mr. bentsen was same -- benson was saying. >> i think there has been discussion about whether a taxpayer or someone else can make a reasonable determination. this is not just whether there is material change, this is change that is a detriment to the city overall for this board and what for final approval was. there is language that makes it clear who is to make that determination. frankly, whether or not a taxpayer disagrees is irrelevant in terms of a legal lawsuit. there is no basis for that. >> i will take exception because i don't think that that is an accurate description. the board delegates its authority to staff and to make changes that are in the best interest of the city that do not directly increase this to the city. what a taxpayer says or believes with respect to whether or not that elevation is relevant as it is relevant with any kind of potential taxpayer litigation, -- i am referring to the language that says that they determine what is in the best interest of the city. we are on solid legal grounds and we have no fear of any lawsuits of anyone alleging that this was the

mr. bentsen, in that those are liabilities -- my earlier question of mr. besnon. -- benson. this was to lock in a wait for them to collect a certain amount per square foot per year for 75 years, rather than the $6 per square foot amount in the agreement for all of the long- term leases, except for piers 30 and 32. >> it was a matter of liability. bringing it back to liabilities, as well as asking for how we arrived at how the structure needs these, to answer that question, i have to go back to our assessment about what the issues were on december 14. under the agreement of december 14, based on our best estimate of what those valuations of the long-term leases are, based on what we did at the time, the entitlement work that had previously been done at this site, which they had been working on from about 2002 to 2006, we have a pretty good assessment about what that valuation would be. if you look at that valuation, the property values, and how we could expect that evaluation process to transpire, as well as we expect the appraisal process to transpire, all of those coming in

mr. bentsen from the port? >> brad benson from the port. thank you for the opportunity to be here. i wanted to give a high level overview of first source and local hire as it applies to the port. i want to talk about the public- private partnership issue you were discussing earlier and some of the other poor programs we have been using to try and address this benefit for the neighboring communities and then see if you have specific questions. with respect to first source hiring and the new local hire legislation adopted by the board, the port is subject to both of those through its construction contracting and through port leases. every port lease contains the first source provision. we appreciate the ability to work with rob and guillermo to implement those provisions. we have had some great success stories. pier 96 is the location for the city's recycling center. the port tenant is san francisco recycling and disposal. there are about 140 jobs at that location. about 120 have come from the 94014 neighborhood. that is really a model of what success can look like under local hire,