based on actual expenditures of the contract to date, we're recommending a reduction of 1.3 million nods the total contract amount. so the contract will be reduced from the proposed amo of $47.7 million torques the revised amount of $46.4 million, otherwise, approval is recommended. please stand by.

>> i also understand that henry gong is also available to answer any questions for the community members today. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you very much for hearing this. the sheriff's department is asking to approver marked for

services. a four-month extension. this proposed extension is here because we've awarded a new food service to aramark. there's time allowed for the scope of service for the new jail food contract around the good food purchasing requirements. it was passed yesterday out of the board of supervisors. it was determined that this legislation will have no fiscal impact and then back to the good food purchasing program, when the center for good food purchasing program spoke on the legislation that was passed out yesterday, they mentioned that we have been working with them since november of last year, and, in fact, they were part of the panel for the rfp evaluation

panel, and we continue to work with them initially in the scope of the contract. we set a 12-month time line to complete a baseline assessment, but yesterday, as resolution urges us to move forward in four months, and we're working with a aramark to meet that. >> you also spoke about coffee services. does that mean we don't provide that today wrn t-- within the current contract. >> we do. we have current feedback from the inmates about what they like, what they don't like about the hot meals, the food in general. we're always trying to

incorporate customer feedback and coffee service for inmates will be new. >> that will be new? >> yes, ma'am. >> great. thank you very much. we do not have a bla report on this item. at this time, i am going to open up for public comment on item no. 14. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. can we take a motion to move this forward with full recommendation to the board. mr. clerk, can you please call i team no. 15. 15. 180477 resolution authorizing a lease amendment to extend an existing lease of 33,998 sq. ft. at 617 mission street/109 new montgomery street with maclean properties llc and douglas g. moore, trustee under the connor children's trust no. 2, for the department of child support services for a monthly base rent of $158,657.33 for a

total initial annual base rent of $1,903,887.96 for the period of july 1, 201hr december 31, 2024. >> thank you. i see the deputy managing director of the real estate division is here to present on this item. it's also my understanding -- although i don't see her -- that the director of san francisco department of child -- i'm sorry. supervisor peskin was blocking my view. to answer any questions on many item we may have as well. thank you. >> thank you. i'm here on behalf of the child services. it's a state-funded department that establishes and delivers child support services on behalf of custodial services. 617 mission street, also known as 109 new montgomery street.

before you for your consideration and approval is a resolution authorizing the extension of existing lease for approximately six and a half years. the current lease requires an extension of an option by this december. it would commence the next december in 2019. under the current lease, it pays annual rent of approximately $42 a square foot. this will normally go through december. based on an independent third-part agreement, if continued under the existing rent and extended it january 1st, 2020, it is based on $71 based on the fair market rent at that time. however, we negotiated a blend and extend rate for an early

extension starting july 1st and a flat rate extending through the six and a half years. they will not increase the budget to accommodate is fair market rent increase commencing january 1, 2020, and threatened instead to move the caseload to another office, such as alameda, requiring san francisco residents to commute. they decide to stay at the current location as it's convenient and near public transportation, especially since two-thirds of its clientele come from the bayview. as supervisor kim stated, karen is here to discuss any questions you may have about their programming clientele and wish to stay at this location. so commencing july 1, 2018, we propose to have a fixed rent over the next six and a half years, and under the proposed extension, it would be $56, about a 30% increase through

2024. it doesn't include electricity. this blend does decrease the total over that period of time for more than $2 million. in addition to the extension, we got two more five-year extensions of 95% of fair market rate subject to approval and updates with the general clauses. we agree with the budget analysis recommendation, and we have staff from dph if you have any questions regarding their programming. thank you. >> thank you so much. i don't see any questions from members of the committee. so at this time i'm going to move on to ms. campbell, director of the budget analysis office. >> as pointed out, this existing least at this site actually extends until december of 2019. this legislation would approve a lease amendment that would begin a new term on july 2018. that's 18 months prior to the

termination of the current agreement extension. the rent would go up from the current amount of $42 per square foot to $56 per square foot, but then it would remain flat over the term. we have an estimate here of the cost impact of the city of doing this early lease -- sort of terminating and moving into a new amendment. there would be an additional cost of $415,000 because of the increased rate per square foot. there's a calculated savings over the initial six and a half year term of this amendment of $2.7 million. we do recommend approval.

>> thank you so much, ms. campbell. at this time, we'll open up for public comment on item number 15. seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion to move forward this item with recommendation to the full board, and we can do that without objection. thank you so much, ms. quorum and also mr. roy for being here today. mr. clerk, can you call the next item. >> clerk: yes. 16. 180564 resolution authorizing a renewal agreement for the use of space and communication services within an existing data center located at 3101 gold center drive, rancho cordova, california from the state of california technology agency, office of technology services, for a three-year term, commencing july 1, 2018, through june 30, 2021, at a monthly base rate of $62,720 for a total annual rate of $756,840 in an amount not exceed $2,385,938.10.

>> and, ms. quorum is here again to present on this item. the department of technology department deputy director of finance and administration is also here to answer questions. committee members, i forget to mention this, but we have an overflow room open in room 263 if members of the public would like to be in that room and watch this meeting. and we'll also be calling public cards. so even if you are in the other room, we'll be able to call your name, and you will be able to speak at public comment. thank you, ms. gorum. >> thank you. this resolution has to deal with the city's backup data storage in case of a disaster and recovery of said data so that operations can continue. so before you and for your conversation is a resolution authorizing a renewal agreement originally before and approved by the board in 2013 for use of space and communication services

within a state of california technology agency's data center in rancho cordova by the city's technology disaster recovery services. it lapses next week on june 30th, and it would be updated for a three-year term through the end of june 2021. that's the length of terms that the state will give. the rates the state charges are non-negotiable. they're set by the state of california rate schedule. not the exceed amount, we can't go over it, 283 -- $385,938 for all three years. the annual cost for the first year under the proposal is $756,840. that is, again, up to that amount. the second and third years increase annually by 5%. the increase is not only due to the rates established by the state but a request for an

increase in the number of potential cabinets, not necessarily the department of technology would use them, but we can go up to. right now, we're adding up to 20 cabinets. they would like to go up to 30 cabinets amount. briefly, dte can answer other questions if you have them about the program. briefly, as city departments consolidate their systems and going up to the rancho cordova and as data storage and backup is created as part of the recovery plans, more storage space is needed. again, mr. levinson and mr. reese is here from dte to answer any programming questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you so much. i do remember the discussion of this item in budget and finance committee several years ago. i don't have any questions. so at this time, we'll move on to ms. campbell at the budget legislative analysis office for their report.

>> page 56, table one in the report shows the annual cost maximum cost of the agreement to the city. the rates are set by the state, as ms. gorum said, and there's an estimated increase. so on page 57, the increase is detailed in the agreement going forward for the next three years compared to the existing agreement. as you can see, the major change in terms of the actual rates has to do with the increase in the number of cabinets from 20 to 30. and the associated power with that. again, as ms. gorum said, the actual cost would depend on how many cabinets the city used. based on the information provided to us in our review of this agreement, we recommend approval. >> thank you, ms. campbell. at that time, we'll open up for public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion

to move forward item number 16 without objection. thank you very much, ms. gorum. mr. clerk, could you please call item numbe 17. >> clerk: item 17. 180416 resolution approving an original contract agreement for long-term mental health services in a 24-hour locked facility between the department of public health and crestwood behavioral health in the amount not to exceed $77,280,000 for a total contract term of july 1, 2018, through june 30, 2023. >> thank you. we have ms. ruggle. >> i'm here with the department of public health to present on this item. thank you. this is a new contract. we just did a solicitation. it's following the solicitation effective july 1st. this vendor, however, has been ongoing and currently contains dph clients. it says, along with the facilities that are emptyed by

crestwood behavioral health are long-term care mental health facilities with varying licenses to meet the needs of our patient placement. the average term of a length of stay is between nine months to a year. so essentially to continue these services ongoing and to allow us the ability to place clients into facilities when they need this level of care. >> could you talk a little bit about -- so this is a new contract? who previously provided these services? >> it's the same vendor. they did it again. we did a soatilicitatiosolicita. the same t vendors applied, and the -- they were selected.

>> is the only contract the new care facility at st. marys? >> essentially. the crestwood operates facilities around the bay area. if, for example, we have a special need and they have a facility that will meet that patient's need, then the facility may be added into the list of facilities through modification to the contract. for this purpose, the primary change is the addition of the facility that's located at st. marys. >> the 32 new nursing beds. >> correct. >> because i'm not completely aware of how this process works, if you're within our county jail system and it has been determined or you've been diagnosed with a need for mental health services, do you then get moved out of county to one of these facilities and these

facilities have some type of locked, secure component? >> i'm going to ask our director of transitions to come up here. we created the new facility specifically to address the needs of people that are incarcerated but have to be maintained in a locked facility but not to remain in jail or sometimes people are placed at napa hospital. they complete their term, and then they're released, but they need a higher care before being released into the community. this is a place where they can be treated and maintained in a locked facility. >> what michelle described is correct. it's a locked mental health

rehabilitation center level of care. lps conserved, on a mental health conservatorship or misdemeanor incompetent to stand trial under penal code 1370. >> how many new beds will thereby as part of the new healing center at st. marys? >> 54 beds. san francisco has agreed to fund 40 of those beds. >> 40 of those beds. of those 40, 32 are in partnership with our county jail program? >> well, all of the beds are available for forensic placement, if necessary. we prioritize jail placements and then lps after that. we usually take jail placement because it's limited in terms of how long somebody can be held in jail. >> i understand.

so this is after an individual has served their time in county jail. then they're transferred to st. marys? >> they're determined incompetent to stand trial. their charges are pending cause it's dermed they cannot -- determined they cannot participate meaningfully in their defense. so they're sent to a mental health rehab center for treatment to restore them to competency to actually participate with their public defender. >> so there's a new healing center. crestwood already provides these services to a center. i'm assuming some of these services are very individuals who require a secure, locked component for -- >> there are facilities that crestwood operates for san francisco that are licensed

board and care facilities. so they're a step-down program that is an enhanced boarding care because they continue to provide rehabilitation level of services to help somebody sort of continue on their continuum of care. >> and because of st. marys, healing centers is a new one for the city. i believe we announced it in february or march as opening. how does it work to differentiate? my understanding, from what was state to the public, is it will take individuals off the street who not have interacted with the criminal justice system. how do you componen-- >> we still have to go through the lps process. >> i see.

it's the same level of security? >> it's the same level of care. >> not the same level of care. i'm so sorry. it's about the locked security component, so it's the same for all 52 beds? >> so the san francisco healing center is the same program whether you're placed there on a forensic hold or whether you're placed there on a mental health lps hold. >> i see. how many of these beds are currently occupied? >> for san francisco, 33. we're still making referrals. the program has been ramping up. >> so out of the 52 available beds, 33 are currently occupied? >> of the 54 -- agreed. we agreed to place 40 clients. we're 33 into the 40 clients. >> and the remaining 12 beds are under the disposition of st. marys' hospital. >> the remaining beds are under crestwood's disposition now. other counties are purchasing

those beds. marine county has purchased beds. fresno is interested in purchasing. kiezer has been interested in contracting for some of those beds. >> and crestwood is already providing services in advance of this contract on those beds? >> yes. we've been in contact with crestwood since the '80 -- '70s or '80s. >> i see. so we provided them that contract. this is an extension of that. >> yes. >> what have been the challenges of filling these beds here in san francisco and st. marys? >> challenge in filling the beds? because this was a brand new facility, there were a little bit of bumps along the road within -- with getting staffing, continuing to be able to do

placement there. they made changes in terms of how they were receiving their medications and how they were doing the intake process. once they managed that system to be more streamlined and safer for our clients, we resumed making new referrals. wel anticipate we'll be to our full census by the end of the month. >> okay. thank you very much. so at this time, we'll move on the the presentation by the budget analysis office. >> i think this process has been discussed. the contract is until june 2023. there's one five-year extension through 2028. the annual cost for the contract is about $13.8 million. page 61, table one sort of summarizes the rate per day and expected census because the

different facilities provide different care and have different rates for each bed. the total contract for the first five years is the not to exceed amount of 3.5 million. that includes a 12% contingency that's shown in table two, page 62 of our report. and we do recommend approval. >> thank you very much. so at this time, we'll open up for public comment on item no. 17. seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion to move forward item 17 and we can do that without objection mr. clerk, can you please call item 18. >> clerk: agenda item 18. 180561 resolution approving a contract agreement with addiction, research and treatment inc., dba bay area addiction, research and treatment, inc., for methadone services in an amount not to exceed $35,952,000 for a contract term of four years from

july 1, 2018, through june 30, 2022, with one six-year option to extend. >> thank you, mr. clerk. i know that michelle will also be presenting on this item, and dph has agreed to continue this item to the next committee because it was not submitted in time for budget analyst report. >> correct. >> so at this time, we'll open it up to public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. can we take a motion to move this to the call of the chair. we can do that out objection. mr. clerk, can we please call item no. 19. >> clerk: 19. resolution authorizing the mayor or his designees to cast an assessment ballot in the affirmative on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, as the owner of one parcel of real property over

which the board of supervisors has jurisdiction that would be subject to assessment in the proposed property and business improvement district to be named the discover polk community benefit district. >> thank you so much. i know the senior program manager for workforce development is here on that. mr. peskin, would you like to make an opening remark? the answer is no. >> i'm here to present a presentation regarding an assessment ballot. as the owner of one parcel of real property which the board of supervisors has jurisdiction. the assessment to the proposed property and business direct to be named -- as you may know, the board of supervisors on may 22nd, 2018, passed a resolution. thereby initiating the ballot

process on june 8th, 2018, the department of elections mailed ballots to all property owners in the district with one ballot being sent to the city and county of san francisco. the city would vote if the board of supervisors were to approve this resolution. the parcel is commonly known as helen willis park with a total assessment of $4306.26. i'm here to answer any questions if you have any. >> thank you so much. i'm see nothing questions at this time. we'll open up for public comment on this item. seeing no members of the public, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take a motion to move forward this item with recommendation to the full board. we can do that with objection. mr. clerk, can you please call item no. 20. >> clerk: 20. 180455 ordinance waiving the fee required by public works code, section 724.1(b), for temporary street space occupancy

permits on certain designated city streets on saturday, may 19, 2018, to promote small business week. >> thank you so much. we have executive director of office of small business to present on this item. >> thank you. good morning, chair kim. i'm going to have jack gallagher from supervisor stefani's office. >> sorry. took me a couple of seconds to get in. there's a large crowd in front. we submitted this piece of legislation in early may. unfortunately, due to timing we're coming back after small business week, which was in the third week of may. this will be the 12th time this has come to the board for a fee waiver for the last day of small

business week on the 19th. excuse me. i ran over here. the office of small business has been very helpful with this program over the years, and we would love to waive these fees for our merchant corridors who provide such a great service to a number of neighborhoods throughout the city. i will hand it over to the small business office. >> thank you. >> thank you, jack. good morning, chair kim and supervisors peskin and breed. i want to thank supervisor stefani for sponsoring this year and to her aid and to director of public works and his team for their continued support and willing to partner with our office and her chant corridors to agree to waive the fees. so, as jack as noted, this was more may 19th. we end the week of small business celebrating our merchant corridors with this fee waiver, allowing our merchants

to be able to activate the sidewalk in their business. this year for the second year, we're really happy that we've been able to partner with the council of district merchants and the city by campaign shop and dine in the 49 to create a full program for the day. so not only the businesses that are activating their store front and those who are not able to do that are engaged in the promotion of the day. again, as jack said, it was for may 19th, '15 merchant corridors participated this year. 268 block spaces. i will leave it at that and hope to have your support and we'll take any questions. >> great. thank you so much. seeing no questions at this time, we'll open up for public comment on item no. 20 if any

members of the public would like to speak. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move forward item 20 with positive recommendation to the board. and we can do that without objection. mr. clerk, can you please call item no. 21. >> clerk: 21. 180614 ordinance adopting and implementing amendment no. 4 to the 2014-2019 memorandum of understanding between the city and county of san francisco and the international federation of professional and technical engineers, local 21, to update the union security provision. >> thank you. we have ms. callahan, director of human resources here to present on this item. >> thank you, madam chair. supervisors. we're presenting today an opening statement to the local 21 contract. you will recall that several months ago, or perhaps a month ago, the board passed a resolution urging the department of human resources to negotiate with the unions on the gold card or to amendment the maintenance and membership provisions of the agreement to reflect the

likelihood of the janice decision which is expected out of the supreme court, frankly, any day. we have reached an agreement with the union. we're prepared to offer that same agreement and have done so to the other labor organizations. it provides consistency and clarity as far as whose obligations are what. the controls office has been involved with us in the discussions about administration, and it adds new provisions which will, i think, provide for an orderly manner, if there are individual who is wish to change the membership status, that will be done in a matter by the organization and by the city. in addition, there's a new indemnification clause if there's litigation associated with this, it will be covered by the union. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. seeing no questions at this time

we'll open this up to public comment. please come up to the mic. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is gust valeo. i'm president of local 21. obviously we're in support of this amendment. we know that labor is under attack. this will strengthen our opportunity. we support it. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm larry griffin. i'm a political legislative vice president of the local 21. i wanted to say that we're totally in support of this and want to thank the city for reaching an agreement with us on this. as you well know, labor is really under attack on a national basis, and this is going to just give us a little bit more strength to fight off the attacks coming from washington. so we definitely hope you support it. thank you. >> good afternoon.

i'm the executive director of local 21. i want to thank everybody for their support on this amendment. i want to talk about for a minute -- even though it's not in the issue -- we are critical to the fabric of this country, and we're happy to be in a city and county that understands the significance and importance of that. we hope that that spreads throughout the coordinauntry ane a part of that with you all. so thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> rudy gonzalez. honorable members of the board. rise and support of the labor council. it's an important statement of our values that the city and

county work with their public employee unions and show other agencies in this region that there are ways to support and strengthen the voices of working people. this is a process-oriented kind of thing. we're amending eous. workers need to be able to stand up together to collectively exert their voice against what all is coming about us. we're on attack targeted by the koch brothers, by right-wing forces that are much in alignment with other guests you will hear from later in the chambers that are attacking public employees and their very right to stand together and their freedom to associate with each other. this is an important step and statement. we rise in support of it. >> thank you, mr. gonzalez. nice to see you in your new role. seeing no further public comment on this item. public comment is now closed. and item no. 21.

colleagues, can we take a motion to move forward item 21 with recommendation to the full board, and we can do that without objection. mr. clerk, can we please finally call item no. 22. >> clerk: agenda item 22. 170205 ordinance amending the administrative code to require a citywide project labor agreement applicable to certain public work or improvement projects with projected costs over $1,000,000 or where delay in completing the project may interrupt or delay services or use of facilities that are important to the city's essential operations or infrastructure. >> thank you so much, mr. clerk. this was not the item, i'm sure that everyone in this chamber was waiting for, but thank you for patiently waiting through the first 21 items. i want to first acknowledge supervisor peskin, fewer, and safai who have been working on this item fevr veer rently.

we do have an overflow room available. you will be able to watch this meeting and speak at public comment when we call your name, or you can come and speak at the end after all the names have been called. i do have a list of presenters that were informally sent to our office. i'm going the call them in that order unless community members would like to see a different order. we have invited the director of office of labor enforcement. director of public works. director of city build director who are all here and available to present and also to answer question by community members, and, of course, we have a budget legislative analyst report, ms. campbell, and she'll be presenting at the end of all the

preeni presentations. i will start with supervisor safai. >> thank you, madam chair. welcome, everyone, today. this is a very important item for our city. i wanted to give a little background and let you know how we got to this point, particularly today. this item was introduced over a year and a half ago. by then supervisor mark ferrell. we had conversations with labor and the city departments and started a conversation with the lbe community. the conversation started again. we knew this time was important to a lot of different people. there's a vested stake in the healthy out come of this conversation. so myself and president breed

engaged folks at the table from the city as well as from the lbe community and folks from the building trades. and we started that conversation to begin to gather information. now we're here at this point in the committee where we have spent over the last few weeks vigorously engaging in feedback to try to get to a point where we can balance some really important things that we've heard. i want to thank supervisor fewer and supervisor peskin for engaging in that process as well as city administrator naomi kelly and the department heads and her respective team as well as folks from the building trade and others from the building trades as well as representatives from the lb community. who am i forgetting, supervisor

peskin? >> well, i think larry is actually john. >> john. sorry. right. other representatives, john templeton. ms. kelly -- >> julianna choi. >> yes. we were balancing this information to gather -- i don't thinkompeting interest. we have a h history in this cit for removing the gains from the civil rights improvement. we instituted a -- those in the trades were very, very informative in this conversation to say, yes, we believe in that. we want a pathway for that, but at the same time, we want to respect the safety of workers, the wages of workers, the

condition of workers, and the overall environment in which workers work in. we've really tried to take those two issues, harnessed them together, and tried to build a consensus. what we'll have -- i'm going the hand it over to supervisor peskin along with supervisor fewer. we've led a conversation where we've tried to come to a consensus on some of those important issues. we'll talk about what we have agreed upon and what further work needs to be done. i think we've made some good progress in a very short amount of time. we're going to hear from the different departments today as well as representatives from all the different communities in the room. i want to say personally what's driving me in this conversation is the respect, the safety, and the dignity of workers, no matter who they work for. i want a pathway, and a respectful pathway, to protect those workers in the city and county of san francisco.

that's what drives me and will always drive me in decisions i make for the city. we want to come without with the right result that's good for san francisco and respects everyone in all the respective communities. i also respect the history and the work we've done to put into 14b and building up our lb community. i just want to leave it there. i want to hand it over to supervisor peskin. i won't get to the details of what we're amending yet. i wanted to set the tone in that regard. >> thank you, supervisor safai. and let me relate to your comments in expressing thanks to both yourself and supervisor fewer as well as all the participants who have now spent countless hours over the last week or so together in what i think have been good faith negotiations. a project labor agreement really is about stability and continuity of delivery of construction services to a city.

it has proven effective, the poa that, the city enjoys with the house of labor at our public utilities commission, at our airport. indeed, it has led to reduction of work stoppages, a continuity and has, i think, by in large, in both of those instances, been successful. supervisor fewer, who will speak for herself was instrumental in having the san francisco unified school district enter into a project labor agreement. obviously that would have been passed a year and a half ago if it was easy and there was no controversy. i'm really pleased that at our first meeting last week, we were able to resolve a number of places of disagreement. those amendments -- because i'm the only member of this committee amongest the three who have been in these negotiations.

because of the brown act, i have not been able to comcate with the other two members privately. so this is the first time that mayor elect and supervisor breed and kim can discuss this with me, butdol i would like to introduce amendments that everybody was able to agree to so far. then we still have some work to do, so we're not going actually vote, other than maybe on the amounts, if my colleagues are willing. we'll not vote on the entire package today. we have more work to do. i am cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to bring the parties together. there's many divergent interests. there's the house of labor. there's the lbe community, the local hire community, and then there are a number of city departments who are proving the most difficult. i'm sure we'll resolve this matter in the days ahead. with that, i will turn it over to supervisor fewer.

>> thank you, very much, supervisor peskin. i also just want to say that i am so glad that through negotiation conversations, we're seeing progress in coming to a common agreement to make sure this is the strongest possible legislation. this is how pla should be created, making sure that all parts are at the table. while i was a commissioner at the san francisco board of education, i offered the strongest and biggest project labor agreement for the san francisco unified school district, ensuring that prevailing wages are paid to our valued workforce. i want to thank all the parties who have been participating in this process, particularly minority and women-owned businesses and representatives from the city as well as supervisor peskin and supervisor safai. we value contracts. i'm hopeful about the

discussions that have taken place and thus far about the next steps. i do think there's enough work here for everyone. thank you. >> all right. supervisor breed? >> thank you. i know we're anxious to get started. thank you to everyone who is here today for your patience to get to this point. i am excited, and i'm optimistic about the future of what this project labor agreement can do for the city and county of san francisco, not only to protect workers and wages, but to make sure that we are bringing our lbes along in the process. so to create a fair and balanced project labor agreement that addresses some of the concerns that we know members of our lbe community share as it relates to this. i do appreciate the fact that the building trades in general have come to the table and worked with us through this process. supervisor safai and i started

some time ago in trying to work to get to a better place. i do truly appreciate the concessions that have been made and the willingness to the building trades to be open-minded in ensuring we have not only a good project labor agreement for the city as a whole, but that we're being fair, balanced, and we're not leaving anyone behind in the process. thank you so supervisor fewer and supervisor peskin for continuing through negotiations to get us to a better place. i think that we will get there eventually with some hard work and a couple of more meetings. i want to say thank you to our city administrator for leading this effort as well as others. there's been tough discussions, but you continue to come to the table, and everyone is

continuing to have the discussions to get us to a better place is so critical. i want this to be a win-win for all employees in the city. i want, at the end of the day, for us to come out of this project labor agreement with an 11-0 vote at the board of supervisors. that is the ultimate goal, and i am so looking forward to hopefully being able to sign this as mayor of the city and county of san francisco. so thank you all so much for being here and being at the table. i look forward to the robust discussion today. >> okay. with that, madam city administrator, the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, supervisors, naomi kelly. >> good morning. >> that's correct. good morning. for another 10 minutes. naomi kelly, city administrator. i thought i would just quickly go through and say that i am, too, cautiously optimistic that we'll get to a project labor

agreement. both the department of public works and rec department are in support. we've seen these being done at the airport and the school district. the devil is always in the details. i'm a fierce advocate in my career of supporting minority and women-owned businesses, protecting local business enterprises, protecting local residents and making sure local residents are a part of this and protecting workers and wages and benefits. i do think we'll eventually get to a win-win situation where we're all in agreement. i want to thank supervisor peskin, safai, and fewer in leading negotiations with everyone who they've identified. i will quickly go through some areas in which we discussed around the table that we thought would be great, that we've all agreed on. one is the definition of core employees where we all agree that the core for contractors

who are existing core employees that may or may not be subject to an agreement or a union, that they provide at least two employees on covered projects that will be exempt from the pla requirements and that the definition of core employees are state or federally licensed -- employees who have state or federal licenses for work to be performed, have worked at least 1,000 hours in the construction crafts during the prior three years, have been on the contractor's active payroll for at least 500 hours and have the ability to perform safely the basic functions of the craft. 'vewelso agreed on the definition of costs to be construction costs only and not design and acquisition costs. we changed the definition of unions to mean the building trades, and they agreed to provide us a list of affiliates

attached to the legislation. we clarified that the city is bound by the project labor agreement when the city and all unions have executed a final agreement, and we have agreed to add the equal benefits ordinance, chapter 12b in the local hire ordinance to the social policies that the project labor agreements are supposed to meet. we're here to answer any more questions. >> thank you so much, ms. campbell. >> and just for the record, the amendments that ms. kelly just described are before every member of this body, and the clerk has a copy as well. you've summarized them accurately. >> thank you. >> we have a lot of campbells. we also do have a naomi campbell. >> johns and larrys.

>> do committee members like to bring anyone up for questions or comments? >> i just want to say mr. mulligan is administering a hearing right now. so he's not here in the chambers. >> okay. thank you for informing us of that. at this time, we're going to begin public comment on this item. i do have a number of speaker cards before me. ly call on the first 10 cards. we have mr. tim paulson, now executive director of the building trades.

okay. i apologize. we had a lot of different requests. m supervisor safai would like mr. arsay to speak. >> i apologize for missing timing and things like that. i want to ask about city build and how it relates to things on the table. there's been a lot of question about city build andt may play with this proposal. i know we're going to be prop e proposing amounts and what that means. i think they're very committed to seeing a pathway for all the different underrepresented communities that you work with. i just want to hear your thoughts on that.

>> thank you, supervisor safai. in the office, economic, and workforce development, i just want to say thank you for all your hard work, obviously to the city administrator, policy makers, and the contracts particularly lbe coming together. for city build as a program, and i'm happy to provide further context on what city build is or does. it's a program that's been around for 12 years. it's the preapprenticeship program that provides pathways to career opportunities in construction, working with the building trades and union programs. i think it's really safe to say that the strength of the program, which is pretty universally recognized. i can't speak to the specific details of the proposal, just not having been part of the

negotiations but generally the concept. we have plenty of projects which are public works where there's a project labor agreement that works well for us. particularly because city build, which brings in diverse candidates, men and women overcoming barriers to employment, formerly incarcerated workers, workers in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, people most at risk for being left behind. public housing residents, folks we want to see engaged in this industry, which is at a peak never before seen in the city. the best pathway for our candidates to get on sites is through the program. it gets all of the partners at the table. that's our program, the agencies that are funding the work, the community members, and the programs. we're able to put the policy to

work. obviously there's a lot of concern, i think, making sure the local business enterprise objectives and policies of the city are met. that's good too. a lot of times, lbe come on with the workforce. there's been talk of working that out. this is the most successful in the country. as you will find in the report you will see here soon. i think with respect to the other considerations, i look forward to learning more and

hearing from the speakers, but the policyite, we're able and ready to put it to work to successfully get in the trades. we have either formal or informal agreement with relationships with each and every affiliate with the building trades council. if you were to ask me what trades graduates say the most went into, 41 graduates, the answer is nearly every single one of the building trades. i think how we work together, if it's furthering our partnerships with the building trade unions and apprenticeship, it's going to be the benefit of the community members, and we hope you're able to address the concerns. >> so we specifically put in langua language. there's, i think, unanimous agreement about the respect of local hire.

we specifically reference some of the work that's been done. i think what we'll do is come back to you after public testimony. i would like to hear a little bit more about some of the differences. you said there's some -- the language you used was that there were some that have formal and informal agreements. so we can talk a little bit about that and how they can provide a pathway toward strengthening those relationships. >> thank you. >> thank you so much, mr. arsay. at this time, we'll really be opening up for public comment. a request was made that we limit public comment to one minute because there's so many speakers. so we'll be doing that. i'm going to be calling up the first 15 speakers on the list of the cards. [announcing names]

[please stand by]