Skip to main content

tv   BOS Government Audits and Oversight Committee  SFGTV  November 25, 2021 2:00pm-4:11pm PST

2:00 pm
golden gate park 150th anniversary celebration. we reviewed five agreements to assess the framework in which the two entities operate and i'll provide comment on each in a few minutes. in terms of our scope, our review was not a financial audit and wasn't an investigation of wrong doing. but it was an assessment of the framework under which these two organizations operated. you have heard from the controller, we certainly reviewed the public integrity review. and the recommendations that came out of that. as stated in the last presentation, there really are not city codes and regulations pertaining to relationships between departments and friends of non city entities. so we look for criteria elsewhere and the controller's
2:01 pm
report was useful for that purpose. i won't go through all of the recommendations except for highlight number three to formalize their relationships through written memorandum of understanding. and number eight, the department should not accept donations to anonymous donors. these were both issues that were relevant in our review. on the memorandum of understanding, in may of 2021, the department and the parks alliance entered into an mou pursuant to the controller's recommendations and directive from the mayor issued in 2020 requiring such relationships. they did not have one at the time. the new mou addressed many of the deficiencies we found in the prior agreements that we had reviewed which i'll highlight in a minute. specifically the agreement requires budget detail,
2:02 pm
prohibits anonymous donations and payment requirements from say the director of the department but we found it needs strengthening in the area of conflict of interest and prevailing wage requirements. anonymous donations, this is an example, we looked at and obtained some data on funds that were accepted by the department from the parks alliance between fiscal years 17 and 20. you can see here, it was about $2 million approximately that was received. during the same period in looking at the annual reports of the parks alliance, there were 72 anonymous donors who gave an estimated total between 1.5 to $3 million to the organization. so it's a small piece of their total contributions but it certainly raises the question of if a conflict of interest
2:03 pm
existed. anonymous donors had business ands with the department or parks alliance. this covered funding and services that the parks alliance was going to provide foreign vacation of playgrounds. and we have a number of findings just to highlight two here with no conflict of interest provisions for this umbrella, mou, covering all of the arrangements for the playground renovations. and there are no requirements for how the parks alliance selected for services. this is one of the problems we have found with the services, what happens is the parks
2:04 pm
alliance is selecting contractors in some cases and there's no requirement as there would be with the city procurement processes say for competitive bidding or certain provisions in their contracts. it is entirely independent of the city process but arranged by the parks alliance with a contractor. we found the mou had no detail as to what the costs were going to be for the design contractor for example that was being paid for by the parks alliance and
2:05 pm
construction contractor who i believe was going to be paid for by the department and what the other costs would be and what the city would be responsible
2:06 pm
for. the examiner reported after the event took place that the budget was approximately $1.9 million for all of the events associated with the anniversary but that hasn't been presented in documents to the commission. they are a private vender that operates golden gate park as part of the 150th anniversary celebration. we had issue with the way the vender was selected, a sole
2:07 pm
source selection, so there's no competitive bidding by the department to choose a vender. the original use permit was issued in 2020 and it required that a portion of the ticket sales be directed to the parks alliance to pay for a portion of the golden gate park 150th anniversary cost. the amount was not disclosed or estimated. we estimate between 200-300 thousand dollars with the remainder to be retained by the vender. there was no minimum guarantee and nothing going to the department that would be a typical arrangement with a concession agreement but not the case here. that was amended and the amount to the parks alliance reduced to 200,000 with the remainder going to the department. the conservatory flowers
2:08 pm
agreement has been on hold over status for the last nine years. many provisions are outdated. conflict of interest provisions are based on charter sections that have been repealed and no minimum annual guarantee even though the alliance was operating a concession like arrangement. we have policy options, more detailed in the report but overall they are to provide more financial information to include a requirement for how contractors are selected for in kind services and to make -- to strengthen the prevailing wage requirements in the mou between the department and the parks alliance. overall, i would just say that i think where this relationship becomes troubled and the lack of city code and requirements and regulations is that the parks
2:09 pm
alliance is a contractor, it has its licence to operate the conservatory of flowers and provides donations in the form of cash and selects contractors. it has a separate process to select venders that then perform services on parkland or other public properties. there are a lot of opportunities for conflicts of interests with all of those relationships and funds and our recommendations are attempt to address that. happy to respond to any questions. >> the statement around 72 anonymous donors, can you just -- i'm trying to understand
2:10 pm
what -- is that somebody who makes a donation to the parks alliance and request that be not listed somewhere -- or is this like a cashier's check or some other form of payment in which the parks alliance doesn't know who the donor is? >> i think it's the first scenario. there are donors who wish to not be identified. the parks alliance like many nonprofits produces an annual report that lists donors and there are many names listed and a section of anonymous and they show the brackets within which their contribution falls but don't provide the names. >> thanks. appreciate the clarification.
2:11 pm
>> is parks alliance receiving any kind of revenue at all? >> i believe in the amount of $200,000, which was the capped amount in the amended use agreement for the observation wheel. as to why it was to help off set costs for the celebration. mostly the department reports that the parks alliance is going to raise funds to pay for the celebration but the $200,000 as it turned out was going to be used to cover some of the costs as well. >> from my recollection, the celebration never took place because of the pandemic.
2:12 pm
is that correct? >> right. well, there were various events. but the community day event, the big kick off on april 4th, 2020, did not take place. that was being planned for up to the time of the shut down when the pandemic began. other events did take place, some online, some in the park itself. not to the extent as originally planned. >> and so, i have read the contract for the wheel, cover expenses. perhaps this $250,000 is going to cover their expenses, we have no accounting of what the expenses are. is that correct?
2:13 pm
thank you for highlighting the problematic mou that establishes 2003 and expired in 2013. yes, i do understand they are going through the updating process, but just for that duration of time, can you elaborate a little bit more about sort of the financial relationship or structure -- you mentioned in your presentation there's no minimum guarantee, which typically a lot of times i think from what i learned recently from sfo, there's a lease agreement and with that, a minimum guarantee and perhaps a percentage of sales on top of that.
2:14 pm
you're saying there's no such terms and conditions in the old mou at least since 2003. >> that is correct supervisor. there were provisions that allow for funds left over at the end of the year, a decision could be made to make a contribution to the recreation parks department but no baseline requirement that be done. as you say, it is fairly typical in a lot of agreements in the city, this is a licence agreement not concession but same idea of city property being used and operated by a non city entity. >> what happened that -- the year end deficit? >> the department could cover any losses and that is an unusual provision for a
2:15 pm
concession type arrangement. that did happen last year, possibly due to the pandemic, but the expenses exceeded the revenues. the department reports they did not make a payment to the parks alliance to cover the difference. so we assume the parks alliance has resources to cover that loss. >> but we know that in previous year before pandemic, throughout 2003, expire in 2012, any day in the scenario, if there's revenue generated, either in the black, parks alliance was in the position to decide whether they want to share or however they want to do with the revenue or keep it to themselves. but in the event of a deficit, that the department, rec and park departments could be on the hook to cover the deficit. >> that's correct.
2:16 pm
>> that's a great deal. that's a very, very good deal. for parks alliance, not for the city or our taxpayer. >> thank you. i just want to understand relative to the charter provisions that the recreation parks department has over authority within the parks how a licence works relative to a contract and whether a licence is subject to section 9.118 of the charter and board of supervisor's approval in cases where there's a million dollars of revenue or $10 million expense or 10 year or longer
2:17 pm
duration obligation. does that apply to a licence? in other words does a conservatory deal come to the board of supervisors for approval? >> supervisor peskin, i don't have the information. we didn't have that information about how it was first approved in 2003. i don't know if the department knows. when we had some questions about that agreement, they did state there weren't many people still on staff that were involved in the original -- >> i think the threshold question -- not to interrupt you, is really to the city attorney which is, does the board have 9.118 authority over licences, licence agreements on rec and park property.
2:18 pm
>> deputy city attorney, welcome. >> we are having trouble hearing your audio. >> can you hear me now? as this is a hearing, i was just logged in to listen. i wasn't prepared to fully advise on matters today and i would like to look into the question and get back to you. i know section 4.113 calls out permits specifically. i would like to look at past advice we have given about licences under the parks commission jurisdiction and get back to you. >> okay. and i will do a quick search to see if there's anything that says conservatory of flowers pursuant to 9.118. thank you. >> thank you supervisor peskin. >> i had another question. just relative to the anonymous donors in the fiscal years that -- in your report, has there
2:19 pm
been any after the fact requests for those donors the be revealed or is that water under the bridge -- i mean now clearly with their revised practices or mou, they have to. but has there been any desire or request for acknowledging who those donors are and if there's conflicts? >> supervisor peskin, not to my knowledge. the new mou is prospective, anonymous donations will not be accepted now by the rec park department, but there's no provision in there to go back and uncloak the anonymous donors from the past. i don't believe the department has made any requests or city otherwise has made requests for that information. >> i guess we can make that
2:20 pm
request. request made. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you supervisor peskin. supervisor chan. >> i think this is the question, perhaps, i'm not sure who i could direct this question for -- and get answer from. with knowing -- there's a few things we have identified through this report and i have questions like we now know -- we should request for more information, we do not know why parks alliance is receiving 200 something thousand dollars from the revenue generated from the sky wheel. we don't know what the expenses are for. we're going to get more information. i don't know what extent beyond what we have done within our
2:21 pm
power through the budget legislative office. it is through you we try to get that information. that's one. and the second part of it is then, while it is true that i'm glad now we started this whole inquiry, they are trying to do all these mou but they are in progress. they are all trying to figure out moving forward, however, i do think that we have the responsibility to taxpayers from 2003 -- like what happened from 2003 and 2012, or really 2021 during this time period in terms of accounting and payments and transgressions. and frankly colleagues, i have asked for that information in the past. i understand that it's decades of information that is probably
2:22 pm
not easy to process, but how is it we have gone so far without any type of control through the controller or city attorney. i. >> for this type of situation, what's the reports as a board to pursue? and perhaps it's a question i guess for deputy attorney harrison. i don't know. >> can we ask specifically how can i provide withyou on this ? >> what kind of action can this body as we now have identified that there's problematic and ou. it expires, establishes in 27 but it actually expires. there seems to be a lack of oversight both on businesses,
2:23 pm
the department self and controller andperhaps even the attorney . i think i would assume that there's got to be some type of ordinance to say you have expired and ou and not only that it's not in the best interest of our city. it'sa bad deal . no one seems to take action to correct that. who should beresponsible, what actions can this body take ? >> there has recently been a new and ou executed between the city and the arts alliance which has been analyzed by the dna. so to the extent that there was an earlier version that expired it's ndbeen replaced with a muc more recently drafted and executed and ou. and i think still has analyzed that and shared with this body
2:24 pm
suggestions for how we can improve upon it. but i do think the city has already taken steps to replace any prior and ou withone that's now winvented by the office of comptroller . >> what you're saying is there's no recourse about what happens since 2003. >> supervisor, i can step in for a minute. i think the department could probably report on it but the conservatory flowers have been in place since 2003. the new and ou doesn't replace the conservatory reflowers agreement. that's a separate document. however the department is in the process of i think revising it or perhaps coming up with a different entity to operate the
2:25 pm
conservatory flowers. i think it's now been publicly disclosed so i'm all right to say but in any case i think there are changes, plans for that that are separate from the master and ou and i'm sure the department could expand in more detail on. >> understood. so i think this is a question that i know in your presentation you mentioned because mthat really was in wh was required golden gate park anniversary and it's really focusing on that one year term of the ferris wheel on track. but we fknow that the wreck an parks commission had extended permit contracts beyond its original one year. did you receive additional information on its finances and
2:26 pm
amend agreements and whether we know that it's protected, revenue generated for a five-year term? what is the difference and doesn't actually trigger what supervisor peskin mentioned earlier that it's ebeyond the charter which is a role for women in the dollar contract ? >> we have good information about that i wonder if she can address that question. >> supervisor chan, with the amended agreement with skystar the parcel would receive 200,000which was noted . that skystar would be able to incur costs associated with a replacement dgenerator importantly to your question
2:27 pm
specifies that the department would review no more than 900,000 in revenue and we were advised that was put in to prevent the revenues from exceeding 1 million due to the limitthat your speaking of . >> you're saying instead of maximizing what revenue could be rogenerated from a contract that the department sought to say we're going to no matter what our revenue could be generated from this contract to just $900,000. >> yes, that's correct. >> supervisor chan, i totally appreciate your last comment to the chair which is these are outrageous shenanigans. in this case not by the parks
2:28 pm
alliance but by the pwreck and parks department and its leadership in a not very failed attempt to deceive. to deceive the board of supervisors from its carter authority under9.118 . just because you stick a clause in the contract to audit at 9999, number one it really undermines your duty to maximize revenue and number two it's spdone specifically to avo review by the elected body of the ucity and county it is frankly outrageous . >> thank you yosupervisor pesk. and supervisorchan, did you want heto follow up ? >> i have one other thing to say which is it you are giving a private party whether they
2:29 pm
are for-profit or nonprofit a share of the revenue in order to pay for a city sponsored event , why don'tyou just have the city pay for the event ? this whole notion of you have this invention up to $200,000 for them to plow back in, why would the property owner in this case ththe city give money to a third party so they can get back to the landowners? it's just nuts. >> thank you supervisor chan. >> i think my last question to kind of help us wrap up the entire focus really for this report and legislative analyst report which i appreciate you
2:30 pm
both so much is that i think throughout the report both in your presentation and in your report that it specifically talks about cost of entry and identified as really the main problem with the mou or the donation process, in-kind donations and all that . complications have time and time again popped up in every aspect of this relationship between park alliance and rec and parks department either park alliance as a contractor or for conservatory flowers or the skystar wheel contract or a donor who is now receiving anonymous donations to send to the department. could you just walk us through either an example or what do
2:31 pm
you mean by confidence? >> short supervisor. because of the various relationships between the two organizations there e is the opportunity for a contractor to the selected by the parks alliance to provide in-kind services to the department. that contractor could be making donations through the parks alliance k. perhaps anonymously as a condition for being contracted to provide services to the recreation and parks. that's one way it can play out. a contractor could also have a relationship with or could be requested by the department to provide a donation to the parks
2:32 pm
alliance as a basis for being awarded a contract from the department. there are restrictions on these now with the new mou but in our opinion they're not strong enough because the requirements now in the newest mou, the master mou state that parties are aware of any conflict of interest. that the parks t,alliance will report any conflict of interest they findout . to the department. and that they acknowledge the donors this full support for the department has no bearing on contracting by the department. so it leaves out the parks alliance entirely from relationships where if a contractor were making donations to the parks alliance is that the basis for the award of the contract used to provide
2:33 pm
services to thedepartment . so there's a lot of permutations on this relationship that are all covered by the inconflicts of interest nrequirements as put into the new and ou and in the past i have mentioned they weren't even in the agreement. so because of contracts being issued by both ieparties donations and then the additional relationship of the parks alliance operating the conservatory flowers which is a source of income for the organization and that's fine but it just provides another incentive that the alliance has an incentive to keep that agreement in place. so those are the types of ways in which conflicts ofinterest could potentially pop up . >> chair, i actually do not
2:34 pm
have any more presentations. i see that supervisor peskin is waving his hand but i was actually wanted to make sure that we do give ic then sarah here on behalf of wreck and parks department. i see the board president for the, for parks alliance as well. i do want to give them if they are not scheduled but idid not ask to present but i actually have a couple questions for them . i will stop that it's only fair to give them the space to remarkbut i saw that the supervisor was raising his hand for the question . >> supervisor, do you want to ask your question now or wait until afterwreck and parks as the floor ? >> i wanted to say that in my aforementioned research about
2:35 pm
board approval of this relationship that has by now for exceeded 10 years that there is no record that i can find of the board proving it and i would assume that is because the way wreck and park and probably the city attorney, i will speak for the city attorney reads section 9.118 a san francisco charter. it says it is contract and leases and i that being too cute by half they assume that licenses certainly meets the spirit but not the letter so i am hereby publicly requesting that the city attorney draft a clarification section 9.118 to make it abundantly clear that licensesare subject to 9.118 . thank you.and if you all want
2:36 pm
to cosponsor that, don't hesitate. >> thank you supervisor and supervisor chan, if you want to direct specific questionthis ? >> i do care. i would like to start off with a question and i think that thereafter obviously members and respond borate to the report issues. i think my question is very simple and direct. i just would like to understand that in the light when it firs happened , when we first all learned the allegations of corruption, of director of public works and with that we'd also learn about what he has done and the accounts with
2:37 pm
parks alliance. what was the immediate reaction and reaction and action of rent and parksdepartment , knowing that the department had such a deep relationship with parks alliance? >> this is wreck and parks department. i think i'm following the question and as we saw in the response we sent tosupervisor peskin at the time , first and foremost what we did was review our policy and practices which have been and continue to be to have any grant or gift assessed by the department. follow all applicable. so for most of the gifts we receive it comes with
2:38 pm
conditionstherefore we follow both code and the controllers recommendation . for board approvalwhere necessary . i'm not aware that the parks alliance has been found of any wrongdoing. if i am incorrect, please correct me but what we did was look at all of our agreements which we do have, mister persaud noted. we have mou for every project we engaged with the parks alliance so the executive director had an overarching mou with the parks alliance for a small amount of things that are not captured by those project mou's one clarification to mister russo's comment. the mou adopted may 2021 is a catchall agreement and all of
2:39 pm
theprovisions of that apply to all existing agreements . >> chair peskin, thank you. i agree with the fact that parks alliance has not been found of any wrongdoing. i do agree we are not criminally charged. they're not criminally charged. however i do think that they are involved to show that there is lack of internal control. therefore i think that there are steps that this report has shown there are oversights. are they safe? they're not criminally charged, i agree with that but i think there are oversights before
2:40 pm
your time even with the department that it seems like there's a patternthere . that has long been ignored at least being shown through the conservatory flowers in 2003. if i may offer the rapid parks department knowing the department fairly well that he does have a great system that could do his own work without this type of third-party relationship . i think that there are good people in the department trying to do good work and trying to improve the parks system. i think for me it was very disappointing to learn about the part alliance relationship through this account. that the action of corruption has to take place with commissioner habanuru and
2:41 pm
instead of pausing disagreements between wreck and park department and parks alliance it seems the general manager decided to double down. >> supervisor, as the controller's office mentioned there are 42recommendations in their report . eight of those applied to recreation and parks department and of the ones that we are in control of that don't rely on boardof supervisors legislation we have implemented all of those . as you saw in our response to the labor force and no findings of wrongdoing but had recommendations forfurther transparency . all of which we said absolutel . we're happy to provide additional reporting. so again we appreciate your noting that the work that the
2:42 pm
dedicated public servants and recreation andparks department are trying to observe our systems with . and we have complied with every role on the book about this and we will continue to and welcomed frankly any increased effort for transparency the cause that helps all of us . >> great, and that's my last question to the department's who made the decision to cast the skystar to $900,000? >> my recollection was that you had asked the controller's office to evaluate that agreement and one of the elements in that conversation was that estimating these things particularly during a global pandemic is rather challenging so rather than having any ambiguity, they would include a provision that
2:43 pm
said if revenues should reach $900,000 the agreement automatically terminates . >> thank you. >> to answer that more successfully basedon the review requested that i was was a recommendation to lead with it . >> thank you miss madeleine. supervisor chan, i think supervisor peskin has your hand. did you want to tell us? >> thank you chair preston. so mister russo, you didn't give them the scope of what supervisor chan gave you look at any of the wreck and park related to someaccounts at the parks alliance, did you ? >> we did not. >> this is clearly an area that needs more research let me ask miss madeleine on behalf of wreck andspark , what isthat
2:44 pm
some account ?can you characterize what it's been used for western mark is used for staffdevelopment , staff including but not limited to travel by the general manager? >> i can and actually it's usually chair.i can and in fact there's an item later on in your agenda that is our angle of expense for those items. i apologize i don't have it in front of me but it falls in the general category of supporting our volunteer services program including our teenagers progra at our staff recognition program . and i believe there's some other effects of it but again that's another item on your agenda is our prospective amd every time we bring tothe board as necessary . >> all right item number four.
2:45 pm
$45,000 in pension, item number four expired. >> correct. >> and the amount, what's the rate if you will? the percentage at the parks alliance takes off the top for their services? >> i do not knowthe answer to that question . as itpertains , that's evaluated for each specific project as established. >> if i want to give $100 for instance, maybe we should call item 4 i can ask the questions they are if i as the donor want to give $1000 to the parks alliance that i want to support staff development for wreck and park employees how much of that
2:46 pm
thousand dollars do you see? >> and being told that per hour mou at the parks alliance there is a 10 percent retention fee by the parks alliance. that is pretty much an industry standard in nonprofits. that is how they fund their administrative operations . youwant me to do the math ? >> i've got you but the answer is 10percent commission . >> 10 percent, they receive 10 percent performing the administrativefunction . >> just relative to and maybe this is a question from the representative for the parks alliance but do youknow what internal compliance controls they have ? >> i know what the mou governs in terms of reporting and compliance that's probably a
2:47 pm
better question forthe parks alliance . i believe that the board chair is with us. >> then relative to ... it sounds like the parks alliance selects contractors for projects onwreck and park property, is that correct ? >> there's a variety of agreements for specific capital projects where the project and the combination of either money to the department to combine the money or entering a contract for it is privately funded there's a landscape architect. they select the community that's working onthe project . >> relative to competitive contractingrequirements and
2:48 pm
equity requirements out of network ? >> i would ask the city attorney toweigh in on that . my understanding is the city proposed five public works contracts. >> in other words they don't have to comply withthis even if it's on city land . >> we included all of our mou's the prevailing age provisions for public works construction project. as you know supervisor we applied for professional services contract. >> i was askingabout prevailing wage . i was asking about fairness in contracting . do you know how contractors ge selected , visit the parks alliance gets to choose however they want and do theyhave any led requirements . do they have low bid, how does that work? >> i would ask the city
2:49 pm
attorney to chime in but all the provisions areabout the expenditure of public funds . they do not extend to private funds although our mou's have a variety of different things like the family piece i mentioned which the department has as a matter of policy. it's not required so i feel like i'm not fully answering your question but i will ask thecity attorney to weigh in on which code applies . >> i think you'veweighed in which the answer is no and you don't have to . my suggestion is that if we pursue pieces of public policy because they are the right public policy to pursue and we are the land owner, we can require that those public goods and your to the benefit of the
2:50 pm
public when they are doing things on our property. i would say if it's not just about prevailing wage. it's about making sure that our local business enterprise ordinances and other things that we hold dear and sacred, that's how we did domestic partners. it was, if you're on city land you have to comply. so i think what you're saying is we've got to go to that law and make it clear that you've got tocomply with city laws on city land .>> thank you supervisor and it sounds like something i would support if we're going there at some point. it makes alot of sense to me . i didn't want to jump to ensure we have folks who have been waiting for public comment. i wanted to give them achance to come back . but mister clerk if you could
2:51 pm
openpublic comment at this time . >> where checking with michael at our department technology to see if we have any public commenters. for those who are watching our meeting on cable channel 26 you can go to sfgov tv or elsewhere. if you wish to speak callhim now. dial 415-655-0001 . enter the meeting id is 2496 330 1479. then await thesystem prompts to indicate your line has been a muted . chair, i'm receiving word from mister baltazar we have no colors in the queue for agenda item number two.
2:52 pm
>> with no colors in the queue public comment is now closed. we will now return to the floor, supervisor chan. >> thank you chair.i do want to call on this list, this board president if she's still with us and the parks alliance. miss farrell, before we move forward to give you the floor to make the comment i do want to sense the presentation of the controller had mentioned they do not extend their investigation to the accounts for wreck and parksdepartment or parks alliance . i don't know exactly how they do this but i'm going to say i think that's how it is with you miss farrell and i would like to request the city attorney
2:53 pm
drafting and issuing a subpoena to the parks alliance. for the following information to actually include the numbers of some accounts that wreck and park department havewith parks alliance . and the expenses, trying to cash in with those accounts. taking it back to perhaps the same continuity i would say five years from this point. five fiscal years from this point that coincide with a similar time period and following director hamanuru's allegations andidentify the funding versus those accounts . does that work ?
2:54 pm
>> deputy city attorney pearso , do you want to comment? >> under the boards rules you may make a motion for seeking this. i've heard you make themotion but the committee should act on it . >> could i move themotion then ? >> do we have sufficient detail on the record for that deputy city attorney. >> i think you do. >> thank you. mister clerk could you call the role. >> on the motion offered by vice chair chan for 3.1 to issue a subpoena asmentioned in her motion , vice chair chan. [roll call vote] >> president: the motion passes.
2:55 pm
>> thank you chair peskin. you have any comments youwould like to make , be it about controllers report or our subject legislative analyst report or even comments for some of the questions you would like to respond that we had some on this slide.>> iq supervisors for the opportunity again. my name is liz farrell and i'm the board chair of the san francisco parks alliance and there was a lot of information there so i'll try to comment on the same things that are most relevant. one of the things is around the issue of anonymous donations and first of all i want to also just be clear on the record today that the parks alliance has not been accused or found to be involved in any
2:56 pm
wrongdoing of the investigation into the government corruption. i also wanted to say that throughout this whole process we are committed to being transparent. committed to working with the city. we have been a partner with the city for over 50 years and want tocontinue to be a good partner . so that we can continue to approve our parks and public spaces. i would like to just say that the city controls the contracts and wefollow the terms of the contract . so there's a lot of information that came out that is really a city issue so i defer to the city attorney who oversees those contracts. but to be clear every contract that's signed by the parks alliance is drafted by thecity , reviewed by the city attorne , negotiated by city staff and
2:57 pm
the city attorneys and approved by the appropriate oversight body. in response to the controllers report and more recently the bla report, i'd like to just reiterate that last year when the mayor introduced her directive changing the way that forensic group work with the city we immediately implemented a series of measures to increase our accountability for alliance including eliminating all anonymous donations over $100. and listing all donors on our public website. we also have upgraded our customer engagement tools that we are able to collect and track disclosure information. just to be clear the bla report did reference $3.5 million in
2:58 pm
anonymousdonations. since that time , 3 million of that 3.5 was from one donor. and since that time that donor has agreed to not be anonymous. to be clear the other $500,000 was from many different smaller foundations given before this new implementation of not being allowed to be anonymous. and i think earlier there was a question about being anonymous and just to be clear we don't have that many. that's not a big part of our parks alliance, anonymous donations but to be clear they're not anonymous to the parks alliance. they're just people who have chosen to not want to be
2:59 pm
publicly recognized for many different reasons. let's see. i also wanted to come back real quick on theferris wheel . andthe $200,000 . i just want to be clear that the alliance is not making any money onthe ferris wheel . but this is our reimbursement for expenses that were part of the golden gate park celebration. many of those events were not able to happen because of covid and all of a sudden find ourselves in the middle of a global pandemic that there were other events including the community kickoff event where we were able to spend 150 trees with 150 volunteers in golden gate park. also able to build the welcome
3:00 pm
center and do some improvements to the bandshell in golden gate park. and to be clear to that $200,000 is a very small fraction of the overall budget of the golden gate park other than what was planned to be and that the other part of those wereraised . the other part of those alleged was raised through private foundations. or private donations. so i'm happy to address any other specific questions. i also just want to jump back to the dpw sub accounts that the park alliance and also on the record make it clear the parks alliance is never receiving any fees on those accounts. those accounts predated
3:01 pm
definitely myself being on the board but also almost every single employee that is currently at the parksalliance . there's also a lot of things to make more clear and i'm happy to do that if you're interested on the process of how those were reimbursed. so i think there was a comment earlier that mister new lou asked for a check and he got to check and that isnot the case . that this was ... it went through a process including 2 sign offs from the department. i think we will stop there because i thought maybe supervisor peskin had a question. >> can you just clarify one thing for me on the issue of the sub accounts just beyond
3:02 pm
public works and looking at the park and rec or any department. have those directives been requested and not produced? or other sub counselors? >> the city has all the information from our accounts with the department of public works . we have not been requested to provide information around our accounts with rec and park . >> thank you for clarifying, supervisor peskin. you are muted. >> to see you miss farrell. neither here nor there but i want to start with one thing that i, it's maybe not important but it's important to me at least which is i was around and actually a member of the board of supervisors when there was no parks alliance.
3:03 pm
so forthe record , this fantasy and this narrative that the parks alliance has been around for 50 years is not true and i mean, i know that we keep repeating it you'll start to believe it is true but it is not true and i know that because i have not been on the board of supervisors for the years on and off for 20 but when i started and well into my tenure there was no parks alliance there was a friends rack andpark and a neighborhood parks counsel but no parks alliance . it had a different board of had different staff and had a different mission .there was a merger of those two organizations became the parks alliance that it wasn't 50 years ago but maybe that is not important but it does kind of there's this whole narrative of we are as old as san francisco and therefore you can't question us and we are part of the furniture andit's not true.
3:04 pm
now that i've got that off my chest , let me ask you how many employees does the parks alliance have ? >> that's an interesting question because we have our four employees at the parks alliance and we have other employees who are part of our four partners group. they don't have exact number but i'm happy to get that for you. >> do you have an estimate about what your annual salary and benefits package is worth? how much you spend on annually? >> i don't have that offhand. we're in the process of looking at some of those things and the number of employees that wehave but i don't currently have that . >> if i said $7 million does that sound about rightper annum ?
3:05 pm
>> that's not something i feel comfortable commenting on without having more detailed information . >>i'm looking at your website and it says that . so to be exact , it shows hold on one second year. it shows that you have 23 staff and it shows on your most recent 20/20 irs form 990... >> policy you. we have 25 staff and 35 are employees . >> and it says here for a year salaries, employee benefits 6.78 million. the reason i was asking that was not to play gotcha.i
3:06 pm
wanted to know how you raise themoney to support that staff payroll ? >> right. so we do accept donations for our general operatingexpenses . however the majority of the money that we do fund goes to specific projects. we did we have many partner groups are part of our community partnernetwork . and they have that kind of standard fee that sarah mentioned that is kind of industry-standard of 10 percent . that goes to support the kind of backend services that the parks alliance provides for those groups. >> for instance and i believe that wehaven't called the item yet but item number six , the $7 million for the port has actually an 11 percent fee and
3:07 pm
on 7 milliondoes that mean you guys are getting 700,000 off of that ? >> i don't knowspecifically if that was 10 or 11 percent . for the agreement with the board. >> i think it says 11 percent and i will wrap up, just relative to the letter that your executive director mister becker sent to supervisor chan threatening to withdraw funding from a park in her district, were you aware that, did you review that letter, was wrecked and parkaware that letter was going to be sent and what are your thoughts about that letter ? >> i think i would like to say that we had the opportunity to sit down with supervisor chan back in september and use the opportunity to apologize for
3:08 pm
the way that letter was received was not the intent in which it was directed. so we are a volunteer board with a very hard-working committed staff and work very hard including being here all day today but we want to make sure that when we are fundraising that people feel like they're getting toa trustworthy organization . that is really important to me personally as the board chair as i know it's important to our ceo drew andthe rest of the executive team and staff . so we are appreciative of the opportunity to sit down face-to-face with supervisor chan and try to apologize and try to clear the air on that and hope to move forward.
3:09 pm
it's really important to our work that we continue to have strong relationships with the board of supervisors and work together because there are alot of amazing projects that are in the works all across the city in every district . >> i did not attend that meeting so i will not characterize it but i have certainly not seen anything in writing about a letter that i think no matter how you read it is threatening and inappropriate and conduct unbecoming but i have said that before. you know whether the wreck and park departmentwas aware of that letter before it was sent ? >> i'm not going to comment on that . i will say personally i don't think i would ever be involved in seeing a letter or being part of an organization that
3:10 pm
sent a letter if the thought was that it was threatening to anelected official. so again , i do apologize for the intent of that was not or how it was received was notthe intent . >> thank you miss farrell, good to see you again. >> nice to see you to supervisor. >> thank you supervisor peskin area i am inclined that we should reopen public comment. we have someone trying to call in and i have an intervening motion regarding subpoenas so if any member once the comment please open it up for public comment on this item. >> i will repeat the instructions. interested members who wish to provide public commentshould dial 415-655-0001 . you'll be prompted to enter a meeting id.
3:11 pm
the meeting id is 2496 330 147 . after you've entered the meeting id dial pound twice and press star followed by 3. there may be one or two of you, please continue to wait until you are prompted to begin and you will hear a prompt informing you your line has been unmuted. could you connect us to our first call? >>. >> caller: thankyou supervisors chan and peskin, catherine howard here . many of the concerns the public has had over the years with department ofrecreation and
3:12 pm
parks, the boa report is very educational. i support all the controllers preliminary recommendations to limit risk associated with that apartment from non-city organizations . however there is a larger problem with the approval process for wrecked and parks projects not covered by the report. specifically the selection of the recreation and park commission is the product of a city charter that supports a strong mayor system. thewreck and parks commission is appointed by the mayor as is thegeneral manager as a result the commission rarely questions that apartments recommendations and even more rarely opposes them . where have they been throughout all of this ? all other cities have different ways to select commissioners. legislation is needed to change the appointment of rep and park commissioners a split commission at a minimum for some other more democratic process.i hope that these reports and this investigation will illustrate the need for this change and be a first step
3:13 pm
towards it happening . thank you very much. >> thank you for sharing your comments. next color please. >> caller: good afternoon supervisors. i would like to thank supervisor chan for having requested the report from the budget andlegislative analyst's office and for holding this hearing . as it happens i helped write the report that was submitted by a group of concerned citizens to the historic preservationcommission and others . in that report some aspects of the agreement among the parks alliance and owners of the skystar including its proposed financial terms were questioned so i was especially interested to read the part of the bla report dealing with that topic. i have one specific comment and itssurprisingly echoes the previous commentor . the job of the rex parks commission isto oversee the
3:14 pm
department . it is the bodies voted to approve agreements that rpd has entered into including our arrangements by far. given the number of times lack of transparency and other issues and agreements recited in the bla records, it seems a shame that those who comply with it were not able to directly include aspects of the commission decision making process. in the scope of their analysis. my name is linda schieffer and i live in district 1 and the outer outer richmond. thank you. >> can we get the next color please. >> this is chas wellborn in district 5 and i've been like kathy howard long concerned about wreck and park . and the way that they seem to play fast and loose with arrangements and are selling off forces of the park, putting
3:15 pm
up signs ofpeople's names on public land etc. . it's in the past i've pretended attended some meetings and it seems likeeverybody's rollover . notice on items but maybe that's a historic part of that. anyway i commend supervisor chan for holding this hearing. i'd like to support the kinds of actions that she and supervisors asking, mark and preston have talked about taking to get further transparency and proper oversight for not just the department of rep and part but other city agencies that in the tacit agreement. thank you very much. >> thank you for sharing your comment. do we have any further colors in thequeue. mister chairman , i received
3:16 pm
word on a separate linefrom mister baltazar that we have no further colors . >> with no further public comment public comment is now closed and supervisor chan will turn it over to you any concluding remarks but i did want to thank you for your leadership on this, for calling this hearing and also want to thank the controller bla for all the work on these reports and i think that some really serious issues i think have been raised. i think that this is going to be an ongoing conversation on a number of the items that were raised including some of the structural issues and i think supervisor peskin drilled down on some of these things that were discussed before regarding contracts for deals set with revenues for contract amounts
3:17 pm
for items in the caps that will come before the board are just in practices that i frankly think are not exclusive to read and park. i haven't faced theboard with some contracts and it's just a problem . and i think that it is seeing this within government departments as a way to avoid the process that we have charter to have reviews. so it's always problematic but i appreciate the recommendationsmade by bla and the controller . i think the supervisor has additional commentsbefore we turn the floor back over to you . >> i just wanted to confirm with the chair and thanked the visor chan for bringing this forward. i know that there are definitely entities within government and within the city that would prefer that these questions not be asked and that
3:18 pm
there's nothing to see here. and there's that line of you know, there has been no wrongdoing and i think supervisor chan said correctly there has been no criminal charges and that's a very different thing. i would actuallyventure to say there has been wrongdoing . in so far as however it happened, in essence this organization parks alliance certainly in the narrow case essentially laundered money. now, that doesn't mean they did it wittingly or complacently but generally in the industry of nonprofits that iknow a little bit about when you act as a fiscal agent for a fiscal sponsor , you have control over those funds and you ask the
3:19 pm
appropriate questions and you put them on your books. you don't do them off all of those things are profoundly concerning and it's rather startling to me that we have not asked for and until today the research that hopefully will be forthcoming from the controller and or the bla about the sub accounts relative to record park and i look forward to obtaining that information in the future. i did want to ask who is the $3 million donor? do you know, that is no longer secret information so one of the 72 anonymous donor donors. >> thank you, sarah mathers parksand recreation . i did not know the answer to that question. i would defer to miss carol but i will say that it's important to separate the donations to the parks alliance from the
3:20 pm
donations to the department. as an anonymous donor, parks alliance as you see on their agenda works in a variety of public entities and one more thing i did want to note we had a wide-ranging conversation about the different projects that we do with our clients is thatthese projects come to you as a board for your approval . through the accepted and so many of the questions and concerns and provisions that you have talked about in this hearing are presented before you get approved or not as you will see in probably a future agenda by the board. which is our point of the process. i just wanted to make sure we covered that as well. >> can you provide a response to supervisor peskin is weston given thedonors identity is no
3:21 pm
longer private ?>> i wanted to clarify to all the sub accounts are on the books so there's nothing parks alliance that is off . the donor to the 3 million of the $3 million was to the port project was the baker street foundation and we went back to them and asked them if they were okay that ... with no longer being anonymous per this new directive. >> thank you and i don't want to be argumentative with miss madeleine but i do want to say that accepting expense is only as good as they are current and i do believe wreck and park maybe the recordholder related to the board of supervisor retroactive accept and expand and iwill leave it at that . >> supervisor chan.
3:22 pm
>> thank you so much supervisor peskin for your questioning. i think that my ... my last request and i don't think we need to respond but just note that i will follow up with that inquiry for a list of expenses of the $200,000 that were covered withdisguised our contract . so that we have some transparency for where that money is going. i think that wreck and parks has a bad deal because we have all these donations that parks and alliance is 10 percent but according to that parks alliance they did not charge the similar standards policy according to everyone that is a standard industry of 10 percent
3:23 pm
to public worksaccounts . which is very interesting. then perhaps it's a bad deal for wreck and parks that is being charged with that 10 percent andalso what we'regoing to see with the ports mou that they're getting an 11 percent view . so that's interesting . that's that miss federal past that and they did not charge that 10percent fee with the donation coming through to public works . but perhaps controllerand verify since wehave that discussion . earlier . for controller to even and apparently verify that supervisor . >> on. >> i think we can clarify that a different time. you know, it's just important to understand thatthese are charged to the city . and if i may through the chair
3:24 pm
i could clarify thatthey . >> we can have the base all evening. we have a long agenda. supervisor would like a response now, then we will call on a not maybe you could take this off-linewith supervisor chan or discussion . what is your pleasure . >> i think we can end here. i just think it's the standard industry where it specifically thisis about parks alliance . it's not about wreck andpark . it's the fact that parks alliance is charging or receiving a 10percent of that donation . and that is what they are doin . it's standard with all these accounts. but when we said earlier she had claimed that with the donations coming through for the accounts that go before the donation to parks alliance, to public works, parks alliance
3:25 pm
did not receive a 10 percent of the charges or the fees from those donations. i think that let's have the controller independently verify that andlike i said earlier , report the list of expenses from the sky star wheel for th department of anniversary directly from parks alliance . colleagues, i think i need to say that ultimately the reason why red going to all these details and going through all these conflict of interest issues, issues of this very problematic relationship of third-party agency that function as a contractor which now we are going to extend by definition as an interested party who also receives anonymous donations even though moving forward that are going to change that so we know that
3:26 pm
in past years that practicing itself is what led us to the corruption allegations thatthe city is now facing . that also tells us though as i have referenced previously we know from trust of public lands issues that we report about the fact that san francisco ranks number one in its park investments in the nation. dollars per capita. and yet in terms of when it comes to equity, now there are people who say what does that mean and i'm really sad for the people who don't understand what equity means because for those of us who fight for equity knows what that means. in public access to our public lands. when it comes to equity inour public parks ,san francisco doesn't even rank in the top 10 . that is problematic . we're talking about here. wherethis is the city of which is .
3:27 pm
we do so much donation so much money to renovate and improve our parks and we can see that with those results and yet there is lack of equity. lack of access for those who cannot pay and you in this case are we now setting ourselves up for a two-tiered system of two tears parks system for those who can pay to play literally and for those who cannot afford access to our public space. so that is my conclusion for today's hearing. chair, because i have an issue and applied for that subpoena i would really like to have a follow-up specifically about the number of sub accounts that wreck and park department through parks alliance and the expenses paid back to the last five fiscal years. i would like to make a motion to continue this to the chair. if i may, thank you.
3:28 pm
>> thank you supervisor and mister clark would you please call the role . >> on the motion offered agenda item 3b continued to the call of the chair. vice chair. [roll call vote] there are 3 aye's. >> chair: motion passes and thank you for your participation. you supervisor chan and we will move onto our next item . can we call the next 2 items together ? i believe that item 4 and 5 and item to extend up to $182,000 of cash for in-kind grants for annual community events, and recreation and other activities from the san francisco parks alliance november 21-22. agenda item 5 is to bring a
3:29 pm
motion authorizing the wreck and parks department to expand cash or in-kind grants from the parks alliance at $400,000. for restoration projects for the term of a date upon the board of supervisors approval until notice ofcompletion . members of the public wishing to have public comment on these two resolutions shouldcall the call in number and to do so now. the phone number is 415-655-0001 . today's meeting id is 2496 330 1479. after you've entered the meeting id press pound twice to be connected and start followed by the number three to speak and then await a system prompt that indicates your line has been muted and gives you the opportunity to offer public comment. >> thank you mister clark and
3:30 pm
welcome back from the last ite . this is madeleine of wreck and park and icy grant is on as well. do you want to acknowledge that, i don't think i forewarned you so it's two separate presenters or however you want to do it, no problem. the board is yours up to 10 minutes on these items. >> thank you. i need an with the wreck and park department and if you'll allow me i will do the presentation on the accept and extend for annual support and i'll pass it over to my colleague down there who will do the item on the japanese street art so let me start by saying as i mentioned i'm here today to present you with a resolution on rising recreational parks department to accept and expend up to 108 $18,000 in past or in-kind
3:31 pm
grants for annual support from the parks alliance for fiscal year 2422. and i'll keep it very short because it's been a long meeting today but as you've heard the of the department for the parks alliance is around capital projects. but the parks alliance also provides a small but significant amount of philanthropic support to its parks department programs and initiatives which is what we mean when we refer to the annual support and that's before you today. although i'll go over the specifics of this year budget estimate in a moment but i wanted to first know that all of the support from the parks alliance is nowcovered by the end you that was executed in may and add additional layers across transparency and oversight . the term of the you comply with the mayor's erected and
3:32 pm
approved by the controller and the city attorney and covers donor disclosures, recordkeeping and actual control. reporting on its conflicts of interest. so as supervisor peskin mentioned we brought the these to the board and the controller advised us we should bring these prospectively and that's what we're doing now. this is for the first time we're preventing an overall estimated budget of $18,000. so with that understanding that these figures are estimates, the year's annual support will fund certain department activities including community events, park improvements, staff development and recreational programming. i'll give you some more detail . we estimate the part interviewed $20,000 for bench statements including things as purchase of equipment materials and supplies to maintain park
3:33 pm
benches and that comes to the department through the bench program which was updated and approved by the wreck and park commission in 2019.we also estimate the part contributes $20,000 for community events based on support for the department's regional events and to allow for special community events like the 2019 game in bayview. we estimate the parks alliance will contribute $12,000 for recreational programs that have an accepted and budgeted expenses and in the past we used them for things like purchasing tenants equipment for the learning center which is an afterschoolprogram we run . it provides academics, social all emotional and skills for elementary and middle schoolers. we also support children and our adaptive wreck and park
3:34 pm
programs. we estimate this will contribute $6000 to volunteer programs to augment the purchase of materials and supply for these programs. this would include things like materials or tools that help the department provideextra special experiences . the groups that show up and invest their equity in the city and in our parks. we estimate the parks alliance will contribute approximately $30,000 to some of our youth development programs and this bucket funds our work with young people to thegreenacres program which provides high schools with workforce development and environmental stewardship training . i'll mention here that it's noted in the resolution the department works with the controller and city attorney to
3:35 pm
get permission commission approval to accept the first 25,000 of the hundred 18,000 of this grant to allow the low income youth program to be paid on time. and then lastly we estimate the part will contribute approximately $25,000 on staff development andemployee appreciation . partnership development and planning. but category varies but as it's coveredvery successful employee recognition staff develop program . and these are specifics that have promoted learning by hiring facilitators for allowing department staff to attend conferences for entries. employer recognition is transit plan that has been created by our hr department brings together from every level of the department both peer-to-peer and top-down recognition for staffing the department that embodies our values of respect, resilience,
3:36 pm
relationshipresults . i'll just add that we do believe it's been incredibly impactful since these programs were implemented . employee jobs have increased 10 percent from 76 percent to 86 percent . and in addition employees say they feel recognized and appreciated for their work. have increased 19 percent to 86 percent our workforce retention rate is 95 percent. thank you and with that i will pass it over to my colleague abigail mayor to talk about the japanese tea garden and we will beavailableafterwards for questions . thank you very much supervisor . >> can i just get one of the question that is, i think this is not aretroactive one but i think i got 25,000 . can you just clarify that it's retroactive approval or anonymous? >> is not retroactive approval
3:37 pm
because it's set states the board works cannot the commission does have authority to approve ranks of less than $100,000. >> thank you for the presentation. >> of course. go ahead. and you are muted. >> i'm so sorry. good afternoon. >> everyone on thecall has done at least once . >> thank you. i'm abigail mayor with the recreation and parks department and i am here for this next x authorizing of the parks department to accept and extend a cash or in-kind brands from the san francisco parks alliance to value for $100,000 for restoration projects at the japanese key garden. as i'm sure you're aware of the city through the recreation and
3:38 pm
parks department maintains that the garden in golden gate park located in district 1. the blend of the key garden is a fiscally sponsored above the parks alliance and in partnership with the department parks alliance and its friends have launched the job of the key garden revitalization campaign . the campaign focuses on the restoration of the go to as well as other priority projects which improve access to the go to. estimated cost for the project and the garden is approximately $2 million. the department has budgeted a total of 1.7 million and the parks alliance on behalf of the friends of the key garden has offered to raise the remaining funds estimated to be approximately $300,000. if there are additional costs and if there are additional
3:39 pm
philanthropic funds of funds group has offered to donate up to $400,000. on july 15, 2021 the recreation and parks commission by resolution number 2007 403 has commented that the board of supervisors authorize departments to accept and extend the rent. different organizations support the restoration project such as the japan task force, and district 1 and throughout the city. >> thank you miss mayor. colleagues, any questions or comments before we go to public comment on these two items . supervisor peskin. >> i remember reading a news article of some sort and maybe a blog some time ago saying that funds, i don't know if
3:40 pm
it's funds that went directly from the parks alliance or whether they went to record park and rec and park paid them to reimburse the general manager for travel and associated expenses. it would not be in this accept and expend under and activitie ? staff involvement in activitie , does that include reimbursin , what we start with a professional question, how did the general manager get reimbursed for travel expenses in the past . >>. >> for aparticular , >> i would imagine. >> one second, i'llask . >> i'm director of public policy affairs and i don'tknow the answer off the top of my
3:41 pm
head supervisor . iknow there is a process for doing that . we all filled out the form and so on. and those records are available. i don't know off the top ofmy head . >> does this accept and expand would add activities and activities, does that include travel reimbursement ? >> i would defer to the city attorney as to what positions are included in the ame but the idea there is to not have it online as it's a staff development .and an information program we talked about. >> supervisor peskin. >> nevermind.
3:42 pm
>> chair: any further question from colleagues before we go ? >> know, on the next one. >> supervisor chan. >> i'm trying to understand so with this donation it doesn't make sense the $400,000 and my apologies , ididn't go through this document . does parks alliance also take 10 percent standard fee of donation ? do we know that? >> i don't know forsure i would imagine they do . this is my last question chair peskin. there's a cover of the pen go to in the tea garden. does that network has actually
3:43 pm
begun because there's a banner so is this actually money that doesmake it retroactive or no ? >> know, the pagoda is under the graphand the pagoda restoration is underway . that work is being funded through an parks general fund. and our carpenter, are actually performing quite amazing work. >> thanks for the clarification. the funding from the parks alliancehas not been accepted yet . >> thank you. >> thank you for the clarification. and public comments on items four and five. >> members of the public wishing to provide public comment on these two agenda items, the resolution tosay a dinette item for an agenda item number five altogether . those folks who called public comments call in number which
3:44 pm
is 415-655-0001. enter the meetingid which is 2496 330 1479 . press the pound symbol twice t connect to the meeting and start followed by three to enter the queue to seek . then await a system prompt tha indicates your line has been muted and then that is your opportunity to provide your comments . we're checking in now with department of technologies to see if we have any colors in the queue . michael balthasar is informing we movewe have no colors .>> with no colors public comments on these two items is now closed. supervisor chan. >> due to our previous discussion, that there are a number of applicants that can be issued withparks alliance , i would like to makea motion to continue these two items . i'll call the chair until we resolve some of the issues about parks alliance today and
3:45 pm
complete the information that we should get independent verification from controllers and we will respond to our subpoena. >> thank you supervisor on emotion as stated by supervisor chan . >> on the motion stated to continue this item to the call of the chair. i scare you member mark. [roll call vote] there are 3 aye's. >> chair: this motion passes on these 2 items. and mister clerk, let's go ahead and call the agenda item. >> clerk: agenda item 6 authorizes the ports of san francisco to execute a memorandum of understanding and execute exit and expend a grant from the san francisco parks alliance for $7 million to fund the completion of certain
3:46 pm
project components of rainbow park for december 21 through october 2029. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this resolution to should call the call in number which is still 415-655-0001. after the meeting id which is still 2496 330-1479. following that press pound twice to connect to the meeting press theákey followed by the number three to enter the queue. following that weight a system prompt indicatesyour line has been unmuted and provide your comments . then please enter the line. >> thank you mister clerk and welcome to the final agenda item for not on our agenda on parks allianceday . parks alliance related agenda item and we are joined by my important assistant director of support, san francisco legislative affairs manager to the port and the floor is
3:47 pm have permission. >> thank you chairperson, mike martin existing professor of art san francisco to talk about the fundraising campaign and the associated proposed memorandum ofunderstanding with parks alliance . next slide please .bring both parties of has a last year. i recommend you read it, it's highly popular and we're excited about what it offers. it's located on illinois street andthe day at excuse me, 18th and 19th street . bring hope was an idea that came out of our master planning process in the 2010 2011 timeframe. as a way to sort of mitigate a bit the impacts or the sort of effects of our maritime industries like the former
3:48 pm
shipyard next dooras well as the then proposed now in process . 70 historic for indoor. at the time in 2011, the heart was projected to foster around $30 million so we sought out bond funds and other grant funds to be able to pay for that budget. over time, that is the case with any core projects this was eliminated. due to a number of things including the challenges of turning a part in what used to be an industrial land use along the waterfront . but there are other challenges including general process escalation beyond that 30 billion so that went into a position that we find ourselves in which is to provide ways to raise additional funds to deliver above. the park or failing that what pieces of the soap must be value added so that we can complete the daypart and
3:49 pm
hopefully come back and complete thosecomponents at a different time. so we did that and the park is coming in a little bit over $6 million . we're actually just finishing up the final work at building 49 in the middle of the park that will be completed and of the year so far offering will be sort of completeand we will be looking to move ahead to try to bring those other pieces back to the project . next slide please. on the right-hand side of the slide reflects some of those components that weare trying to move ahead as part of the fundraising campaign we're talking about today . there's a children's playground structure . there's also a market proven very attractive todoctors and we wantto find a space for them to play with their dogs . in addition , there's a couple of knots in the history of the sitethey maritime shipbuilding and ship repair facility . we like to refurbish the tops of the praying that use to be atwork at their as a part amenity . sort of clawback that history
3:50 pm
as well as a design reader chart which is typically a play area with sort of a maritime fee and harkening back tothe historical nature of the site . so as we approached the 2019 completion of the park to the point where we were opening it in 20/20 we wanted to figure out ways that we know the public would want to see especially after having gone through the design process for the advisory committees . and so we entered discussions with the parks alliance to perform a fundraising program and to have that other parts around the city as we seen in the course of today's hearing. the agreed to an you with parks alliance to raise private funds and in-kind contributions to the draft fee specific projects or part amenities.
3:51 pm
and as you can see in this rollup whenyou add in project management and contingency the delivery of those comes in over $6 million . so we brought the mou to the park commission in 2019 and were going to proceed to the board of supervisors for the required approval under 918 when other things came into play that caused a delay. one being the pandemic and the other being a public integrity review that you heard the presentation on earlier in this hearing . we bided our time to see what those recommendations would come out for review and after we saw them we incorporated all of those into the mouthat we've now introduced at the board of supervisors for your consideration . in the meantime as an acknowledgment of the fact that fundraising campaigns as these are taken one day at a time and we had publicized the opening
3:52 pm
of the park and had such a exciting visitor ship, the quiet period began i think and we be able to get the rest of the mou approved and move ahead noted there have been donations that have been tendered to the parks alliance as part of this fundraising campaign. they are holding those. we realize the board had to make approval before we could even get into that conversatio so that's why we're here today in hopes we can bring those dollars on delivery. next slide please . here are the terms of the mou that's before you today. the term is for five years alliance fund raises at $7 million in cash and in-kind grants . ports role is to approve the funds, and i want to pause here and say that the mou calls out that each grant is subject to a
3:53 pm
grant agreement that will be approved at the port so it's in the grant agreement that we specifically ensure requirements as to project delivery will follow in the case of in-kind donations we will be able to transparently and clearly delineate how those donations will be deployed in the furtherance of these partners. the alliance fee is 11 percent offunds raised. the court will own all the fixtures fundedand be responsible for all operations and maintenance . as noted earlier , we have incorporated the controller's recommendations as to transparencies posting on the website, any donorsand anonymous donations are allowed . the parks alliance will provide the city with fundraising status report and organization of financial statements. there is not rates for a donor
3:54 pm
recognition program at this time but if one appears to be useful the parties will discuss and if we are to move forward with donning recognition that would be subject to board approval. nextslide please . >> mister chair thatwas the seven minute bill . >> chair: go ahead. >> thank you, apologies for running long. i know you've had a long day. i want to reiterate this is with the integrity review findings that we heard. we are very excited about the parks and in the interest of not only visiting the park from residents but also the interest in donating to improve the park and we look forward to hopefully going ahead on these great improvements as soon as we can and with that i look forward to any questions you may have thank you mister martin and i believe we have thebla report on this item . miss campbell with the bla report. i misspoke, mister bernard
3:55 pm
welcome and our meeting has gone so long that we are moving on to a new bla. >> nick bernard and the budget analystsoffice . this proposed resolution would approve a memorandum of understanding and the parks alliance and authorize the ports to accept and expend $11 million in in-kind grant donations from theparks alliance , grand cove park funding. we show these funds on page 5 of our report. as you've already heard the september 2020 integrity recommended the city department formalized their relationships with these organizations. such that the parks alliance contains certain internal controls. this mou is consistent with the
3:56 pm
recommendations and provide funding so on that basis i would recommend approval of the resolution. having said that we had here earlier from our office on policy options that we recommend the board could consider to establish additional requirements with the organization so i want to make clear that if the board adopted a future policy pertaining to adding additional controls for friends of agreements it would not apply to what is approved. if you applied it can only act it as an incentive for both parties so i wanted to make that clear. other than that i'm happy to answer anyquestions . >> chair: thank you for that clarification on the interaction between approval and the two policy changes. i appreciate that.
3:57 pm
any comments or questions before wedo public comment ? supervisor chan. >> i know this has been a fairly new relationship between parks alliance and ports. so therefore i see it as slightly different than the previous two items. i just see that the previous parks alliance and reckoned parks department are just way too deep and i really need them to sort out more transparency and accountability. in this case though i would support and i think that we have that conversation as well to perhaps identify ways that would be possible to have a donor already lined up to directly donate to the port. to start with a clean slate
3:58 pm
without a third party like parks alliance accepting the 11 percent fee i don't know if that's something that can be done. i would urge the port to explore and think about ways to have that if it's possible this time. that's my only comment on this item. thankyou . >> thank you supervisor chan let's open to public comment . >> members of the public wishing to provide public comment should call the call in number, 415-655-0001. enter the meeting id of 2496 330 1479. press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting and press star followed by the number three to speak. the system prompt indicates you have raised your hand wait
3:59 pm
until the system indicates you have been on muted that will begin your opportunity to provide public comment . mister balthasar, let me know if we have callers in thequeue or our first color . and i'm receiving word mister chair from the department of technology we have no callers foragenda item number six . >> iq mister clerk and with no callers public comment on item number six is now closed. supervisor chan. >> very similar to the previous 2 items i think that there are outstanding issues, challenges with parks alliance. i would like to move this item to the fall just so that once we have a resolution perhaps or a report we can identify ways to accept and extend this information directly from donors. then we can have another
4:00 pm
discussion. >> thank you supervisor and i'm happy to call the ball on that. i do want to invite to the extent that there are any impacts on any of these funds that anyone wants to raise to reach out to our office, in determining how we schedule that item but with that footnote, go ahead and call the roll on the motion. >> on the motion that this resolution be continued to the call of the chair, vice chair can . [roll call vote] mister chair, there are 3 aye's. >> chair: themotion passes . thank you everyone for your
4:01 pm
presentations on that item. and now we believe are ready to convene and closed session buti think we need a motion to do so . actually, sorry. we should open up public comment. some sometimes we call the closed session item and please call public comment . >> clerk: agenda item 713 comprises a litigation agenda on the oversight committee meeting agenda. they are five ordinances and two resolutions settling on litigated claims against the county. members of the public who wish to provide publiccomment on the litigation agenda should call thepublic comment call in number . it is 415-655-0001 . enter the meeting id for today's meeting. that is 2496 330 1479.
4:02 pm
press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting and press star followed by the number three to enter the queue to speak. wait until the prompt has indicated you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments . mister chair, we are checking if we haveany callers who wish to provide public comment . we only have one listener and no oneraising their hands to provide public comment . >> chair: with no one in the queuepublic comment on the litigation item is now closed . and i'll move that we convene in closed session mister clerk on these items, please call the role. >> on the motionto convene in closed session offered by supervisor peskin .[roll call vote] mister chair, there are 3
4:03 pm
aye's. >> chair: themotion passes and we will now convene into closed session . we are now back in open session thank you for your patience while we were away in our closed session please report on the closed sessiondeliberation . >> clerk: while the committee convened in closed session , the committee acted unanimously to recommend all theagenda items to the board of supervisors . >> chair: thank you mister clerk and i like to move to not disclose the closedsession discussions . >> on the motion to not disclose deliberations, vice chair chan. [roll call vote] mister chair, there are 3 aye's.
4:04 pm
>> chair: motion passes at any further business before the committee ? >> clerk: there is nofurther business . >> chair: i do want to thank mister clerk and your team and the sfgov tv team and supervisor mar for coming in today. i do appreciate all of you with this long hearing and i want to recognize the clerk office, some of whom were up late last night working on the redistricting clerking that meeting as well and that added to along session in gao today so thank you all and we are adjourned . >> happy thanksgiving.
4:05 pm
francisco. >> my name is fwlend hope i would say on at large-scale what all passionate about is peace in the world. >> it never outdoor 0 me that note everyone will think that is
4:06 pm
a good i know to be a paefrt. >> one man said i'll upsetting the order of universe i want to do since a good idea not the order of universe but his offered of the universe but the ministry sgan in the room chairing sha harry and grew to be 5 we wanted to preach and teach and act god's love 40 years later i retired having been in the tenderloin most of that 7, 8, 9 some have god drew us into the someplace we became the network ministries for homeless women escaping prostitution if the months
4:07 pm
period before i performed memorial services store produced women that were murdered on the streets of san francisco so i went back to the board and said we say to do something the number one be a safe place for them to live while he worked on changing 4 months later we were given the building in january of 1998 we opened it as a safe house for women escaping prostitution i've seen those counselors women find their strength and their beauty and their wisdom and come to be able to affirmative as the daughters of god and they accepted me and made me, be a part of the their lives. >> special things to the women that offered me a chance safe house will forever be a part of
4:08 pm
the who i've become and you made that possible life didn't get any better than that. >> who've would know this look of this girl grown up in atlanta will be working with produced women in san francisco part of the system that has abused and expedited and obtain identified and degraded women for century around the world and still do at the embody the spirits of women that just know they deserve respect and intend to get it. >> i don't want to just so women younger women become a part of the the current system we need to change the system we don't need to go up the ladder we need to change the corporations we need more women like that and they're out there.
4:09 pm
>> we get have to get to help them. >>
4:10 pm
. >> clerk: good afternoon. i'll be co-chairing the meeting. welcome everyone. we'll go ahead and start with roll call. good afternoon. so if the council members are present could broadcast to the channel and let us know that you're here. we will be broadcasting this live on sfgov tv and it is open captions and i will be -- we will be working with a different format today with me signing the roll call and the information before you all. so bear with us as we work through some t


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on