legislative analyst, and then, we will go to public comment. >> yes. this proposed ordinance would actually -- the film rebait program is currently for a pow year program ending in june of 2019. the cap is $4 million. the legislation would extend it over the next nine years to 2028. our understanding is the request is for $1 million a year, so it was our understanding that the cap being requested was 13 million, not 14 million, so our recommendation is to set the cap at 13 million, otherwise, we recommend approval. >> president cohen: so i'm seeing the director, she's agreeing. so she's in agreement with the budget legislative analyst. supervisor stefani, are you in agreement with that? we'll go to public comment, any member of the public like to comment on these items, come on down. claudine chang? >> thank you, supervisors.

i'm a member of the film commission but i'd like to talk as a member of the city. thank you so much for the grant. obviously i as a tax paying resident of the city, i feel it is really a good return on investment, and i think that's a lot what budgeting is about. you all know the statistics very well, so that's fantastic. i just want to point out in 2018, many counties within the state of california has this type of program, so it's very important that we remain competitive in this business, and thank you for your support. >> president cohen: all right. people come on up if you're speaking, quickly. come on up. cue up. >> so -- just pull the microphone to your mouth. >> good morning. my name is kathrin howell, and i am an actor. >> president cohen: so am i --

just kidding. see? i was convincing. >> well, it's my life's work. it's what i majored in in college, it's what i have a degree in, and it's what i've been pursuing for decades, ever since, including higher learning. as a matter of fact, the way i came to be a san franciscan is in 1974, i got a full scholarship to study at american conservatory theater, fell in love with the city and never left. i am also president of the san francisco-northern california local of screen actors guild, so i am here to speak for our almost 3,000 members, also dedicated professionals who choose to live and work here. and of course, the san francisco film incentive is vital to us because we need productions filming here,

whether it be film or television or commercials or industrials or educational films. it gives us the opportunity to work and earn a living and qualify for health insurance and earn our pension credits. so with 5,000 voices, i thank you in advance for your continued support of the film incentive. >> president cohen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm mickey tolliver. i'm a principal actor, and i'm a proud member of s.a.g. the rebait program is crucial to the amount of jobs it can provide our union members as well as to the goods and services it provides our city. we at s.a.g. encourage the extension of the rebait program until 2028 which will provide the insurance and stability to

producers, which of course will help focus on the -- us focus on the work at hand, so i appreciate the courtesy and appreciate the extensions. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. thank you for your public comment. next speaker, please. come on down. >> hi. frank simeon, currently doing contracts between producers and the screen actors' guild, when producers learn about the program, that's very attract tiff to them. they speak to our film commission. once they do that, they realize that getting permits, parking, housing, everything isn't as challenging as they may have heard outside of the city. and we do have wonderful crews, we have great actors, and one thing i have learned working at screen actors guild is that the employment of actors, and they all work as freelancers is very

important. this employment is very important to their welfare to keep them in the bay area. in the last 12 months, we've employed 7,251 local actors in production of film and television, and i'd like to see that continued. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. is there any other members of the public that would like to comment? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: colleagues, i'd like to make a motion to accept the budget legislative analyst's amendments. i'd like to also approve and send to the full board with a positive recommendation. looks like we can take that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: all right. without objection. congratulations. madam clerk, call item number seven. >> clerk: item seven, authorizing the lease amendment to extend leasable able to new conservatory theater center for a monthly base rent of approximately 8,000 for the period of october 1, 2018

through september 30, 2023. >> president cohen: all right. we've got the department of real estate. good morning, this resolution approves lease amendments between the city as a landlord and the new conservatory theater center for theater and office space, and this is located at 25 vanness. why don't you tell us a little bit more about it. >> good morning, chair cohen, supervisors fewer and stefani. before you is an option to extend the term of the existing lease that came before the board in 2008 for the new conservatory theater center or nctc located in the basement at 25 vanness. the extension is for five years. usually i'm pretty quick on the lease terms and don't say anything about the program, but here, i'd like to say a little bit about the program. nctc has been in the location since approximately 1984-1985. it was actually in the building when we purchased it. its mission is to "champion

innovative high quality production and educational experiences for youth, and the queer-allied community. its vision is that theater is a community event and a way to build community." there are six primary programs at the officer. the main stage, youth conservatory. youth aware, emerging artists, family matinees, and new play development lab. the existing lease of five years commenced in 2008 with two five-year options. unfortunately there have been water intrusion issues since before the city purchased the building. just prior and after the lease was approved in 2008, there was substantial water intrusion events in the basement due to groundwater or stormwater seeping through the building's foundation or walls.

several rounds of repairs and preventative measures were taken. the new lease in 2008 capped the city's liabilities and financial obligations at $1,000 a year which included coating on the sidewalks and the building. nctc is also obligated to pay for certain measures in the premises themselvesed. the rent started in 2008 at $7,036 a month, and i apologize to the b.l.a. they asked me if the rent had been increased during that time period, and i did say yes, but somehow in the -- in the report, it says that it didn't. it did. the rent started at 7,036 a month, and it's now currently 7,826 a month. the rent back then and now is reflecting a devalued condition of the space, given the water intrusion events and that it was a basement. in addition, we indicated that there was no comparable rent

because we don't lease basement spaces for offices for a theater, so i can nothing to -- had nothing to go to for comparables. thinking about it some more, the only thing i could come up with would be storage space, which you couldn't even use part of the basement due to the water intrusion possibility could happen if there was a large storm or the base water -- the creep water rises. around the time of the first option period in 2013, there was another substantial water intrusion event. nctc was unable to use a substantial portion of their premises for months. we requested a short extension of time in which to exercise its notice extension date with the hope that the city could

find a possible final and permanent repair or maintenance to this issue. the former director of property agreed and an extension was given. this was due mainly to -- and i can only recall this from notes in the file -- so that the theater wouldn't have to miss its option date and so that it would not have to relocate due to an uncertain future. basically, the director tolled the agreement during the time of the flooding, repairs, and investigation of the cause and possible solutions. with the assistance of the department's real estate commenced investigations, tests, inspections and obtained proposals for a permanent solution to stop the water intrusion problem. this took a substantial period of time. the possible solutions ranged in cost of yearly preventative mint unanimous which is what we're doing now to permanent

solutions from about 3 million to $12 million. those solutions were not beneficial to nctc in that it would require years for them to relocate out of the space and/or cost prohibit tiff to the city because it would require excavation on the outside of the building. that took a substantial period of time to come to those consultants, getting the proposals. during that time, ncpc mitigated waterproof damage and attempted to waterproof the basement. every time they would come to preventing one area from being -- water coming in, it would go to another area because the creek just wanders around, trying to find a space to come into. the city continues to water

sealant. nctc continued to ask for notice of its period. also, a developer purchased the oak 1 property for development, and i am informed by our engineers that if development occurs near 25 vanness, and they go down into the ground, underground, which this particular developer wanted to put a parking lot underground, and it wanted to go into oak street, then that just basically pushes the water over to older buildings that don't have great basements like we do, so that was a very big consideration for nctc and real estate, and so discussions started with that developer as to what were they going to do and how were they going to prevent water intrusion coming in even more into our building. that developer is ultimately not going to be developing at this time, so those discussions ceased, and nctc and real

estate then started to negotiate further as to try to get this extension moving forward. ultimately, it's decided that either it was cost prohibitive or too disruptive to move forward with any of the proposals at this time and so we basically continue to do yearly preventative maintenance. although the first option would have commenced in 2013, due to the investigation and request by nctc, the former director of property agreed to toll it. with the amendment, we want to start that new extension period at september 30, 2018, instead of september 30, 2013, and that would run until september 30, 2023. we are asking for the second and last option under the original lease to then commence in 2023, extending it out to 2028. so accordingly, we respectfully disagree with the b.l.a.'s

recommendations number two and three. we do not agree that the language should be deleted that allows lease one more five-year extension, and we do not agree with the lease extension through 2023 be the final extension under the lease. hence, the amendments. we do agree that the premise consists of 14,229 square feet, and we agree with the b.l.a.'s recommendation regarding same. in addition the lease does increase rent by 2% from the existing 7826 permonth to 7,983. again, this reflected a devalued rent figure. rent would be adjusted annually from two to 4%, which is a decrease from the original lease, 8%. 2% is what we normally require in our leases for the last several years. the founder and artistic director of nctc are here to answer any questions you may have regarding the theater, and i can answer any questions you have about the lease.

>> president cohen: thank you. i do have one quick question. i'm not sure to whom to direct it, but i'll just pose it. what would a standardized policy for nonprofit tenants look like? >> real estate has been asked this, i believe, over the years. we don't have a standard policy -- the city doesn't have a standard policy. i also mentioned that to the b.l.a., and we do not want to displace any -- nonprofit tenants in any existing buildings if they are actually giving a public service which we truly believe that this particular tenant is giving. >> president cohen: so is there any desire from your department to create a standardized policy? you admit it yourself that many people have been asking for me. >> we believe, and i believe this would be more of a director question. i believe that if we were to do a policy, it would be, of

course, through the discussions and what the board desired. we have several leases with nonprofits. they've either come to us because of -- of a particular department, a resident, supervisor, mayor's office, city administrator's office to ask us to work with them. we very rarely have solicited request for bids from nonprofits. those usually extend to daycare centers on city property or the cafes or kiosks, i'm say, within city buildings. i'll say that we don't get very many responses to most of those when we did send them out, like we did for the library and i don't believe there was any response at all because it's not a real high profit generating business usually,

and for commercial like daycares or the cafes, and it costs a substantial amount to the tenant -- prospective tenant to run a business and therefore, we haven't had a lot of responses to most of those requests for bids. and those are the few that i know that we've done in the last few years. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. colleagues, are there any other questions? all right. we'll go to the b.l.a. >> good morning. yes, as miss gorham said, we probably do have a difference of opinion in terms of our recommendation. this lease when originally approved by the board of supervisors in 2008, extended to 2023. in 2012, there was a letter in the file that increased the square footage of the lease, so our recommendation is to amend the proposed resolution to increase the square footage to 14,229. and then of course where we

have a difference there was supposed to be an exercise of the first option in 2013. that exercise -- that option wasn't exercised. the information provided today was not -- was new information to us about why it wasn't exercised. so we recommended considering this to be the final lease extension through 2023, otherwise, we do recommend approval. >> president cohen: okay. i was wondering if you have anymore -- miss campbell, i was wondering if you had anymore insight into, i think, the second recommendation that there's disagreement on? >> the second and third, they go together. >> president cohen: okay. the second and the third, can you add a little more context around there, the reasons why you're making the recommendations? >> i mean, our recommendation is we read the lease and all the information was available to us. there was an option to be exercised in 2013 that was never exercised. our understanding was simply that interest had been discussions, but that they -- there had been discussioned,

but they hadn't extended it. we thought with the lease extensions, there was reason to extend the lease originally approved. i think the other question is i think we had some different information on writing this report on history of the rent. i believe new information was prevented today on the history of the -- presented today on the history of the rent, although we had no information on the rent itself, but the new information has been presented, so i believe it's up to the committee to decide how they want to proceed. >> president cohen: so you have no -- given the new information that the deputy director presented, you have no additional recommend addition -- >> i would say we have no compelling recommendation one way or the other. >> president cohen: what you said -- what was said is not enough to sway you from your original recommendation. >> i think a five-year extension could be sufficient.

i think the board can consider what to do in 2023, but at this point, i believe it's up to the committee based on the recommendation. >> president cohen: yes? >> i will say it's all my fault. i did not have the negotiations with the tenant, nctc, the former director did. i'm also limited to what's in the file and this was completely my misinformation or lack of giving them information, and i need today have conversations with others that i wasn't having at the time that we were actually doing and answering their questions. i answered them to the best of my ability and actually found out here at time was going on. nctc made a decision just during this time period of the last few years, while this tolling was taking place and investigations were taking place and then 1 oak did not decide to build to do some upgrades and to upgrade their

lobby and features. during this tolling period, they just couldn't take it upon themselves to say okay, we want to do these. if, you know, if the water intrusion's going to keep getting worse, if the building's going to be belt next door, and there could be water intrusion that's even worse than it is now. so the reason for the tolling and the reason let's extend this back out to the ten years, is because of that -- of budget and of their time commitment and their longevity at the site. they're a nonprofit that's basically a legacy business, and they've been there, and they -- the neighborhood knows them, the city knows them, and i think that -- i guess it's hard to convey in a written answer. and i didn't understand the entire effect of everything until i actually spoke with nctc and others, including our

building manager, so i apologize to the b.l.a. for that. >> president cohen: okay. we know that wasn't intentional, and the real estate department has got through a lot of transition this year. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: so it's your request that we extend it to 2028. >> correct. the first extension would be now, and then, the next extension in 2023. >> supervisor fewer: so i -- okay. thank you. you know, colleagues, i think that nctc has been a good tenant. i think that it's really important to support our arts organizations, and since the b.l.a. doesn't have a strong opinion about it, knowing this new information, i actually think that a ten-year lease is actually reasonable for this organization. >> president cohen: all right. all right. thank you very much. let's go ahead and take public comment on this before we take action on item seven, and then we'll hear from the deputy city attorney. public comment is open. welcome. >> good morning, supervisors.

i'm ed decker. i am the founder and artistic director at new conservatory theater center. i had a lot of sort of philosophical visionary are remarks to share -- visionary remarks to share with you about the theater, but i'd rather speak to the information presented by claudia and the real estate department. for -- we moved into the 25 vanness location christmas 1984. as you can imagine, we have enjoyed a long, productive relationship, not only with our community, but with our various partners that have been the landlords of the building, including the language-term relationship with the real estate department of san francisco. as you can imagine, that during this last period from 2008 -- well, till now, it's been a challenge for us to maintain

our services for our students and our audiences because of the circumstances in the facility. but in the spirit of nonprofit and the show must go on, we always found a way to make sure or school matinnes were happening, our educational tours to the sfusd were happening, and our full season of programs at the theater facility at 25 vanness. the process that we engaged in with the delay of the -- of the lease option was based on guidance from the real estate department and the successful way of working together in good faith. so thank you and we hope you will endorse the updated recommendation from the real estate department. >> president cohen: thank you. >> good morning. my name is barbara hodgeson, and i'm the executive director at new conservatory theater center. we've been at 25 vanness for

more than 30 years and are proud to be a magnet for patrons to come to hayes valley to dine, shop, and enjoy the arts. we attract an audience of over 17,000 a year, and our health and wellness program reached over 19,000 young people last year along, and our conservatory serves over 700 students a year, two thirds of which are in under served communities throughout san francisco. we employ more than 100 artists, artisans and teachers annually. all of this is done by a small nonprofit running on an annual budget of under $2 million. i became executive director in 2012. at that time they had been managing water intrusion for many years. we worked tirelessly with the city to address the issues. real estate brought in the experts and ed and i managed

the socks and the mops. when our nirts renewal option came in 2013 we agreed with the city to hold off on exercising that option while the city investigated the ongoing significant water damage issues. this process continues over the next five years, effectively neutralizing the first five year lease extension. we -- as you can imagine, we -- planning plays an important part of keeping our tiny ship afloat. it's vital to maintain the high level of service and art to the community. our ability to stay in the time space of both of our lease extensions will allow us to maintain our position as a vital portion of the san francisco arts eco system. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you for your presentation. >> good morning. my name is nicole menez, and i am the program director for youth aware educational theater.

as a facet of what new conservatory theater center does for san francisco as a city and for the sf unified, we have been bringing free and health education plays to students within the sfusd for over 38 years now. and in that time, youth aware alone has served ov over .5 million students a an institution of san francisco health and wellness quick lum. since 1986 we've provided age appropriate educational and high quality theaterical productions. it educates students about h.i.v. and aids, and other subjects. so within the 19,000 sfusd students that we see annually, about a third of them come down to our basement in order to see

and experience these health and wellness plays. the rest of the students are served by after educators that we train, rehearse and activate at our theater space. so the sustainability longevity and maintenance of our space at 25 vanness is incredibly important to what new conservatory does as an education that supports countless teachers, educators and make sfusd school campuses, safer, more understanding environments. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you for your public comment. any member of the public that would like to further comment on item seven? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i'd like to move to the director -- deputy city attorney. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. it seems like based on supervisor fewer's remarks, the way you're going is to approve the lease as proposed.

but just a note as you discuss this, that in a situation like this where a lease includes a tenant option, the board can approve the lease or reject the lease, but you can't actually change the term on your own unless the department and the conservatory have agreed to the new term. so if you're not comfortable with allowing for ten years of tenant options, you -- your option is to continue this item and basically tell the department look, we're not comfortable with this ten-year thing. come back to us in a week or two weeks if you have reached a different deal. so just -- that's just that you can't make an amendment to the lease itself. if you wanted to limit it to five years, you would just have to ask the department to bring back a different proposal. out

board today. >> supervisor fewer: okay. i think i'd like to make a motion to do that. cope cone okay. miss gorman, did you have anything you'd like to say? >> no. >> president cohen: okay. supervisor fewer, you can make a motion now. >> supervisor fewer: we're going to accept the amendment as -- >> president cohen: let me take a stab at it. we're going to accept the amendment that the budget analyst is recommending, modifying the square footage figure, and then, we will accept the lease as written and forward that with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> president cohen: all right. >> supervisor fewer: okay. >> president cohen: we can take that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: thank you. thank you very much. madam clerk, could you please call items eight, nine, and ten together. >> clerk: yes. item number eight, resolution

retroactively approving a contract agreement with baker place for behavioral health services in an amount not to exceed approximately 55.4 million for a total contract term of july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2022. item number nine, resolution retroactively approving a contract agreement for behavioral health services in an amount not to exceed 40.5 million for a total contract term of june -- joule 1, 20 -- july 1, 2019 to june 30, 2022. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. so we've got three resolutions for contract amendment agreements in there for mental health care services across the continuum of care, and we've got michelle ruggles from the

department of public health here to present. thank you. >> yeah. so the first contract is baker places. it is, as you mentioned, it's 55 million for the term of the contract. it's about $12 million peryear. actually, with baker, it is mental health, but really, more, what's different in this contract, it's a new contract, actually, as a result of a solicitation which was recently completed, and this is the implementation of something new in the city called the organized delivery system which came out of a state -- a federal waiver through the state. and what this is allowing us to do is basically provide an organized delivery system with the goal of improving treatment by being more coordinated from a city perspective and a department perspective, we'll be managing a substance abuse department managed care system. but it also expanded the he

eligibility of services that were available under drug medi-cal, and so services that we've provided most of our residential treatment that could not drawdown medi-cal, we're now able to drawdown medi-cal. what it means to the provider, which in turn will be a benefit to the clients, is that the treatment -- some of the changes are the treatment will be more medical and professional, moving beyond peer support. there's a requirement for evidence-based care, and then outcome measurement. so this is a very transform atiff change to the city, which we're very grateful that our former director, barbara garcia was behind. baker places, the program looks the same from the prior contract. there's ten programs. all the sites, the names, the

residential treatment, they're all the same, but they're moving forward under this new solicitation with the new requirements for them and an improvemented treatment system, we believe. and i think this recommendation was approved, so we're in full support. >> president cohen: thank you. thank you, michelle. let's hear from the budget legislative analyst's office. >> good morning. so each of these three contracts, one with baker place, the one with seneca center, and the one with healthright 360 all were selected through a competitive process in 2017. they've all been on an interim contract while the department was going through negotiations, and all of them are for retroactive approval back to july of 2018. we have reviewed them, we recommend approval for all of them. for item number nine, we do actually have a clerical

clarification, that the contract amount is not to exceed $40,429,444, which is different than what is stated in the contract and resolution. and for item number 10, the proposed contract with healthright 360, neither the resolution nor the contract itself has an extension option, but in our discussions with the department and they've forwarded to us the actual r.f.p. that was submitted, there was supposed to have been a five-year extension option, so we're recommending an amendment to the resolution to provide for an option extension through 2027, otherwise, we recommend approval. cone do >> president cohen: thank you. we'll take that recommendation. we're going to go to public comment. public comment is open for items eight, nine, and ten. >> these kind of situations

here, you always appear to be on the right track, but it bothers me and irritates me because these kind of programs are providing services to the most disadvantaged people in the city. you turnaround and give million trillion and billion dollar breaks to billion and trillion-dollar companies that don't need a break. and then, when a department is helping the most vulnerable people that need help, it's not getting no break. twitter has got tax free money from this city of unpaid taxes which is less than half of the amount of money that's being proposed and asked for by the previous speaker. and along with the other high tech companies. so in order to level the playing field, give them a break. i think they should get approximately $5.5 million more than what they're asking for in

order to level the playing field. they're the ones that need a break. people shouldn't have to come in here and plead like this to you to help the people that's most vulnerable and economically disadvantaged, a combination of both mental and physical disabilities when you give million of free money that's untaxable to the high tech companies. her department herself, they're paying payroll taxes. it's not fair. it's not fair. so when people come up here and is for money for services for people that are most vulnerable, whatever they're asking for from here on out, give them $5.5 million more than what they're asking for. i repeat, any department or any organization such as the hospitality house, providing services for people that's homeless in the shelter system,

$5.5 million more than what they're asking for. >> president cohen: thank you. is there any other speaker there? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i have a question for you, miss rugals. i want to know the metrics that we use to evaluate and their success. >> well, we could an annual monitoring -- we do an an monitoring, but as a general, it's looking at recidivism, it's looking at, you know, how many people get into the programs, how long they stay -- i don't know, did you -- >> president cohen: so based on what you've just described, it's like a counting. you're keeping track on what the numbers are. i want to know, what is the goal, what is the standard and, i guess, a clearer picture of the tool that you're using to

evaluate these contracts? how do we know that they're successful, that they're meeting their mark? are we just using it based on the number of people that they're serving? okay. this gentleman seems to know the answer. >> yes. there's two staff that can speak to -- one, the seneca program is a children's program, and allison can speak to those measurements, which is really measuring change in their improvement, but she can speak to that. and then, jim stillwell will speak to the substance abuse measurements. >> president cohen: thank you. welcome. >> thank you so much. for the seneca programs, they're all children's programs, and they mainly serve children who are involved with the juvenile probation system or the child welfare system. in san francisco we use the

child adolescent programs. when they graduate -- and that assessment is done every year. when they leave the program, whether it's at the year arc, there's another cans that measures the progress of the child and the family while they've had the intervention of the seneca services. in addition for the seneca r.a.p. program, which is the biggest program that seneca has, in collaboration with our partners at juvenile probation and child welfare, there's a huge study that's done annually that not only looks at the cans assessment, but for child welfare and j.p.d., it looks at recidivism, looks at arrests, and looks at child change of placement. >> president cohen: when you

say looks at, what -- can you quantify that? >> yeah, sorry. so child -- both child welfare and juvenile probation have their own databases which track how many times a child has had to change placements. so as part of the overall annual report, they mine data from those databases to look at -- for a child that's enrolled in the program, they track how many moves that child has had because that's one of the measures as to whether or not the intervention is successful. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. and the benchmark that you're using, is this an industry standard? >> the cans is an industry standard. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. that answers my question. nope, that's it. to the gentleman. >> thank you. jim stillwell, department of public health. so for the alcohol and drug programs, really, the primary mechanism is reduction in drug and alcohol use.

the methods are the california out come measurement survey, and it's a fairly intricate system because the outcomes are compared also to the person's health state and their drug use, alcohol use at the beginning of the episode, and it looks at the change for that population. it's normed against statewide populations and also normed against city populations, so it's a fairly elaborate system without a single benchmark, but it is validated statewide at multiple places. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. >> in addition, we track 20 other variables, like housing status, employment status, family education, legal, things like that, but we have a pretty clear idea of program success. >> president cohen: well, i know you have a clear idea.

i was looking for a better clear idea. i hope that you as a manager have an idea. >> well, yes. >> president cohen: the only thing -- i hear all these qualitative words used to describe how you're evaluating. i just want to know -- this is a budget committee, so i'm looking for the numbers. how are we determining that these programs are meeting their mark? you know, i mean, this is a request for contract agreements on mental health care services across a continuum thing of care. >> probably the best -- >> president cohen: to be fair, we can look out on any streets in san francisco and say there's still some unmet need there. so my question to you is i want to be convinced that you're being successful, instead of just asking for more money to reup the contract. >> i just had a very broad

level. our programs perform at an average or above level when compared to similar programs, similar populations statewide. i would say the vast majority of clients have clear physical measurements indicating they are better at the completion of the program. to really -- i didn't really bring a complete sheet of numbers, but we can provide that. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. i'll appreciate it if you provide it, and always remember it's the budget committee. we love numbers. love numbers here. all right. let's go to the b.l.a. and hear what her thoughts are for these items. these are items eight, nine, and ten miss campbell. >> i think we did already report, but i want to point out we have a couple of recommendations. on night nine, there was a clerical error. on item number ten, to be consistent with the r.f.p., we're recommending a five-year option to extend the contract

that's not currently there. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. colleagues, are there any discussions? we've taken public comment. public comment is closed at this time. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i would make a motion to approval the b.l.a. recommendations. michelle ruggles? the department was good with the recommendations, so i'll make a motion to approve this and send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. okay. thank you. mofrg on, item 11. >> clerk: approving a 2011 lease and use agreement between thomas cook airline limited to conduct information at the san francisco international airport. >> president cohen: we've got cassy widener from the airport again. this contract was starting this past august. >> cassy widener with the san

francisco airport. the airline, thomas cooks, has been operating at the airport under a permit. the item before you seeks your approval for thomas cook become a signatory to the irairport's use status. >> president cohen: explain to me a signatory status. what's the significance of that? >> so in 2011, the board approved the lease and use agreement with the 53 airlines that were operating at the airport. this is the agreement that is the mechanism that allows the airlines to provide flight operations, rent terminal space at the airport. it provides a common set of lease provisions such as base rents and fees, permitted uses of terminal space. it's also the mechanism that allows for the airport to make the annual service payment to the city every year.

it's essentially a master lease. >> president cohen: my question is they're not a signatory and now you're requesting for them to become one. i want to understand why. >> there are some benefit to see the airlines. they receive signatory -- airlines receive 25% lower landing fees. we are required to provide a little less in bond assurances, but it also gives the airport a mechanism for long-term planning for our facilities, flight operations, and to base our terminal rent space. >> president cohen: so i'm unfamiliar with this airline. is it a small airline? >> it is a small airline. it's a seasonal airline. they operate at s.f.o. july through october every year. just starting last year, two weekly flights between s.f.o.

and manchester, england. it will add thomas cook as a signatory airline. they will pay the airport approximately $76,000 a month for the season that they operate, which is july through october. because they are seasonal, and they only operate two flights a week, they are charged on a prorated fee perpassenger based on their use of the international terminal as well as their joint landing fees. the budget analyst does call out their monthly rent of $76,000 permonth and recommends approval, but i would be happy to answer questions if you have additional information that you're looking for. >> president cohen: you've answered my questions. i don't have any -- i don't see colleagues on the roster, so let's go to the budget

legislative analyst and here her thoughts. >> these thoughts are summarizes on page 30 of our report. because it only operates between july and october, they don't pay year around rent to the airport, so they're paying based on the airport's rates and charges which are approved annually by the airport commission. so for 2018, for their operating for four months, they would pay basically a service and charter fee totaling about 305,000 for the four month period. >> president cohen: you said 305,000. >> yes, for the four month period, and then they would pay a landing fee of 554 per-5,000 pounds of the landing fee, and these two change annually based on the airport commission's changing the rates and charges, but i recommend approval. >> president cohen: thank you. i take that approval under

advisement. let's open public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: colleagues, i'll make a motion to accept the b.l.a.'s recommendation and with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? all right. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> miss widener, you have a question before you leave, if you can just come over here. i'm going to call item 12. >> ordinance amending the administrative code to increase the hourly compensation rate of city contractors out of a nonprofit or corporate entity to $17 perhour and followed tlafr by annual cost of living increases. >> president cohen: colleagues, this is our final item on the agenda. this ordinance increases the anyone mum profit for for

profit workers on san francisco city contracts with certain exclusions such as prevailing wage contracts to $17 an hour, also beginning on november 3 of this year. this includes the airport workers who despite being dee contractors have been making substantially less than the san francisco minimum wage since they are located in san mateo county. i've circulated a few cleanup amendments that you should have before you, and it is recommended by the city attorney, and i'll ask him to explain, if he'd like -- no, i think they're pretty self-explanatory. all right. so the cleanup amendments are, i think, self-explanatory. i hope to have your support on this item. i don't -- i don't think we have any other comments. i want to look to the b.l.a. and see if there's any remarks that you'd like to make. >> no. we don't have any new information since last week.

i think we have both said in our report that the impact to the city would only occur if there -- at the time of the lease or contract renewal, but at this point in time, we don't have any numbers if there is a fiscal impact to the city. >> president cohen: all right. then we'll go to public comment. public comment is open. >> you're on the right track, but you're going the wrong way again. in your item, you specifically explain the annual cost of living in order to live in san francisco. you do the math on that $17 an hour, eight hours a day, five days a week, four weeks a month, 12 years -- i mean, 12 months in a year, that comes out to $32,640 a year. every brand-new apartment complex that's built and housing opportunity comes out

of the mayor's office on housing. you set the lowest income requirement to be a tenant at the minimum at a minimum of 80,000 a year, 95,000 a year, $125,000 a year, and then, you have the audacity to say that's below market rate and affordable housing. that's disgusting. that's called price fixing, and it's a criminal act, and i'm calling it to your attention again. you have an emergency housing situation that's declared by the governor and the city of san francisco and you're deliberately fixing these rent prices where people in low-income brackets can't afford to be a tenant in the building. then, when you have us out in the street, you complain about it and belittle us. it's disgusting. u.c. berkeley just did a study on how this price fixing is the reason why you've got people that are homeless out in the street, and you use the word

gentrification when the truth of the matter is the word is discrimination and you're displacing low-income people by price fixing based on the income of the high tech people. then you've got the poop squad making $86,000 a year, and they're scooping up feces off of the sidewalk. >> president cohen: thank you. your time's up. [inaudible] >> president cohen: is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? all right. public comment is closed. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: all right. i'd like to make a motion to accept the amendments. all right. and i can take that without objection? thank you. and also make a motion to accept the ordinance and send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. and i'd like to make a motion

to send it by the full body. madam clerk, is there any further business? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> president cohen: all right. we're adjourned. thank you. all right. on 5, 5

2, 1 you innovation on or was on over 200 years they went through extensive innovations to the existing green new metal gates were installed our the perimeter 9 project is funded inform there are no 9 community opportunity and our capital improvement plan to the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood it allows the residents and park advocates like san franciscans to make the matching of the few minutes through the philanthropic dungeons and finished and finally able to pull on play on the number one green a celebration on october 7, 1901, a skoovlt for the st. anthony's formed a club and john then the

superintendent the golden gate park laid out the bowling green are here sharing meditates a permanent green now and then was opened in 1902 during the course the 1906 san francisco earthquake that citywide much the city the greens were left that with an ellen surface and not readers necessarily 1911 it had the blowing e bowling that was formed in 1912 the parks commission paid laying down down green number 2 the san francisco lawn club was the first opened in the united states and the oldest on the west their registered as san francisco lark one 101 and ti it is not all fierce competition

food and good ole friend of mine drive it members les lecturely challenge the stories some may be true some not memories of past winners is reversed presbyterian on the wall of champions. >> make sure you see the one in to the corner that's me and. >> no? not bingo or scrabble but the pare of today's competition two doreen and christen and beginninger against robert and others easing our opponents for the stair down is a pregame strategy even in lawn bowling. >> play ball.

>> yes. >> almost. >> (clapping). >> the size of tennis ball the object of the game our control to so when the players on both sides are bold at any rate the complete ends you do do scoring it is you'll get within point lead for this bonus first of all, a jack can be moved and a or picked up to some other point or move the jack with i have a goal behind the just a second a lot of elements to the game. >> we're about a yard long. >> aim a were not player i'll play any weighed see on the inside in the goal i