Transcripts For SFGTV 20130331

available. and so we often participate in those rate hearings when they are before the state. so this was in the staff report says that this was negotiated at the highest rate at the time in the market. and why was the initial rate so high when they negotiated in april 2008? and yet we were worried they were going to leave? >> that's a good question. i think there was a spike in the rates. i think maybe the people that were negotiating it were somewhat confused about a full service lease and net lease and arguably a net lease at $4.15 if you have a tenant cost of a dollar would possible y be market but a net with an additional dollar per square foot, that's what simon at pacific water partners is getting for classic prime property. it's now some of the highest resents -- rents in the market. it was a little bit out of whack and the rent kept just going up and up. it's not typical. sometime this cycle is going to come down. we are at an up swing now. typically the market is at a 7-year cycle. we can adjust for that by a market adjustment. but at the same time if we want tenant retention and the market drops, it's very important. >> is there any plan for them and what tenant i improvements have they invested in this property. >> there have been improvements made to the apron and birthing. they are at the end of pier 9 because they have water access. not because they like the beautiful views. it's a water dependent industry that needs to be on the water. so they have made investments to the apron and substructure and tenant improvement inside i don't think they have made a lot other than just maintenance. >> okay. so getting to my comments, i guess, there is a couple things i think this is the 5th anniversary and other things we can do to prevailing market rates or higher. i think the concern i have is that other tenants are paying their 3 percent. so what is setting the precedent is very dangerous because a lot of other people can say, hey, i want to come back and renegotiate. and i don't know that what the obligation is other than we in good faith want to do anything retro active. i have concerns that this is an exception to what we normally do and that creates a precedent for others. because whatever we save for them, eventually going into their pockets is the way i understand this works. the only things that is in the favor of the port is the 20 percent discount. so my feeling is that we should take another look at this very carefully and stay within the parameters of what we do on a standard basis and if there is a way to negotiate the 20 percent discount which i agree is not very advantages to us, but to limit something that is a standard term in other leases, i think puts us for other people to come forth and ask for whatever reason, whether it's the market, whether it's their own financial difficulties and i think that puts the port at risk and i'm not sure that's something we want to put ourselves into. i think that it's, they obviously came forth and asked and we responded, but i think it's dangerous and i'm sure we are in agreement to go down the path we have. i think we have to figure out what terms of the lease we can negotiate otherwise giving things away that are not standard. >> i think what is arguably an over market price to bring it down is to reset their rate a the what we are getting at other locations if pier 9 or along the port or even across the street. >> right. well, the refshs reference is in the staff report. having gone back, you made presentations on both of them, auto depth is putting it in core improvements that improve the quality of space which when the time comes and they don't stay, we would be able to rent it. i'm not hearing that that is necessarily because there is an offset, $10 million worth of improvement is a lot of money in terms of the value of the space. i don't know that we can compare apples and oranges if we just compare the lease. they have the same location as far as whatever views. i would like to hear from the other commissioners in terms of their thoughts. >> i agree it's an odd precedent to be setting. you enter into a contract and unless there is provisions to allow for negotiations and one of the things that happened is you are stuck with the bargain at the time you signed the deal. i agree with commissioner that it is a dangerous precedent if we start negotiating. i understand the concern that they have paid above market but that sometimes happens but they felt it was a reasonable price when they negotiated it. i'm looking forward to hearing more and exploring more when it comes back to it next month but i'm concerned about the presidential value that this sets. this might bring other tenants to say if we struck a bad deal we can negotiate. we can't plan our budget accordingly if we get our tenants requesting a reduction if they don't like the deal they have originally. >> my understanding is that they have very reasonable terms. i don't think they can come and say we are paying under market. could you please raise our rent. >> we are contractually obligated. >> i think we are thinking about this because we are a meritime tenant, that's why we are having this conversation. that's important. >> i think my fellow commissioners have covered everything and i'm in total agreement with all of it especially the fact of why are we looking at this lease when they signed the lease and they are obligated to it. so, i mean what we don't want to do is open the entire water front to come back and say let's renegotiate. it really needs to make very good sense in order for us to do it and also the fact that commissioner adams asked very poignant questions about their hiring practice, in the 20 plus history, not a lot has changed and it's a private organization. you know? there are for profit organizations. although they are meritime so they get some leeway, but in this day and age, their hiring practices are not very good. it would be great to see what they come back with about their diversity and demographics and their salaries. they are asking us to lower their lease, but have their salaries been lowered over the last 5 years. >> okay. we've got some work to do . thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> i want to thank you for your work. we need you to go back and do your best to come up with something else and get all of those other questions answered. we know you took a lot of time. i think you can hear from the commissioners we need to hear more. >> okay, thank you so much. >> item 11 a request approval of the ports 10 year plan for year 2014-2023. >> good afternoon commissioners, i'm with the special projects group and i'm here to request your approval of the 2014-2023 plan. i want to take this opportunity to present to you briefly with one slide on the differences between the plan document that you saw on february 12 and today which are very minor and also to address the change in the staff report that is responsive to president wu's question. the plan changes are very few. there is a transposed number, changes that to 377 and added a couple of piers to the facilities so that what's in the capital plan mirrors the engineering report presented in that same day. that's it. apart from that, the plan before you for adoption is the same. as for the commission wu's question, we put our heads together and thought the best way to answer is in this table is in the staff report. the question being how are we doing with our backlog and keeping up with it on the funding with the backlog items. the number on these tables are low and that's because we carved out some of the data so that we were making an apples, to apples comparison. also 2013 not included. but as you can see the answer is no, we are not keeping up. and really that's the function of a cost that we add to the model every year to account for inflation. in the last year it was percent. it covers that cost escalation. it varies year to year based on market and applies across the city, but that's really the short answer. is that -- i provide more detail and answer questions on the plan itself. >> thank you. is there any public comment? commissioners, necessity questions? >> motion? so moved. second. >> thanks very much. >> all in favor? aye. >> item 11 b request authorization to enter into four year contract for san francisco for the ports youth program for the total amount of $1.67 million. >> while we are waiting, i just want to thank daleey for coming back with this report and i appreciate the work he did and answering the questions and i think he'll be able to come back and answer our questions and the changes that keep coming in. that's reality. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i name is andre acevedo. i'm going to be talking about the proposed contract with the san francisco conservation corpse for youth employment. i would like to start with a little bit of background of the youth and effort at the port. starting in 2005, the board of supervisors, the port entered into a variety of youth employment projects. they included paid internship which primarily served college and graduate students and partnered with our tenants and non-profit to entry level craft related job skill training, something we have been working with the shipyard with, sponsoring apprenticeship, that's an on going project, we have been working with the unions and moving along with that and finally partnering with local non-profit work experience to san francisco youth primarily economically disadvantaged or at risk youth. the current past contract expired in june of 2012 and in july of 2012 the port issued another rfp for another program to help maintain the port's property. just a few comments on the scope of work on the port. the scope of work on the contract. the program will provide 10 economically disadvantaged or at risk youth from 16-24 to assist with the property maintenance such as watering, graffiti and liter removal along the water front and primarily on the southern water front. the work is assigned by port staff and the contractors responsibility is to maintain a work force of minimum of 10 participants and supervise them on a day to day basis and provide tools and transportation, provide work readiness training and evaluate the participation and they will employee at least one program coordinator and 2 first line supervisors. a little history on the selection process we went through, again back in july -- you authorized us to issue an rfp. in december of 2012 it was issued. in january 8, 2012. we only had one organization attend. and prior to that, i forgot to say whe we issued the the rfp, we advertised it and there were approximately 11 different local publications that it gets published in, plus we posted on the city's website and the port's website as well. moving on, at the end of january, we received, we had one of our responses were due, we only received one response in youth services as a subcontractor. these are contractors on the prior contract that just expired. port contract in san francisco mining division reviewed the proposal and determined that they did mao it the minimum qualifications and were responsive so we advanced to the next step in evaluation process which was bring together an evaluation panel w had the 3 person panel but were working for the city but not port employees. one is the manager at the human services agency in specializing in development issues and supt superintendent of department of public works and the parks and rec's department. the proposal review process is a 2 step process. they do a review of the written proposal that is submitted by rfp respondent. they score that and then they get together and we have an interview process that they go through with the panel. so, during this process, they identified strength with the proposal which was the demonstrated depth and history of the contractors, clear and detail program implementation, partnering with another non-profit here in san francisco that specifically reached out to youngers students. it tends to work with kids 18 and older. larken street works with that age. and according the program with the port. they also felt there were some weaknesses in the proposal. they thought it was clear about the level of field of supervision that was going on out there and the lack of detail in the program design and some of the outgoing outcomes and how those were being measured. so when we sat down with the panel, we received the written panel. these issues came out. we added some questions to the oral interview to give the respondents an opportunity to address. they did. they felt very comfortable with it. we ended up with a combined score which was from the original proposal, the oral proposal and the credit they got for the reference checks. they got up to 15 points depended on the reference points. they got 82 out of 100. and finally we have the contract terms. the annual contract is -- $265,000 a year for 4 years. we currently have funding for the first two years biannual budget. the second 2 years is based on how our budget comes through, so dependent on the budget. if the budget gets cut, that can get cut but it would not exceed that annual amount without coming back for a contract modification. so subject to annual appropriation level. so the total contract not to exceed is 1$1 million. the commission recommendation they prove the contract and to administer a youth employment program that will help the port maintain the water front. i'm here to answer any questions you might have and we also have tom carter, head of maintenance who is the project manager and the the san francisco conservation. >> thank you. any public comments? >> so moved. >> i have two questions. how many students does this help? this is really important to me and i would hate to see any funding cut because this is so important to reach out to our community and to provide employment for young people and stuff like that. you made mentioned about the funding can be cut. is there any way we can prevent that because this is important that we have something like this. plus it's the right thing to do and we need to help as many young people in our community to get back and help them. >> i can answer the second part of your question and tom or troy answer the the first part. the first part, when we structure a contract, we basically recognize it's based on the actual budget amount. to answer your question, we control that amount. so it's our determination to budget that and what budget you pass on that level. we put that language in there so in a contract farther down that we do have to make budget cuts at some point, we have the flexibility to change a contract on just our side without having to go and renegotiate with the contractor. so the bottom line is we control that. i can't speak for all the financing but i don't fore see necessity any problems in the out years. we've been growing this program both with this particular contract and the other ones i have mentioned to you since it's inception >> can we elaborate on that just a little bit. we have no intention to cut that unless something very dire happens to our operating budgets. but the city practice is not we commit forward funds and that's were the language is the way it is and it a standardize practice. it subject to the discretion of the port commission and also to the mayor and board of supervisors all of whom are extraordinarily supportive of these programs. i can't imagine we would have a problem but we are following prols protocols of the city. >> he can answer your questions about how many students. >> as far as students i think last year we had rotating through about 30 that were served through this specific program. >> okay. >> thank you, troy. >> you want to go? >> oh, i think this is a very important program and i think we should hire as many youth. i think it's very wonderful. can you give me an idea on how to contract worked last year and as far as the kids working and was it successful? >> good afternoon, commissioners, tom cot a, deputy director for maintenance. we are very happy with the program. it's been about 8 years that we've had the conservation corps here. they work directly with my staff and we set the work at the water fronts with our parks and water ways. a lot of the rainy season, we use them to cut down the weeds and fennel and get the right of ways ready for the giants game and the season and leading into winter we do the same thing. we keep them through summer, we develop scope of works through the staff. they have them go out and monitor the work and make sure they are meeting expectations and if there are issues with the staffing or quality of works, we meet with the administrators and iron out the issues . it's a work force development program and in such the expectation is that these kids are learning skills to be employed in the future and we have some flexibility with that, we have patience with that and understanding with that. we allow the kids to learn and be productive at the same time but also meet our needs and where there are issues we address them and there was never an issue that was so severe that we couldn't address it. it's been a great program. >> that's great. i'm wondering, it seems like, we are paying a lot towards overhead and supervision and only 31 and 44 percent going directly to the youth. is there any way, that we can reverse those numbers so we can get more kids out there? >> i can't speak to that. i will let the conservation core answer that. >> it seems pretty high, you know. >> i think you are talking about the 1 7 percent indirect cost. >> i'm talking about direct cost, training. >> i have been with the conservation core for a year. so basically i was here for the first few months of the last project that actually went out and worked on the crews pulling fennel and a lot of fun stuff like that. we do pay our staff well and i think in the interview, when we went through how long our staff has been with us, that's the reason why. it maybe a little high, i think you

Related Keywords

San Francisco , California , United States , Tom Carter , Andre Acevedo ,