commissioners, thank you for your time. are there any questions? >> thank you very much. is there any public comments on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed. commissioner gilman? >> jonathan thank you for the presentation. i was a little confused, i just want to make sure i'm understanding your presentation correctly. eight percent seemed a little low compared to other projects we do. but i think i heard you say, i need you to confirm i'm understanding you correctly. it's harder to get lb e participation because those firms do not have the crafts or the trade we need to build it, is that is what you are trying to articulate? >> yes. the slides confuse me.

>> i apologize. we do look at the needs of what the department is trying to create. what we have at this time do not do that. a lot of that is specialized read to answer your question, that is correct. >> i am glad we can get the a percent on a specialized project. thank you so much. that concludes my questions. >> thank you for this report. i know this is obviously something we have endorsed and something that is very near and dear to my

heart. i just want to know under the approach that we are using which was explained at the last commission meeting. in terms of the actual cost you are seeing 47,000,000, how much of that is firm at this point given you are going to bring some of the end that's going to advise us some more? we are also not sure whether we have all of the funding in place right i understand that. so, i just want to anticipate that we don't get any surprises down the line, and this approach involves the contractor with us up front on this on the estimate cost etc. >> this approach helps us to avoid surprises. we will be getting their involvement early, and often with a build type situation. we don't have that type of feedback in terms of how to build because we are limited on discussions we can have with the actual contractors so we

don't give anybody a specific advantage. having this rpi selection phase allows us to get somebody qualified and have them sit in front of us with all of the drawings i go through and avoid any of the surprises that we have. >> i'll rephrase my question a little bit. i will appoint in timeline lies will be then say this number is pretty firm? >> let me just grab, - we would have the guaranteed maximum price if we were in schedule, real briefly, we would be getting - we would be awarding the preconstruction phase is in the october timeframe. with the contracting issues we would start the actual preconstruction services in december. we would have four months in that timeframe. we would know by the end of this year, because obviously that effect since we

hope to find funding we have to know whether we are on solid ground to get this project done on the timeline that is proposed? >> that is correct. if there is any indication that things were not lining up to make it cancel the preconstruction contract. >> to give the commission a little more comfort we had a contingency here in this budget, 25 percent contingency, and we have had a topside cost estimator. although we will have a maximum firm price which is what we can really rely on, we do feel comfortable with this budget estimate that we are around the figure. because of the large contingent fee plus having a very good cost estimator on this team. >> i guess, obviously, because of the chase center and

everybody else that is fair lending support, a lot of eyes on this project to make sure it is done properly, on time and with whatever cost estimates we expect. >> absolutely. our biggest concern is a delay. we really do need to get our funding in hand and deliver this project on the schedule we planned because there is an escalation factor in this budget, if we flip time that will be a problem. >> that 12 percent commission - is a little bit of what i was concerned with, we built some of that into this cost. >> i would be absolutely delighted to see this project completed in the timeline. >> absolutely. >> commissioner makras? >> i support it. thank you for the presentation. >> thank you so much for this

presentation. i just want to be clear that today we are voting on the seven and 50,000 dollars construction, and all of the rest of this is just for information. as far as funding you will come back to us later? >> that is correct. >> my only question is, in the staff report the lb e goal was 12 percent for preconstruction and six percent for construction. i'm just wondering how we got to eight percent from their? >> the original sub contracting requirement that lists the two separate goals was something that needed to be modified because under code, they have over one lb requirement not to. that is why it is in a percent

goal. within that, however, after working with the port and re-looking at the project, we felt there are significant opportunities that could be left at the preconstruction phase. that is why you have an overall eight percent. okay. how do we know that? how do we know eight percent is different than 12 percent on six percent. i don't understand. is it the same or are we losing funds? >> "all lives matter," you are gaining more. in the aggregate, because the original summation is i believe is 12 percent for the 750. however, after

re-looking at how the contract, the scope was broken down we felt that we could get more up to about 20 percent. if you were to look at just the 750 alone. >> for this part of the contract, the 750,000 we are looking at 20 percent? >> we believe you can get significantly more. the overall requirement is a percent. that is what the master builder >> what would we be looking for when we get this proposal back? 20 percent or eight percent? >> so, the master builder, as part of the process have an lp e commitment letter. no contract, if you recall, you're just hiring the master builder alone. there would be no subs or anybody underneath him at that point. they would be signing what we would call a commitment

requirement in terms where they would attest that they understand the requirement is a percent, at the end of the contract they would be held responsible for meeting that. however, in the interim, once you approve and award the master builder, a contract, we would immediately work with them on trying to get as much lp participation at the front end as possible with the use of that preconstruction contract. [inaudible] >> eight percent overall for whatever the total cost is paid right now that state is 5,000,000 dollars. at the 720 that we are breathing today. that percentage of lb e might be up to 20. it's only going to be eight of the whole project. but in the bill - the beginning, 25

- - money percent of the 750,000 will be lb e? >> yes. that is primarily impacted because of that impact you have, and all of the other specialty work. >> okay. so the total eligible for lb e is 2,800,000? [laughter] >> it is not plus. let me get - we are starting with seven or 60,000 dollars contract so 20 percent is 150. does that help?

>> yeah. [laughter] three point eight five, that is what we are getting for the contract. >> okay. we have construction, and that's about 4,000,000 that could be given to lb e? i guess my confusion is why is it so low? i understand the specialty. i know there are areas that we can use lb e. we have looked at those scopes and have made - >> okay, but three point nine

shoreside construction, but we only have eligible work or two point eight. >> yes. the component that has no participation is 32,000,000 dollars in the project. >> okay. >> the balance at 15 percent which is what we see in a normal package brings us to - when you take the 32,000,000 dollars specialty back out. >> getting crumbs. >> as usual. [laughter] >> i'm not supporting it on just giving the raw numbers. so we all understand it. >> there is nothing else we can

do about this? >> we can - >> once again, director forbes, i feel sorry for her having to listen to me over, and over, and over. i just feel sorry for her. [laughter] we do millions of dollars in project. over, and over. >> walkers through why the 32,000,000 dollars participation? walk us through some of the suppliers, where the suppliers are, what makes them so unique so we understand that those companies cannot do this. because we want to do it. and demonstrate that there they are only choices. this tells me if this is in the bidding process. this is sort of telling me we're going to hire the company that

is out there. i would conclude there would be some participation at that point? >> the master builder, because the 34,000,000 dollar project would be one of the largest firms that you see to have the various crane in the city. as well as dredging, and what they call the cat. those work, inherently there are no lb eased up perform that work at this

time. this includes the painting which is very minimal. there is also some minimal electrical work. there is also an there is a lot of concrete work performed by themselves. 30,000,000 dollars of it is not available, lb e's are not able to provide that service to you. it's not the type of work they do. >> i guess, maybe at this point, it is something for the port. this is work we are going to do forever. we are going to need this type of work. what are we doing to partner with companies, or joint venture, or whatever to

make sure there are companies available to do this work. >> one last thing i wanted to mention, sometimes we forget, the eight percent is a four. it is not a ceiling. >> we struggle to get to the floor. trust me. >> a lot of the big firms that inherently pursue this level of work are well known to us at our the same type of contractors that work at the airport, or work on pc. they understand the expectations of not just cmd, they also understand the expectations of the various commissions and how they all

want to see a robust participation within their community. we certainly can lean on them. they understand the expectations of the commissions, and certainly we will not let them shoot for the minimums. >> i am sorry, i did not get commissioner out of the chance to talk. >> the presentation wasn't really clear to me, probably more confused now when we started. i think victor was on point. me myself i would like to hold this over, i would like you to go out and do better. to me this is unacceptable. i'm tired of always coming in and expect to take crumbs. i think you can do better. i, myself, would like to hold this over madam

president you'd come back with something better. i just cannot accept that there is no lb eased out there. that is just where i am at. >> if i may make a comment, in terms of what the port is doing. some of these firms, there is a huge barrier to entry. there is many millions of dollars to purchase equipment, and to be successful in the field there is economies of scale. so these firms have customers all over the nation in some instances. perhaps it is a scalability issue and what firms can take on and it could be a mismatch between local small businesses and the marine construction field. this could be a question for the office of workforce and economic development. that is my sense of why there are no certified lb eased in the marine construction field.

>> we are about to spend, you know, billions of dollars on this type of work. we have to do something to get prepared. so that our local business enterprises can participate. we have to do something area >> had a question on the holdover. i'm confused, too. can you remind us about the funding? >> can you answer the question

around the funding there is mobilization, materials that need to be purchased. there is other items for earnest money that we could do to make that goal if we prepare and spend that money before it is forfeited we have to look for another source for that area does that answer your question? >> in terms of what we would be able to do in a month. we would not have capacity to enter firms into this field. they are not certified, they are not there. what we would look to is things like the mentorship protége program or other forms of community building or workforce building that we could accomplish this contract. we would not be able to create

these terms or cause assembly. it would be much more around metro protége and other capacity building efforts. we can certainly work with our city partners and see what we might be able to come up with. >> i think that is a great suggestion and hopefully we can put that in place prior to spending any more funds on this project that needs to move forward. 750,000 dollars we can move forward with this, we have another 36 alien dollars to deal with finding. i would like to understand what your proposal is if we move ahead with this area at the same time we ask the staff to develop the mentor protége program because it doesn't sound like the percentages going to change within 30 days. it's not a

question of identifying more firms, that is not going to change. it's a development effort to get more firms. >> i wasn't laying out the process going forward just what you might purchase - anticipate if we take a month to work on it. you have two options here, you can approve this item now and we can work with other staff on sin capacity building or other things we can do with these contract dollars to build the pipeline down the road. i don't know if you have any thoughts on hand, or you can hold us over and we could come and tell you what we plan to do next month and you can consider the item that? >> what you come and tell us you're going to do has to do with future funding, not necessarily this contract? we can move forward with this contract, but prior to any additional allocations being sent, let's have a plan.

>> the underlying bid will be part of the plan or it will not be a part of the plan? >> the 750,000 dollars contract can be advertised. everything underneath is different, separate. this is just advertising. "all lives matter" one favor? resolution 1927 has been approved. [reading items]

>> good afternoon. i am a capital manager here at the port to present to you the 2012 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond. it was approved by voters in 2012 for a total of one 95,000,000 dollars, of which 34,500,000 was allocated to the poor for waterfront parks. since then the board has participated in two of three bond sales for a total of 31,400,000 dollars and port staff is now recommending that we initiate the fourth bond sale which is the final sale from this bond and the remaining total of 3,100,000 dollars. we would pursue this in the summer of 2019 so we can join with unaffordable housing bond to save on issuance costs so more money can go towards the projects. the proceeds would be used for construction. i'm going

to briefly give you an update on the status of the bonds appropriated to date and then we will highlight the intended uses of the proposed sale. this slide shows the full programming of the 2012 parks bond. i would note that this is a bit higher than the 34,500,000 i stated on a previous slide because this has an appropriation of interest earnings. of the projects in this program, one has been completed the cruise terminal project known as the northeast wharf plaza. that was completed in 2014. as you know well, crane park is under construction and that is funded with 28 and 2012 general obligation bond funds. the remaining projects are in planning and design including the peer 27 public art led by the arts commission and improvements which will begin conceptual designs this fall.

anticipate all bond proceeds would be expended by june of 2021. this chart shows the details of the existing appropriation as you will see it includes 31,400,000 we have sold in the prior to sales as well as 331,000 dollars of appropriated interest findings. of that, 13 percent is remaining balance that is unexpended. the proposed final bond sale would include 1,700,000 dollars for aqua vista park and one point two four karen's head park. it shows an estimated cost of issuance of one 89,032 dollars. as outnumbered changes and gets finalized, any delta would be reflected in the final karen's

head park budget. the aqua vista park which you just heard a little bit about in the previous presentation is a 2,000,000 park renovation of an existing port park that will complement the mission-based area landing and the mission bay bay park front to the north. it will improve the experience for pedestrians and visitors by upgrading the furniture, the lighting as well as the access to the existing fishing pier. the herons had park and improvements are complementary to improvement made with the 2008 parks bond and response to the increased usage we are seeing at the park, similarly it will connect a chain of parks by improving access to the improved pg&e shoreline to the south of the park and conductivity down to india basin, includes signage improvement, pathway improvement as well as upgrades to the

eco-centers. panels on electrical systems, it is a green building but the solar panels are rather old so it can use some upgrade to better serve the needs of the facility. as we can see from the schedule, i touched on earlier. the last object anticipated to be completed from this group is aqua vista park which is said to be completed in mid 2021. if the commission approves the item today we would proceed with the capital planning committee for approval on july 22, and the item would be introduced along with the affordable housing bond to the board of supervisors on july 30. happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. can i have a motion? so moved area in any public comments on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed. >> thank you for this presentation. we have all been happy to see that the park

program is a very straightforward, just think it's execution of something we had agreed to and just to see the schedule on very supported in the item. no questions you'd >> thank you for the presentation, no questions and i am supportive. >> no questions thank you for the presentation. we all want this to move forward. >> i am supportive. [laughter] of this one. >> thank you. thank you for this report. just one question, once we receive the funds, will you come back to the commission on how they are going to be spent and with whom? >> in terms of issuing contracts we would be back when we issue contracts for the work, yes it would go to the two projects as described but then we would come back with the contracting. aqua vista is part of the mission bay

ferry landing? and then separately herons park. you're going to come back with the designs on the programming and all that good stuff? okay. thank you. "all lives matter" one favor? any opposed? resolution 19-28 has been approved. >> good afternoon, or maybe good evening commissioners. i am the port cfo, and i'm here with a request to approve a supplemental appropriation to support the seawall program. should the city be unable to move forward with the first sale of the seawall bond due to litigation that has been filed contesting proposition a. a measure that passed in november

of 2018 with 82 point seven percent voter approval. the port is requesting that the board of supervisors consider and approve a supplemental appropriation from harbor fund balance to support ongoing planning, community outreach and preliminary design work on the seawall. i am here today, because in april of 2019, two san francisco residents filed litigation challenging proposition a. they alleged that the city had violated a variety of state and local election laws in conjunction without measure. on june 18, the litigation with this list by a superior court judge who did not give the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint which was the best possible outcome that the city could have seen. however, the litigants have 60

days in which to appeal the dismissal of their case. the deadline for their appeal would be august 19. the city attorney strongly believes that this case is without merit, and in fact, this was supported by the action that the superior court took last month. the first sale of the seawall bond has been delayed until at least august 19, and perhaps beyond. as the city evaluates the risk of selling bonds before the appellate timeframe has expired. if the litigation persists and if the city chooses not, the port would propose to appropriate available harbor fund balance to support the seawall program through this new fiscal year. through june 30 of 2020. when the bonds are finally sold, the ports 11,500,000 dollars contribution would ultimately be reimbursed to the

harbor. the seawall bond, as you all know, provides a majority of funding for phase 1 of the program. it has no other sources other than the harbor fund to backfill the prevalent - potential delay of the bond sales. as of today, staff is estimating, at the current rate of expenditure, the seawall program will exhaust its appropriated funding at the end of september, beginning of october. without a bonded sale or supplemental appropriation, the seawall program will run out of funding. the appropriation request is a contingency that will allow us to have worked on the program and continue if we ultimately face a worst case

scenario with the bond. the total that the port expects to spend on the seawall program in fiscal year 1920 is approximately 18,180,000 dollars. the proposed supplemental of 11,500,000 dollars will find nine months of work. october through june on the program. this work would include completion of the multi- hazard risk assessment, the initiation of alternative development and the continuation of our public engagement work as well as our ongoing collaboration with the army corps of engineers on the flood study. if the commission were to give its approval today we would go to the capital planning committee for their approval on july 22 with an eye towards introducing the ordinance at the board of supervisors on july 30.

if there is no appeal, of the dismissal of the litigation against prop a by august 19, then we will simply table the ordinance at the board of supervisors. if there is a an appeal and the city chooses to delay the first of bond sale which is an open question we would work to get the items scheduled at the budget and finance committee when the board returns from its recess at the beginning of september and then we would hope to have full board approval by the end of september which would then allow us to continue the program. that concludes my presentation i'm happy to answer questions. >> can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. >> thank you for the presentation i am in support of the item and i would continue to see planning so we can move this work forward. thank you.

>> i support the item. >> i support the item and think you, it's important to have the contingency measure. when you take the funding, the 11,500,000 as the contingency plan out of the ports harbor fund, what line does not affect, county wise? >> it takes us out of fun balance. we have concluded fiscal year 1718 with a little over as it happens, a little over 1,000,000 dollars in revenue to the good where we had not been counting on that money. those funds fell to fund balance, we had not programmed the funds for anything. >> it would be a debit from cash and it will show up as a contribution to capital that has

been repaid by an external source of capital. >> my second question is if you had a bond sale you would have an infusion of cash honestly. now you're having to use cash. what's the impact of having to use up cash unexpectedly for this >> we have a fairly healthy cash balance we have above and beyond what we have given ourselves as policy guidelines in terms of cash balances the we feel confident that we can let go of this cash as a contingency measure and then be paid when the bonds are ultimately sold. >> are not concerned on a cash flow basis? >> absolutely not. >> i understand now. do you want to include that so we all understand how the financial impact on the financial statements as well on your cash flow i'm glad we have very

positive cash balances. [laughter] >> we have a lot of allocated projects that sit in cash. >> good presentation, you always sit back in the back real quiet and right before you have to speak, passed by the public 82 percent. i was like look at her. >> this one makes me mad. we should not be here today. >> anyway, like my fellow commissioners, i am also supportive. >> thank you. >> these funds have already been appropriated? >> no, ma'am. we would be going to the board of supervisors to ask for the appropriation. >> okay. as far as to consultants and the youth staff. you have to come back to us, or

are we approving how they are going to be spent next? >> the funds will be appropriated into a project budget for the seawall. and then, the project, that appropriation which we are asking you to approve gives support staff a lot of leeway in how to allocate the funding weatherby between staff or consultant. >> okay, i guess my question is - >> this appropriation would be allocated to the contract already approved. what we had planned was a bond sale with the engineering contract and staff work that you already approved. this is just a change in funding source. >> thank you. i just want to ask a question on the process here, because we don't have any

proceeds at the bottom as we had planned and this is an appropriation or use of fund balance, what is the reason we go to the board of supervisors? >> katie can answer this question. [laughter] >> we need appropriation authority. this 11,500,000 dollars has never been appropriated, we cannot spend money without getting approval from the board of supervisors. >> i got it now. any other questions or comments? >> "all lives matter" one favor.

>> resolution approved. >> mrs. meriwether and her firm have been instrumental in maximizing small business participation. she will be speaking during the outreach portion of my presentation. the director of cmt is here and can provide insight and our chief harbor engineer can talk to specifics about the scope of work at the conclusion of the presentation. the item before you is a request to recommend a ward of the lb set aside construction management request for qualifications to darby inc. and joe hill consulting engineers. each contract will not exceed an amount of 1,000,000 dollars for a four-year term, and an option for one additional year. this

project complies with a number of our port ride strategic goals increasing funds spent by the port with micro obe and firms and utilizing engineering services to implement infrastructure projects that maintain the ports financial strength. by way of background commissioners, you will recall in april you awarded as needed engineering contracts valued at 3,000,000 dollars each. one of the most commonly identified barriers by local businesses competing for city work is that the contracts are too large and small firms cannot compete against the large companies located outside of the city. the goal of this solicitation is to build the economic power of small local businesses and help micro lb ease develop skills, build relationships and get the tenacity to increase competitiveness and processes. we issued this rfq as a micro

obe set-aside opportunity meeting that micro lb terms certified to provide construction services were eligible to compete for this opportunity. the resulting contracts for the solicitation are for on-call or as needed construction management services due to the nature of as needed services. it is not feasible to define the specific scope of work in advance of the proposed contracts. the scopes will vary from project to project area it however we anticipate utilizing these contracts for comprehensive site engineering services. our chief harbor engineer can provide additional detail about the project scopes of the conclusion of this presentation. given the significance, and uniqueness of this opportunity we have contacted the meriwether i

williams insurance services to help us develop a robust and inclusive outreach program. we promoted the solicitation at open houses, and proposal meetings. we have two technical workshops cohosted with meriwether and williams. the first was in november of 2018 and the second workshop which was specifically organized to encourage firms to propose for this opportunity was held on february five. at this point i would like to turn the microphone over to ingram meriwether to talk about our approach to support and commission micro tran10's for this opportunity. >> good evening. thank you for the opportunity. we worked closely with court staff to try to do a number of things, one expanded the reach of the effort to identify prospective micro lb ease and the construction

management arena. give them the earliest opportunity of awareness of these opportunities so that they can maximize the time to consider and to prepare, and then in the second workshop, we were very specific for the construction management set-aside. we had pretty strong attendance, i think there were somewhere between 40-60 firms that attended. they were very engaged. they were networking with one another, they were absorbing the information that was being provided which included strategies to submit a winning proposal on port staff, very specific about not only what they were looking for, but what firms could contemplate by way of how this work would be left. in edition, one of your larger firms was also present

and gave technical information and an understanding of what firms again could participate in a working relationship with the ports and how the work would come at you, how much time you would have to identify, may be potential other sub contractors if it was a scope of work that the firm itself did not have a disciplined internally. i think the results were, you know, disappointing in comparison to the participation we had at the events. a lot of the firms, the diverse affirms that attended the events did not propose. what my opinion is on a go forward basis, that a deeper dive is necessary to really discern what are the barriers for firms who express interest, but do not follow through with actually submitting a proposal response, and then identifying ways that

those specific barriers might be addressed through technical assistance and capacity development. if you had any questions i would be happy to provide them. >> bless you. >> following the two workshops we issued the rfq on march 12. we then had a pre-proposal meeting, to go over the specifics of the rfq. we also had a strong turnout there. over 50 individuals attended that meeting, then convened a three-member panel to evaluate proposals that consisted of the ports project office manager who is here today, and engineer from the mta. the senior engineer from the department of public works and our may three submittal deadline we received

five proposals. the first step in the evaluation process is to review each proposal with the rfq qualification. often also a barrier that is identified by small firms competing for city work. at the qualifications on this rfq are purposely low two point five years expense over the past five years and ask for each firm to have completed a minimum of two projects in the last five years. all five proposers met the rfq's minimum qualifications. they provided into two phases. total of 100 point. four of the five firms were invited to the next phase, oral interviews was also worth 100 points. the most fibrous wand and were the two top high-scoring firms. this slide shows the final scores we are recommending contact award to consulting engineers, the two

highest ranked proposers. both performed well in each phase of the process. ajay is here from darby, darby is a 17 employee firm in san francisco since 2001. they have project experience that includes a better markets streets program and on-call construction management services with the public utilities commission. self performing 70 percent of the contract work and subcontinent - subcontracting. joe hill from joe hill consulting engineers is also here. they are recent graduates of the contract division from a protége program. joe hill has

been providing construction imagine that services in san francisco since 2007. 100 percent of their contract will be going to lb ease. if you award this contract today we will work to issue the notice is to proceed to in mid-august. the contracts are scheduled for completion in the summer of 2023. in conclusion we respectfully request that you award the ports micro lb as needed to darby inc. each contract is valued at 1,000,000 dollars with a four year term and an option for a one-year extension. represents from the winning teams, meriwether, myself and representatives from the contract monitoring division are available to answer your questions yet >> can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> any public comment on this

item? seeing none. >> no questions. >> i appreciate the presentation and detail that we have. i think this is apropos to some of the discussion we had earlier. it sounds like we are making progress in certain areas and the support we continue to go in this direction, even though this has been used in a specific contract award. i think the whole process is something we need to continue to reinforce per our previous conversations. thank you. >> thank you for the presentation. i really appreciate the scoring was equally. i think sometimes of the magnitude of having to apply for the city process can be overwhelming for all sorts of firms. i appreciate how the scoring broke out. i support the process. >> i can tell you, you get

better and better. i think you are starting to get your head around it. i approve it. i wish the former have the same results. i support it. thank you. >> thank you so much for the presentation. thank you so much for your input. thank you for all of the outreach that you have done to try to get our lb ease involved in the work we have going on here at the port. it's a little disappointing because we have such a huge turnout at the preconference, that more people did not take advantage of this opportunity. i want to thank anyone - everyone involved. including you. [laughter] "all lives matter" one - - - "all lives matter" one

- - - in favor - - - >> good evening on the port cfo. it is my distinct pleasure to be here to ask about the commission set the base salary of the port executive director for the fiscal year i just began on july one. the charter state that the ports executive director salary may not exceed the prevailing salaries holding similar positions and comparable maritime employment. to understand what the universe looks like, port staff conducts a survey of salaries for directors at comparable port. additionally we gather information on the salaries of directors at similar city

departments. in may, the hr staff survey salaries of four directors in eight major west coast port focusing on the five parts i have jurisdiction. - the average salary at comparable city departments which includes the public utilities commission, public works and the airport is 352,000. just as a point of comparison the executive directors current salary is 292,000. unlike most city department heads, the ports executive director is not a member of the municipal

executives association. while the port director is not a member, historically the port commission has applied the same collectively bargained salary increase that applies to mea employees to the port director. as you may know, just recently, the city completed the collective bargaining. we have a new three-year contract and the first year of that contract guarantees mea employees a three percent base wage increase on july one and then an additional one percent in december of this year. if the commission were to apply the contract increases to the executive director salary that would end increase the salary with the three percent cola in july. and then the

additional one percent foz on december taken the salary to up a little over three zero 4000 dollars. this would be in compliance with the charter requirement that the port director salary not exceed amounts paid to directors in comparable maritime employee. - - - employment. however since the current port director salary is lower than the average salary of other seaport directors as well as lower than the average salary of comparable city department heads. the port commission may make a decision to increase the port director salary at a greater rate than three percent. this is a policy decision entirely for the commission. we drafted the

resolution to reflect we would amend the resolution accordingly. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none. i do want to say, we discussed this in closed session we also did a performance evaluation of the director. we are all extremely happy with all that she has accomplished this year we agreed on a certain amount, but before we discussed that i'm going to let the commissioners say what they would like to say. >> thank you for your analysis you decide generally supporting what the mea negotiated for

executives. i want to make another observation which i think is important on whether decision-making will be at the end. i don't know if the other directors want to comparison, they fall under the commissions or do they fall under the mea? >> they are by in large city department heads, they are members of mea.// >> i do want to point out, a director is not represented by labor positive on this particular stance. we have a department director who is woefully underpaid when benchmarked against them. the only current woman in her possession. from an equity lens, we have moral responsibility to make sure we have equity pay among all of our executives at the city. we do know that women

make 60 cents on the dollar to male counterparts. excellent work, director forbes has done over the past year. those include my comments. >> i am very pleased with director forbes performance with the san francisco port. i hope the joint decision by the commission, with resolution will be favorably accepted. >> commissioner woo ho? >> i think we had a very good discussion and i think we are "all lives matter" one agreement about director forbes a performance i we are pleased to see the results over the past year. not only that executive director, but the whole team, i think the port has pulled everyone together and i think that's a good statement to her

leadership. it's not just the what's, it is the how that i also look at in terms of performance evaluation. i think elaine has done a great job in terms of the content. even though she says she's all about execution. she's all about how to get the execution done with her team. i want to compliment her on that. we want to reflect in our recommendation for her adjustment for salary that reflects not just the absolute, i guess, housekeeping way of doing this, but also to reflect the qualitative assessment that we have made about her performance this year. >> i would have to say, this is an l b e issue. [laughter] finally got it right. i think she