Multiyear construction with the sites scheduled to be completely built out by the year 2024. And i believe thats the last slide. Completes our presentation and rebecca, jay and i as well as our partners are here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you. That was a great presentation. I thank everyone. We have Public Comment. First would be veronica sanchez. President brandon [feedback] commissioner adams, congratulations on your appointment. We are very pleased to have you again in a leadership position. Commissioners, im speaking on behalf of the master mates and pilots. Captain hunter who was here and was going to address you unfortunately had to leave to coach his sons basketball game. And expresses his regrets. In advance of this hearing today, we did submit a letter for the record on behalf of both master mates and pilots and the inland boatmans union of pacific. Youve heard today that the that the m. P. S. Will issue the ferry concession in mid january. And while that ferry concession bid will have many of the requirements that the port is imposing and also bcdc requirements, we do not know at this time whether that bid will include a prevailing wage reflective of local area standards. We are coming to you today not to ask you to impose a local prevailing wage because certainly the city does not have the authority to do that. But were asking you to send a clear message, to use commissioner katzs word, to the National Park service that they should adhere to federal law and actually impose or set a local standard which they can do under the law. Their sister of federal agency, the department of Homeland Security, for example, at San FranciscoInternational Airport set a wage standard that is peged to the sciu contract. That is a representative workforce there. That reflects the cost of living needs of this area. What we are worried about is that the park service will use a National Wage standard which has substandard wage and benefits that reflect wages in texas to gulf area because it is a National Standard. We do not know at this time where theyve done a wage survey, can they can do. Just as Homeland Security asked department of labour to do. And to do it for ferry workers. Ferry workers are very different than tugboat workers and so the standard theyre using right now is for tug workers and special projects nationally. So we ask that you reiterate this and memorialize this in the contract documents before you. Because, unfortunately, we think that the park service need this is type of reminder about the citys commitment to paying the workforce, especially ferry workers [bell ringing] a standard wage and competitive wage for this area. Im going to introduce with your permission, president brandon, i will provide to director for the benefits a coffee of the t. S. A. Standard. Thank you. Thank you. Director forbes, do you have any comment on that . Thank you, veronica. My comment is that this is an issue of federal law. That managers sanchez is referring to. And that we can look into what we could do or what we could propose to you to do. But in general, this isnt an issue of adherence of federal law. Our concession contract will require the concessioner to comply with the mcna marrow Service Contract act which is consistent with wage determination. That is as much as i can share at this moment in time. Well be consistent with all the regulatory requirements as a federal agency. So, thank you. Thank you. I guess along that point, there is something in our contract that requires compliance with federal law. And we dont have to be specific, but i imagine all of our contracts require can you help us with the answer to that one . Thank you. Good afternoon. The general agreement does require m. P. S. To comply with federal laws in issuing the solicitation and in contracting for the services. Thank you. That was a leading question. [laughter] thank you. J. B. Davis. Good afternoon, commissioner or president brandon. [bell ringing] and commissioners. I came to also support what ms. Sanchez was talking about. Currently the park service is using a National Survey to determine working wage that comes in at 12. 01 per hourment. And a wage that completely fails to reflect the reality of living in the bay area. Im a member of the inland boatmans union and we ask that the general agreement between the port and the National Park service include a requirement that the department of labour conduct a wage and benefits survey that of deck hands that are working in and around San Francisco bay. Further, we ask that it include language that would that requires the National Park service to compel potential commissioner or concessionnaires to pay prevailing wages to deck hands working on the alcatraz ferries. Now it sounds like im asking for more money. And i am. But i want you to think of this more as a safety or at least as a safety issue on top of everything else. Just on the way over here, i did a quick little craigslist survey. To rent not an apartment, but a room in an apartment in San Francisco. I found it ranged anywhere from 1200 to 1700 a month. Alameda, 1100 to 1200 a month. Oakland, 775 to 1500 a month. That is a room in an apartment. When the middle class, and these are middle class shops, when we start getting squeezed out of the local housing market, were driving in from stockton modesto. Alcatraz is a busy, busy run. At the the end of the day, youre tired. Youve been sweeping, throwing lines. Hard, hard work. When you show up tired from a twohour drive fighting traffic, you are not at your best and that is a safety issue. When i show up to work as a senior deck hand, my priority is the safety of my passengers, safety of my crew. And it is a lot easier for me to do that when i dont have to spend two hours on the road just getting to and from work. Thank you very much for your time. Any other Public Comment . Commissioner katz . Thank you. Thank you for a detailed presentation. It belies the months and months, years of work that it took to get here. So, thank you for all the work that i think everyone has put in to making this happen. It should be, you know, an exciting project. As we move forward. A couple questions on some specific issues. One is with respect to the concession operator. The park service has sole responsibility and obligation for the selection, but what occurs if there is a violation of some of the port policie does the port then require the park service to take steps, you know, i cant think of something specific, but be it a safety policy or failure to maintain the premises properly, that sort of thing. Because wi eve been removed from much of the oversight of the concessionnaire, what obligations do exist if a situation like that . Thank you, commissioner katz. Rebecca here to answer questions. This is a part of the team presentation. I drew the star on. [laughter] so just to be clear on our relationship with the concessioner, m. P. S. Has a responsibility to select them just as they do too. Our responsibility is to enter a lease with them. But that lease, once we enter it, is a direct relationship between the port and that tenant. They are our typical tenant and they will be required to maintain sister. Well be sending them notices if they are in violation of the lease. One problem that we have now is we will be sending we will also be letting the park service know about these problems. So that they have their direct relationship with that concessionary of either contract, will have a direct relationship via our lease and communicating with one another if theyre in violation of either of those two documents. What were seeking to do is kind of be shoulder to shoulder, mom and a dad, be shoulder to shoulder in terms of using both of our documents to make sure that the coner is in compliance with both of them. We have our typical termination and damages, and provisions of this lease that we have in our typical leases. Anything to add . Ok. For example, if we were to determine that a termination was required, thats solely up to us to make that determination or does the park service get veto power every that decision . They do fot have raoe toe power every that decision. It would be our decision. The decision has a process that would then occur where they would have to put in an they might have to do an emergency contract. Sort of overriding goal in the g. A. And with both of our benefits that we get from this project is that in no case will alcatraz service stop. So what we would do would be to plan that term nation and then have an emergency contract in place potentially with another ferry provider, providing service to alcatraz while m. P. S. Conducted a new solicitation process. That was one of the complicated decision trees of how our relationship would work like where we would be at cross purposes potentially. This is one area we wanted to make sure we cover. Did i get that right, team . Thank you. Its always best to think about the worst Case Scenario when everyone is getting along. [laughter] in terms of our responsibility for the substructure improvements, is there a cap on our cost for those improvements . Our commitment today is to do the 5. 7 million repair which you authorized in a previous Port Commission meeting. Going forward, well be required to check, just as we typically do with our substructure, do assessments on a periodic basis. We can then, if a repair is needed in the future, we can determine if we would like to take it on or ask a subsequent tenant to take it on for rent credits and then weve also, of course, held out for the possibly that if there is a catastrophic event, we would have the chief harbour engineer with us to determine whether or not there is a health and safety problem in which case we would have to go through the dispute resolution and potential termination process for the g. A. Weve held out different and the are pair so large we cant talk it on. We can do that. And in terms of, for example, the level or quality of repairs. But often there is different ways of conducting a repair, is that an relection . Well maintain the chief harbour engineer retains the ultimate direction on what the scope of their repair would be. Yep. We have the obligation for maintaining the shed exterior. Does that also include keeping it graffitifree and other things like that or because it is in the sort of quasicontrol of both who has responsibility for smaller kind of repair issues like that . I dont remember that one off hand. I believe we we have a graffiti provisions in the leases. But i dont remember if its focused on any particular part of the shed. Do you remember, jay . Let me defer to jay edwards on this one. The tenant will have their normal Maintenance Repair obligations for their improvements and part of also our lease does require tenants to remove the graffiti on their portion of the property. If it happened within their premise, they should be responsible. If its outside, we would have another port tenant do i. Got it. Just wanted to be clear when it said the maintenance for that. Thank you. Last question with respect to Sea Level Rise. And then im looking to see where i made my notes on that. But the language that we have, i saw sorry. In terms of obligation or requirements to be prepared for sort of potential Sea Level Rise. There is different levels. Here it is. Im sorry. It was just on the presentation. So it may not be as detailed as the documents. Tenant must implement any required flood Protection Measures as determined to be necessary by the chief harbour engineer. Sorry. Could you clarify that a little bit more . Yes. If i remember that provision correctly, it is focused on the health and safety per view where the chief harbour engineer, we do foresee, i dont know about at this site, but general Sea Level Rise, we may see place where is were still operating our typical operations, but there are temporary flooding conditions that would need to be mitigated at that moment or maybe the tenant could take on a minor repair project that would make it so that that area didnt flood. You know ark couple of times a year. We reserved the chief harbour engineers able to come in on and on a health and safety basis direct the tenant to make some type of repair that would make the area safe for continued operations. Weve been focused on making sure that alcatraz service doesnt get interrupted because of demands for the island and the amount of services it is currently providing. That is one of the provisions we inserted thinking ahead 30 or 40 years to be able to make a clear indication that the tenant would be responsible for those types of repairs. I guess a corollary to that, Going Forward with the improvements, repairs, construction, etc. , do we have provisions in directing the park service and or the concession operator to do construction with an eye towards dra drainage, perhaps or other things that we envision might make some sense 30 years down the line. I dont have a good answer for that. I havent been as close to the design. Just one note, the park service is facilitating the improvement. They arent doing the improvements themselves. And the design documents or things like that. Yes. Could require incorporation of a 30year or 50year plan for Sea Level Rise. I was just speaking with one of our staffers about bcdcs review and the design has been wellreceived. And we were just talking about how bcdcs review does think a lot about how the design of the project will last through the anticipate Sea Level Rise. I believe that has been covereded. But i will come back at our approvals and make sure that i have more detail on how that is being anticipated. Great. Well, thank you very much. And thank you for the detailed presentation. Weve gone through many it rations of this and discussions and negotiations are pretty familiar with a lot of the details. Thank you very much. Yes. Thank you. Weve been through many, many rounds of discussion and brings back some of the terms, but nonetheless good to have a good overall summary so i really appreciate that all the players are here and all the details. Im just going to first follow up with a question based on what the last topic that commissioner katz raised and were talking about how were managing Sea Level Rise on the port side. And excuse my ignorance here, i will ask the question to make sure that on the other side at the Receiving Side at Alcatraz Island, what is there in terms of management of Sea Level Rise on Alcatraz Island on the Receiving Side over the next 30, 50 years and whether that is addressed and since it is the term of the lease and if something that is not working on the other side that could create issues down the line. Ill immediately yield the floor. [laughter] we have a few additional piers in case youre interested in the park. One of those being the fixed wharf on Alcatraz Island. Were looking at significant unvestments being made and our sea wall on the island side as well as the fixed wharf. Anytime we have a Major Construction project, it gets vetted at the National Level to look at resiliency and Sea Level Rise and Climate Change effects and that were taking that into account. Actually our work for the fixed wharf is taking thating into account and with the analysis work that weve done, we dont face any in the next 50 years any significant i dont think we want to make it some sort of legalistic term in our lease, but i think that we need to understand both sides and we want to be able to partner on your sea wall resiliency and adequacy projects so that we know both ends work. I would ask if you learn any tricks of the trade and specific techniques, we would be happy to share. You need to invest and somehow dont get federal funding and all of a sudden becomes a problem so your intention is to maintain and then there is a problem with funding and delays,etc. So im thinking that we at the port should be aware of that contingency. As jay said, we thought about everything. That is another one that we have to think about, dwroun, just as a contingency, what do we do . In response to that. I think we want to be kept abreast of your investment plans and projects regarding that. I heard you mention, and i know we had this before, but you needed to refresh my memory. Too many pages in line by line items. There is a 30 Million Investment and i know the port is putting in 5. 7 million. The other 30 million is the park service and ferry concessioner and golden gate conservancy. Any way to break out how that 30 Million Investment is shared across all the stakeholders . Just a little intro. About 25 million will be put in by the first ferry concessioner. So, the first one that comes along will put in that amount. The commission will put in 5 million as a current estimate. This is all in conceptable design now. Once the ferry concessioner comes on board and as the conservancy continues their design, we will get even more refined numbers. Since term sheet, it went up by about 20 , kind of through the design process and then through improvements that they were making to some of the Visitor Experience elements. So just a note that that note continues to rise. Ok. I assume that once the park service looks at picking a ferry concessioner, i dont know who is going to be responsible for making sure that they have the financial wherewithal to do the 25 million. Is it the National Park service or will we start looking at the lease . Good question. As part of their analysis, they will be looking for adequate financinging and i cannot remember where we landed, where we revie