Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves $4.27 million supplemental for San Francisco General Hospital seismic and electrical work
Summary
The committee approved a $4,270,320 ordinance appropriating savings‑reserve funds for seismic upgrades and electrical power distribution repairs at San Francisco General Hospital, after DPH and budget staff explained cost overruns and FEMA and bond matches.
Get email alerts on the Capital Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Budget & Finance Committee approved an ordinance to appropriate $4,270,320 from the general fund budget savings incentive reserve to San Francisco General Hospital for seismic upgrades to a central service building and improvements to the hospital’s electrical power distribution system.
Department of Public Health staff said two capital projects are covered: a seismic upgrade to the plant/service building (a project begun in February 2006 that experienced cost overruns after unforeseen ground conditions) and $2,277,550 for electrical distribution repairs following a power failure in December. DPH explained that designers relied on a geotechnical report that assumed a smooth bedrock elevation between test points; field conditions showed abrupt drops in bedrock elevation that required additional ground anchors and remediation.
DPH said the original seismic appropriation was roughly $9.5 million sourced from a FEMA grant matched by city general funds, with later appropriations from general funds and the earthquake safety bond. FEMA has also preliminarily agreed to a supplemental of approximately $387,475 tied to an expiring program. The budget analyst recommended approval, noting DPH provided sufficient justification for these one‑time expenditures from the savings incentive reserve.
Supervisors pressed DPH on designer versus contractor responsibility for the added costs; the department said it is disputing claims with the contractor while the contractor alleges designer error, and the city attorney is involved. The committee approved the ordinance 'without objection' and asked for continued oversight and clarity on contingency and change‑order exposure for the underlying project.
