build this build and we gentrify areas where there on housed people, you have just gentrified the area, so they're not living there anymore and they are in the middle of the city, which is partly true, you need to take this into account. we are all to blame here. this is not just a h.o.t.
problem. we are looking to the h.o.t. to help us solve this problem. we are just one small part of it , but i think what you have said today is that there are a very important part of that process. what i would like to do is to actually amend this to require that mr. kaczynski come back, and as part of the 2020 budget cycle that he presents to us a report on the efficacy of the age of -- of the h.o.t. team and the department as a whole, but i think because of sony questions from my colleagues, i think they are looking for a little accountability to be able to tell their constituents. everyone is getting more and more frustrated with the problem so i will open this up to public comment first. >> i'm sorry, i will just take one more comment.
one other quick comment, if you will, is that i want to make it really clear that the department and the mayor cares about the needs of houston on housed individuals alike, and i think we often get into this either or kind of mentality that they are not mutually exclusive. we can help people, but i think that is a way we can help experienced -- people expensing homelessness is to meet their needs first, but in doing so, that is how we can be most responsive to people who have quality-of-life concerns in the city. and i hear all of you about wanting more accountability overall and in your districts and i will make sure we help you see the schedule when h.o.t. team members are in your districts and when they are assigned there. there are 15 new positions that we will add that will enable us to be more responsive citywide. >> thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public would like to comment?
seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to make an amendment that we request that a report back on the h.o.t. team and the efficacy be included in the 2020 budget cycle for this department. >> yes, and progress in the r.f.p. process. >> yes. if we can take that amendment without objection? thank you very much. let's move this -- this is, by the way, this is a very extensive contract, hence the money that is -- this money really represents off the backs of hard-working san franciscans, and hence, the oversight. if we can take this without objection and move it to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you.
please call item four and five together. >> item four is a resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into a first amendment -- first amendment for technology marketplace purchases between the city and county of san francisco for a total contract amount not to exceed $44 million with no change to the three-year term to expire on september 30 -- december 31st 2021. i do five is resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into a first amendment for technology marketplace purchases between the city at computer land to increase their contract the contract by $3 million. with no change to the three-year term to expire on december 31st , 2021. >> thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to also apologize
for not having briefed the committee in advance of this meeting. i appreciate you letting us give you the time to provide testimony today. and i am here on behalf of the project administration with our acting city purchaser. i will just provide some background information on the technology marketplace followed by our two propose contract amendments. from some background, so today we call the technology marketplace and it was started in the 1990s. it was a computer store. it became the technology store and it is now our technology marketplace. the technology marketplace is a pool of as needed contracts that
were publicly and competitively awarded, and the purpose is to streamline procurement technology projects -- products and services. so similar with the name, we have also just tried to continually make process improvements to the marketplace just to keep pace with rapid changes in the technology industry as well as the needs of our city departments. again, it is a technology marketplace which is a prequalified list of i.t. suppliers. there are three levels. the structure is to allow for a greater opportunity for our smaller to midsized firms. the o.c.a. department issued competitive solicitations within the pool. as far as oversight, the o.c.a. provides oversight for all
purchases are all procurements, and the department of technology department of technology also reviews the request. our current proposed contract amendments are for two tier one, sorry forgot to mention, but there are three tiers get -- true -- tear structures. we are here to request amendments to computer land, or c.c.t. technologies from $20 million to $23 million. other contract terms will not be affected. here is a table. table one is how we came about the proposed new contract not to exceed amount. we looked at the first six months of the year and then
through june of 2019, and we looked at the per month spending and the projected to -- we projected that over an 18 month period. you might ask 18 months? eighteen months is the halfway period for the initial term of these contracts in the three-year term, so we want to make sure should we need to add funds, we are request -- or requesting to add more funds that we've come back to the board to ensure greater transparency. >> let's hear from the b.l.a., please. >> the proposed resolution proposes an increase in the technology market contracts. >> these contracts with the
highest volume contracts were for not to exceed amounts of $20 million. two of the contracts have been at high spending rates over the first six months. if you look at table one on page ten of the report, c.c.t. technologies, in the first six months of the contract spend $7.5 million at a spend right of $1.2 million. x. tech spent $14.6 million. so what this legislation does is increase the contract not to exceed amount for the next 18 months through june 2020. c.c.t. technologies would increase by about $3 million. x. tech would increase by about $24 million. this is consistent with our
understanding of how the contracts are spending and we recommend approval. let's open this up for public comment. would anyone like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, i have some questions. mr. chang? >> this was a contract that was brought to us this january $420 million. at that time, i believe there's a lot of discussion around micro l.b.e. and a small to midsized firms. and making sure that they had equitable chances to be in the vendor pool. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> so what i don't see here is actually an update on those concerns. what i don't see is -- there are a couple of things with these particular items that i actually
have a problem with. one is that i don't see what the outcomes are of our discussion that we had in january around the 20 million because in your presentation, it just says it promotes opportunities. what is the outcome, has it been successful, what are we doing if it is not successful? that is one thing. another thing is, that it is less than eight months and then you are doubling the amount of money coming back to us. in the b.l.a. report, and in your presentation, you even say that he will come back again for more money. this is not an inexpensive contract. this is actually a really expensive contract. again, in light of the complexity of this, but also that i think, to fully understand what the total cost might be of this contract, that it takes -- i actually think it takes much more discussion, and
i am sorry, mr. chan, that no one from your office reached out to me as the budget chair or to myself -- or to my staff because i think some of these questions could have been answered. in that light, colleagues, i like to continue this item until the next committee where we have an opportunity to actually ask some of these questions to the office of contract administration. i would like to make a motion to continue this item until next meeting and if we can take that without objection? thank you very much. thank you for your presentation. i look forward to speaking to you this week. thank you very much. please call item number six. >> item six is resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into a contract for auctioning services with bar none auction within anticipated revenue of $1.3 million for a term of october first, 2019 through september 30th, 2022.
>> thank you very much. mr. shawn peters? >> good morning. >> welcomed. >> my name is shawn peters. i'm with the office of contracted ministration here to present to you our request to enter into a term contract for auctioning services. we have background and overview, i will present this for you. the purpose here is to provide auctioning services as well as city vehicles and sfmta buses, pursuant to section 9.118 of the san francisco charter, o.c.a. is seeking board approval to award a contract for international two year term with options to extend for an additional three years. our anticipated revenue for the first two years of this contract is about $1.3 million. in october, between october 2015 and august 2019, the total number of items auctioned is 1,855 items. total revenue is $2 million --
$215 million, approximately 652 -- approximate six and $52,000 annually. we issued a substation -- we had two respondents, bar none and first capital. our evaluation was to determine a low bidder. the bid price is based on a proposal that reflects the lowest cost of the city for disposal of our unused vehicles. bar none represented the lowest cost to the city, so we issued a notice of intent to award a contract to them. that is basically what i have for you. >> thank you, mr. peters. let's open it up for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any comments or questions about this contract?
i have one, mr. peters. when we auction off our vehicle, what is the criteria for the vehicles that we choose to auction off? >> in most cases, a good lion his share of what we auction off our like the buses from sfmta. we take buses and old electric trolleys and things of that nature that are no longer of service to the city. we use an auctioning service to take those vehicles and sell them and provide us revenue. >> do we also auction off vehicles that have been allocated to the police department or the fire department? >> to be auction off the unmarked vehicles with a personal vehicles that are taken vehicles? >> i have a slide. if you would like it, i can show it. it is a little bit detailed. it has the breakdown of the different types of vehicles.
>> would you mind e-mailing it to our offices? >> absolutely. but with the detailed breakdown here, it shows the different types of vehicles. there is a fairly detailed breakdown of the types of vehicles and which departments they come from. >> this is perfect, actually. if you could send that to me -- every year we are asked to add more personal vehicles during the budget cycle. i would love to have this information. if you could e-mail it to our offices? thank you very much. i would like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. thank you very much. thank you for that information. please call item number seven. >> resolution authorizing officers and employees of the office of the treasurer and tax collector of the city of san francisco to examine sales and transactions and use tax records
of the california department of tax and fee administration pursuant to the california revenue and taxation code. >> good morning, i am with the office of the treasurer and tax collector. i'm here this morning to present for your approval a resolution that would authorize the staff in our office to examine sales and tax records from the california department of tax and fee administration. the revenue and tax code at the state requires that the board of supervisors give authorization to examine these confidential records. this is necessary for san francisco voters last year and we would like to be able to conduct proper compliance before collecting certain business taxes. and what happened with property as it permits the city now to tax businesses that do not have a physical presence in san francisco and provide that there are receipts in the city that exceed $500,000 annually.
and this aligns local laws with the u.s. supreme court with the decision and recently passed state law which requires remote sellers to collect california sales tax if their combined sales exceed $500,000 annually. all records we receive will remain confidential and so thank you for your consideration. i am available for any questions >> thank you very much. a supervisor mandelman? >> i want to thank the treasurer for being honest in bringing this to us. there's no reason why we should not be collecting these taxes. thank you for doing it. >> thank you. there is no b.l.a. report on this. let's open it up for public comment. would any member on the -- of the public like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. would you like to make a motion? >> i would like to move this before the board with a positive recommendation. >> we can take that without
objection. thank you very much. can you please read item number eight. [reading items] >> we seek your approval to award retail lease in the airport to doing business as g.r. chocolate teak with seven-year options to extend. the proposed lease is a result of a competitive request for proposal process with imperial being the sole qualified respondents. they have an annual guaranteed rent of $150,000 for percentage
rent based on gross revenue, whichever is greater. pending approval of the board of supervisors, the concession is expected to open in the spring of 2020 as part of the second phase of the terminal resin -- renovation. they have reviewed and recommends an -- approval and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. could we have the b.l.a. report, please? >> it approves a lease for up to nine years including options to extend terminal one. it is a new lease space for a chocolate concession. they were the only qualified respondents to the request for proposals. we show the scoring of the proposal and page 12 of our report. the two and would pay the airport rent per year or percentage rent.
>> thank you very much. supervisor mandelman? >> why are we not looking -- why are we only looking at one qualified respondents? >> it is a little bit different. we did get two responses to the concession lease, however, the second responder was being nonresponsive because they were unable or unwilling to oppose the bond that is required as part of the concession. i think this is a little unusual we often see multiple responses. this is a pretty niche space. it was specified as a candy or chocolate shop, so this one adds -- it isn't as appealing was someone who can come in with their own concept. >> thank you. i have one question. will they be selling local chocolates from local
manufacturers? >> i believe so. i will confirm that but that was part of the request for proposal >> good. we need to keep them in business all right. let's open it up for public comment. would any members of the public like to comment on item number eight? public comment is now closed. i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. we can take that without objection. thank you very much. can you please call item number nine? [reading items] >> thank you, very much.
>> as you may know, the luggage carts at the airport, there are two programs. they are provided as both for rent passenger service throughout the airport terminal garages and the rental car center, as well as a three passenger amenity in the airport 's federal inspection areas of the international terminal. it is part of the self-service luggage cart rental program. it provides at least 5,500 luggage carts for rent at a cost of $6 per cart. this puzzle -- this lease generates an annual guarantee and $975,000 a year, or 19% of gross revenues, whichever is greater. as part of the customs program, it provides at least 2,000 luggage carts free of charge for
arriving international passengers in the customs area of the international terminal. the cost to the airport to provide this service is three but $1 million a year or $1.45 per cart that was distributed, whichever is less. it is capped it up to two but $1 million annually. the proposed lease sets a maximum net by the airport to smart cards from the initial three year term of the lease at $6.5 million. while the lease is a request for -- was a result of the competitive request for proposals process, smartcard was the only proposer. there were three other companies that attended the preproposal conference. none of whom were in the luggage cart business, but who expressed interest in potentially starting that business. it is my understanding from staff who deals with this r.f.p.
every seven to eight years that the luggage cart business is really changing. it is declining. the free cards in the international terminal are used a lot more than the rental program. we think that is due to a couple of things. one is the new luggage carts, lots of them have wheels, so there's less need for the cart. we also believe, due to the airline restriction on baggage that you can check and carry on. the four rent part of the business is really diminishing and there's not a huge incentive for other people to get involved , which is why we think we are seeing the one proposer. okay. >> could we share from the b.l.a., please? there is a report on this. >> the proposed resolution approves a new three-year lease to extend between the airport and smartcard for luggage services at the airport, which
is why there is an overview. smartcard is the only response to the r.f.p. they have been this provider at the airport for a long time. in terms of the lease terms, we summarize it on page 16, table one of the report. the way this works is the airport takes an annual service fee to smart cart. it goes up each year as we summarize the report. and then smartcard pays a minimum annual guarantee to the airport. the net airport payment in year one is something around to $.1 million over the term of the lease, based on the minimum annual guarantee to the airport, and the maximum service fee that
the airport will pay to smart cart. the total lease amount would be six my $5 million. it is a maximum not to exceed amount in the resolution. we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. are there any members of the public that like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none -- although, i must say, that it is wonderful to have the carts available for free for everyone. i think that $6 is a really hefty fee for a cart. i just want to say seniors, people with limited mobility, also people with a lot of junk, i just think -- it is such an expensive city that i think right at the airport, we are hitting them off with six bucks for a smartcard. and other airports and other countries, they are free.
i want to mention that. is a shame we can't do that. i would like to words towards that, quite frankly, because i think they are not to use that much anyway and this is something we might want to look into. having said that, i would like to move this with a positive recommendation to the full board we can take that without objection. thank you very much. okay. i think that we are on item number ten. please call item number ten. >> resolution authorizing agents to act on behalf of the city for all matters pertaining to state and federal disaster and emergency assistance funding. >> thank you very much. do we have a presenter? we have lisa here. >> hello. i am from the controller's office. the item before you is a standard administrative item that we are required to bring to the board every three years. it authorizes the director of the department of the emergency management, the controller and
the deputy controller to manage and enter into agreements regarding emergency and disaster funding. i'm happy to answer questions. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions? there is no b.l.a. report on this. are there any numbers of the public that would like to comment? public comment is now closed. please move this to the board with a positive recommendation. thank you very much. can you please call items 11 through 15 together. >> [reading items]
>> thank you very much. >> i just want to clarify, 11 through 14 are related in item 15 is related to something separate. i can speak to that separately. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i and the finest deputy with the office of public finance. the two ordinances before you appropriate the proceeds and authorize the execution and delivery of their certificates of participation in the aggregate amount of 94.662 million finance respectively. the property acquisition and tenant improvement is located at the hall of justice. this is to facilitate the exit of administrative staff from the
hall of justice. i will speak for a few moments on the financing related to the c.o.p. and then i will turn it over to the director to speak to the project. we propose a hundred $301 million for the project, is included in the city's adopted ten year capital plan. the anticipated and it -- incremental debt service complies with the city's policy of limiting the general fund debt service at or below 3.25% of discretionary fund revenue as set forth and maintained in the city's capital plan. at first, as it relates to the property acquisition c.o.p., the office of public finance expects to sell and not to -- and not to exceed amount of $94.6 million in c.o.p. to finance the acquisition, as well as to refinance the commercial paper notes that were issued to require the bryant street locations, which we also
referred to as the mcdonald site mac. as a reminder to this committee, the board approved the acquisition of mcdonald site back in may of 2019 and later approve the acquisition of egbert this past july, which was contingent on the board's future approval of the c.o.p., which is why this item is before you today. the associated appropriations ordinance appropriates only $70.6 million in the c.o.p. because the 16 million related to mcdonald was creatively appropriated by the board. based on the estimated cost of 4x4%, the office of public finance estimates maximum annual debt service to the team would be $7.2 million a year for a term of 20 years. secondly, moving on to the ho jay tenant improvement c.o.p., the office of public finance expects not to exceed amount of $2 million in c.o.p.
based on the estimated cost for the 62 million c.o.p., the office of public finance estimates the maximum annual debt service will be approximately $4.7 million per year for a term of 20 years. a little bit of background on the c.o.p., as a general fund supported form of debt, the c.o.p. will be repaid by annual base rental payments appropriated in the city's general fund. it will structure the c.o.p. as a lease buying between the city and a third party trustee. it is anticipated the city owned laguna honda campus located at 375 laguna honda boulevard will service -- serve as collateral to secure the c.o.p. for more background, the campus sick -- currently secures the
existing c.o.p. data that was issued in 2009 and 2012. with the approval of these ordinances, the board will also approve related financing documents in their final and substantial form, including the supplements to the project and property leases, trust agreement , notices of sale, continuing disclosure certificates, and preliminary statements which is often documented to disclose financial information to prospective investors. i am happy to answer any questions related to the financing. i have others here to present on the projects. >> okay, colleagues, any questions? i do have one question for you, which is, i know that we are using certificates of participation for this, but i have also heard that we are using certificates of participation for hope s.f. and some other projects. do you know what our total c.o.p. debt is to date for the
city and county of san francisco >> as of fiscal year 20, i believe our total -- i don't know the entire total amount in a dollar form, but as we measure the general fund that is part of capital planning, as i mentioned , it is the capital process to not exceed 3.2 5% of discretionary revenue. in fiscal year 20, we are at 1.85%. i'm happy to follow the exact dollar amount. >> that would be great. >> the director has a seller -- has a -- has information don't hear. >> this is the number here for the outstanding amount for general fund secured debt obligation. that is the total amount that is
due. i can follow up with the exact debt service amount to bring down that amount that is tied to the fiscal year. that is the total amount. >> the total debt is one point for billion? >> is debt financing secured by general fund sources. >> so do you have an accounting of this certificate of participation debt? >> i do. it is into that one point for outstanding number. >> i just know that having been the chair of the committee at the unified school district is that they are very, very hesitant to do this. this is real debt. you do have to pay it back. i'm just concerned about the level of the debt if we were
going into a recession, and if we use city property as collateral, because i have also inquired about using certificates of participation to bill some affordable housing, and what i have heard back is we don't want to jeopardize our credit rating, but yet i see that we have been using them for a lot of other things. if you could get me the breakdown, that would be great. i don't know a lot about it, but i think it is worth inquiring about. >> i'm happy to follow up with that recommendation. >> just a quick comment on that about the credit rating and the concern about physical -- fiscal responsibility and all of that. it is disclosed to our rating
agencies and our creditors, and the programming that we do in the capital plan where we lay out our expected outlay and issuances, so that is all the good practice that helps keep our credit rating low. it is not just issuing for additional c.o.p., it is not doing harm, we need to show our fiscal responsibility and we know we are doing it for a good reason. >> sure. overall, it is debt. >> it is. >> thank you very much. i thank you are up next. >> thank you. as she just walked through, you heard the financing side of this i will briefly walk you through the acquisition and tenant improvements.
we have basically two parts. we have the acquisitions for the 1828 egbert side and 820 bryant street, which is the mcdonald side. it totals a project cost of $79.4 million. and then we also have the tenant improvement, which are in three parts, which have a project cost of 51.7 million and i will walk through those three parts as we go. this slide shows you that this is part of the capital plan. we highlighted it in yellow. this is a $1,301,000,000 which is part of the overall capital plan which totals $963 million. also on the right, i will reference this later in the presentation, you can see existing deals one and two in the upper left.
you can also see the hall of justice which is the l-shaped building. the left-hand side of the building, which we call the west wing is the building that we are proposing to vacate with a variety of methods and we are going to consolidate the remaining units in the east wing , and that is where the location of the tenant improvement to facilitate that transition from the west wing into the east wing. overview again of the acquisitions, most of these acquisitions have been approved by the board of supervisors by way of review. we have 1828 egbert which is a four story reinforced concrete building and it is a proximally 127,000 square feet in total. the parcel also includes approximately 63,000 square feet of mostly paid -- mostly paved lot.
it is currently being used for 900 self storage tenants. the mcdonald side is next-door to the hall of justice. it comprises three parcels. the interim use is the current parking and the ultimate use will be part of the ho jay rehabilitation rebuild. here just briefly some images of both sides. on the left to see 1828 egbert highlighted in the yellow hash mark. it is a little dark but the building is in the left hand corner in the parking lot in the upper corner. it is not part of the acquisition. below you see the building is vacant. on the right-hand side you see the mcdonald acquisition highlighted in yellow.
in red is the previous acquisition by the city, so with both the mcdonald side in a yellow and the previous acquisition in red, you see that we have a developed lot on that block that has street access on street side. >> can you read to me what is the blue? >> the blue is not part of the acquisition that is being funded let me restate that. the blue is a 5,000 square-foot building that is in private ownership. >> okay. if that is if it -- is that available for purchase? >> we have had some more discussions with that owner but those discussions are ongoing. i would hesitate to say further. >> okay. thank you.
>> again, this -- highlighting the major terms of the deal, the egbert side has a purchase price of 73-point $6 million. that purchase requires a leaseback for six to nine months in order to allow the seller to vacate the building from the celts -- self-serve tenant. it also includes a holdback of $5 million, which is used as a liquidated damage should the seller fail to remove the self storage customers in a timely manner. the least amount is a nominal $1,000 per month, which will be taken out of the holdback at the end of escrow. the mcdonald side is a much -- it is a straightforward purchase price of $11.6 million. the not to exceed amount is
$60 million which includes not only the transaction cost, but also the financing cost. and again, as mr. rubin indicated, it was already funded with commercial paper. it uses egbert and police evidence and police property. evidences in the base of the hall of justice. the acquisition timing, we have already purchased a 20. we are before you in september and october and going through the legislative process for the c.o.p. we hope to close and issue the c.o.p. in december or january. as i mentioned before, we have the leaseback, which although we will close escrow in january, we will take possession sometime in december once it is vacated. i think we have already walked you through the breakdown of the
c.o.p. for both of these acquisitions. >> we can move on. >> okay. >> we will switch gears and go to the tenant improvement side. we are vacating the hall of justice basically at three levels. on the acquisition side, we have the new medical examiner building at 1828 egbert. on the leasing side, we have 350 rhode island, the new home of the district attorney, 945 bryant, the home of adult probation, the future home. it looks like it will be the new home of police i.d., which is fingerprint, and sure if warrant and records. the units still left to be relocated and will be part of the internal relocation. you see those units there. the space available for a re stack are the spaces that are
being occupied currently on the east wing by the units that are moving out as well as the medical examiner, the d.a., the police basis and some commission the proposed use for the restack and these are preliminary, for the 19.2 million in project cost , will be using the medical examiner to has a units that we see in the right. we will be using information from the d.a. for police investigation and the commissioner and auditorium rooms are for police overflow and other needs within the building. that concludes my presentation. i would like to thank supervisor
peskin for his sponsorship of items 11 and 12 and the mirror mayor for her sponsorship of 11 through 14. i also want to thank the b.l.a. for their hard work on this item , and we concur in their recommendation. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you very much. >> i see you have the report for items 11 and 12 and a separate one for item 13 and 14. >> that's correct. item 11 is the authorization that shows the participation in the amount of $94.6 million for -- to repay the short-term debt that was used to pay for the purchase of the bryant street properties next to the hall of justice and pay for the purchase of 1828 egbert avenue. all of these properties, the board of supervisors has previously approved these. at that time it was understood
that it would be issued to pay for the purchase. we summarize on table one of our report the total appropriation. the board has previously approved the appropriation of $60 million for the bryant street property purchases, and would be approving 70.6 million for the purchase of egbert street. in terms of the overall impact of the discussion about the debt to cost, the city policy is to limit debt to 3.2 5% of general funds. our understanding is that the legislation before you today, not just the 94 by $6 million, but the $62 million, would fall within that debt policy. total debt service, if you combine both of these pieces of legislation, these are general fund costs. the other point that i think is
very important is that the city 's capital plan calls for $1,301,000,000 in project costs in 2020 for hall of justice projects, so item number 12, the appropriation of funds for egbert street and bryant and six threet, will cost $79 million towards that hundred $21 million that was approved within the capital plan. for these two pieces of legislation, we recommend approval. then 13 and 14, item 13 is approving the issuance of $62 million. it is appropriating these funds. this is sort of a new legislation before the board. if you look at page 27, table one of our report, again, of the
$62 million, $51 million our project costs. this is part of the overall 1,301,000,000 that was anticipated in 2020 and the city 's capital plan. as we have talked about previously, the $62 million would be combined with the $94.6 million and costs would be about $11.6 million in general fund debt service each year. it is within the city's debt policy. and his it's terms of the specific projects to be approved , i will skip to the $19.2 million, table three, page 29. this is for relocating existing functions within the hall of justice and other locations. this is a preliminary look at this. there is the current use here in the first column and the plan to use, and the relocation and the cost of the relocation.
the relocation costs are based on public works and the estimates. we have reviewed the costs for square foot and we found them to be reasonable. we are recommending approval. if you go back to table two on page 28, this is for the construction of holding cells in the hall of justice. these are not new jail cells. these are holding cells for people coming from san bruno who have court dates and have to be held for a number of hours at the hall of justice. the cost of the construction of these holding cells is based on 2017 estimates that were made by the consulting engineering firm and were escalated for 2019, 2020 costs. in terms of this, out of the project cost of $19.6 million, there is an additional $6.8 million in contingency.
and while we recognize that projects of this magnitude is complex, it will have a lot of uncertainty. we actually had concerns about the contingencies that equaled about 35% of the total project. our recommendation is to place $618 million on the budget and finance committee to the extent that it would be need to be used we recommend approval as amended >> thank you very much. >> are there any members of the public who would like to comment seeing none, public comment is closed. any comments or questions? i have a couple. i understand that it has moved into the hall of justice as we