faced with was the final one of those documents was only signed on the 14th of august. the first event had taken place. and, so, if i could offer a suggestion, it would be that the conciliatory nature and the working collaborative nature of how we are proposing to work -- move forward should have been engaged through the process back in august, september of last year. that would have been my suggestion. >> so, there's a lot of timing issues seems like. >> absolutely. >> okay. you know, i was president here on the board when the deal was signed. i think which is neither here nor there, but it always struck me that this was done very rapidly and people were, you know, learning to walk on the fly, if you will, throughout this agreement. i'm thinking maybe that's the nature of hosting an event the first time in san francisco, things happen so quickly. i'm trying to see how we do it better going forward. >> learning from this, how do you hold a event of this magnitude on public land down on the waterfront. there are a number of agencies involved in those decisions. hopefully people can learn from this process. and as i say, i mean, this is a good story. this is the private organization agreeing to be bound by voluntarily agreeing to be bound by these rules and signed a memorandum of understanding, subsequent to the first event and now following through on that. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the agreement, and the agreement was made. it's a binding agreement. it needs to be acknowledged. i appreciate the fact that the authority had voluntarily made that agreement, but they made the agreement. and once the agreement is made, it's not a voluntary thing any more. it's something that is compelled. >> i completely agree with you, supervisor. but subsequent to the agreement being done, the foundations changed. the words that i read out of the executive summary say that because the city has agreed to reimburse the event authority for all amounts expended on construction contracts -- there is no reimbursement. >> thank you. i believe we need to get mr. martin's take on that and we can move on to the next subject of this hearing. i appreciate, mr. barkley, your coming in today. thank you. >> supervisor, i'm sorry, what's the question? >> well, mr. barkley discussed that prevailing wage is really to be applied in conditions where there is going to be a reimbursement for work that had been done. but now the idea -- that's different from what i had expected our discussion would be today. it seems like we're applying it now across the board for projects that are part of the america's cup event. and i'm wondering what your understanding is where what the original intent was around prevailing wage. i believe it is actually just a standard we've applied for the america's cup project. >> i agree with parts of what mr. barkley said in terms of the reference to the reimbursement for construction works. as i mentioned in my open or opening part of this presentation, we came back to you. the deal was recast as potentially the port doing the work and the port actually did do the work. so, the provision that mr. barkley is referring to is right. we depth have the authority do the work and reimbursement for that. that would create other requirements. the work would be public works construction contract. however, there are other provisions in the workforce agreement that were referred to installation of -- temporary installation of event opportunities. and that's where the olse based its review on and that's where we got the m-o-u through that discussion. >> okay, thank you. next up i'd like to call to talk about our first choice program, pat mulligan from the economic workforce development. good morning, welcome. >> thank you, supervisor. so, just to get a summary of how we've lived up to our first source agreement in this event. >> sure. ~ just for background, so, first source hiring policies apply to this project as well as some additional language per the agreement. there's two conditions. first, for the event management in staging, there is a 50% of all-new entry level hires as well as that exceed $150,000 or more. and then for construction work, a goal of 20% and overall goal of 20%. with 50% of all the [speaker not understood] and 25% of those the economically disadvantaged, identified as economically disadvantaged. per the first source language, which is referenced just after the introduction, it refers to section 83. it speak to good faith efforts and notification of the office of economic and workforce development. we did not receive any notification for employment opportunities that may have arose during the staging component of this event. that's the only thing i can really speak to. seems that there was some scheduling constraints around this, but at no time did we receive any official notification for employment opportunities. >> and typically that's required under the first source program? >> first source, good faith effort speaks to notification of our office, yes. >> and, so, do you feel that the authority was actually notified of their requirement to notify oewd about employment opportunities? >> it is section 83 is identified in the signed document and that refers to first source language. also speaks to the notification process. ~ >> so, that wasn't done? >> that's part of the document, yes. >> but in terms of the oewd being informed of the employment opportunities, it wasn't? >> we were never informed -- you know, similar with donald levitt's comments from office of economic -- or office of labor standards enforcement. there was no -- the event had a different feel, so, there was no pre-con meetings. there were no prebid meetings. we didn't have any sort of normal debriefing. for our office we do deal a lot with a considerable amount of private development, first source in san francisco. triggering mechanism is department of building inspection, to determine entitlement. that's where our initial notification does come for development in san francisco. prior to the commencement of work they're required to engage our office around employment opportunities and put a plan together. because this project did not come through department of building inspection, it bypassed our normal notification process. >> and do we have data about how the authority did according to the workforce hiring goal, local hire goal? >> i don't have any information pertaining to what their goals, you know, how they performed in terms of residency involvement. i can't speak to that. >> it would be typical for knowing that in the city, again, that information, that data? ~ who >> first source compliance, what our office does track is san francisco residents who gain employment. and we track employment opportunities as they arise and what san francisco residents are employed on that project. because we weren't notified, i can't speak to any individuals who may have been hired. different from the mandatory ordinance, we don't track overall percentages. we may try to make estimations around that, but we don't -- because we don't have access to relations-type data on a private development . it has a very different feel. ~ >> i know we had separate from america's cup recently in my district, there was an agreement that whole foods had signed onto that actually didn't fulfill around first source and local hire in term of their good faith efforts. actually, the result was not quite so bad in terms of their hiring locales -- local residents. they didn't follow the local letter of the law. we learned from that in the 15 years, 16 years the first source program has been around, that not once has any entity ever been penalized for violations of the first source agreement. ~ is that your understanding as well? >> correct, supervisor. my tenure doesn't go 15 year back, 15 months. at no time has liquidated damages been associated with first source. >> is there a policy within oewd that tries, attempts to avoid having liquidated damages apply? >> i wouldn't say it's a matter of policy, but the goal of city on our office on the employment side is to put san francisco residents to work, not to penalize employers. so, we will frequently use that as leverage as a means to gain employment for san francisco residents. similarly with the mandatory local hiring ordinance, we've been fortunate to date not to have levied any liquidated damages associated with that, but we have used that as a means to put san francisco residents to work successfully. >> so in the case with america's cup since we don't have any data available, we don't have any idea how the authority of the contract has lived up to first source agreement, is that correct? >> city build does not have any, yeah, we have no knowledge as to the success or failureses that they may have had with regards to employing -- >> would you call that a violation of our -- >> their failure to notify our office would be a violation, as defined in the first source language. >> so, moving forward -- because we're going to have more staging, more vertical construction -- how can we fix this? >> certainly our office needs to be more proactively involved as this project moves forward. and i think speaking to the lessons learned through this early phase of the project, we can move, you know, we will have a better understanding towards our goals of putting san francisco residents to work. >> i think there needs to be also considered and used [speaker not understood]. and i think that with this new enforcement there is not really anything we have to compel anyone to really follow what the law is. do you see that applying liquidated damages to be something that could be conveyed? >> we reserve office of economic and workforce development reserves the right to apply liquidated damage for any violation at any time. and i agree with you, supervisor. laws or rules only exist insofar as they are enforced. so, taken to heart. >> it is very loose we make agreements about having a huge economic benefit for the city and we're going to have local residents be part of that benefit and yet we don't do the work of the city to ensure that it happens and we don't -- and even if we do inform our contractors to do everything they can to follow the letter of the law, there is no way to enforce that or enforcement is not applied. i think moving forward it makes sense we are as strong as we can be and make it happen. >> i agree with you wholeheartedly, supervisor. if i can just offer, on private development there's always challenges associated with some of these measures. it's a different animal compared to projects that are funded by the city and county of san francisco. >> do we intend to apply liquidated damages? >> i can't speak to that at this time. but i'm sure we'll have conversations shortly to that effect. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> quick question for you. thanks for being here. so, obviously there was -- part of the agreement was to notify you guys and that wasn't done. problem, got to get it resolved. so the end result is you haven't been able to track. you don't even know. they could be doing okay. you just don't know at this point in time and it's a matter of getting you involved and getting that data and verifying it? >> yeah, if i could speak to supervisor avalos' example, there was concern about the new whole foods on ocean avenue. they claimed to be unaware of the local hiring requirements for first source. after they had made significant number of hires associated with the new store opening, they did present all their data to us and they actually had a significant percentage of san francisco residents and had done outreach nearby. certainly not in the same manner that our office would have performed, but they did make an effort towards this. and i can't speak to that at this time with regard to the america's cup. thanks. >> okay. >> okay. mr. barkley, if you can approach the podium, please. i think commissioner farrell or chair farrell has some questions for you. actually, i'd like to ask you before if you heard of our first source agreement and the process of ensuring that our office of economic and workforce development is informed of employment opportunities as they arise so that we can actually do our work of getting local residents into the pipeline? >> yes, i have heard it. >> and in this case, was that prior to you actually starting construction and bringing people on that you had heard and you just didn't contact the office of economic workforce development, or was there a lapse between when you were informed or were you informed after the employment opportunities arose? >> i'm glad you mentioned office of economic workforce and development. i think the previous speaker works for the first source and that part of the office of economic workforce development. i think that's correct. we deal with the office of economic workforce and development on everything that we do. they're our contact. they are fully informed of our activities and what we are doing. i might mention the paschal why you time i was up here, the agreement was signed on the 14th of august last year. as i said, office of economic workforce and development had been fully informed about our activities and what we're doing. and i said this is a great story, again, and let me tell you why. i think the requirement is the same new entry level hires or local san francisco. earning more than 150 grand. i don't know any entry level people that will earn more than 150 grand. so, let's just strike that one, but let's still keep the 50%. we did some analysis of our hires and those sorts of things as of the end of last year. and we were at 80% of new entry level hires regardless of salary. another requirement is 30% small business participation. what's small business? i mean, i profess not to really understand that. what have we done if we looked at all of our vendors? 41% of all authority [speaker not understood] is local. we go further. 31% of america's cup authority staff, skilled, unskilled, entry level or specialist, are all local. i think pretty importantly, 51% of all vendor staff are local. if i could add to that, i believe that percentage is actually going to get better because we've let a lot of the larger contracts, the backfill will be smaller contracts that support the big ones. i expect those numbers to get even better than they currently are. so, in summary on the local hiring, i would suggest the following. firstly, as i said previously, we do not have any obligations. we are doing this voluntarily. secondly, in the spirit of our relationship with the city and what's trying to be achieved by these requirements, we've taken them on board. and thirdly, while the standard calls for good faith efforts, in actual fact at the edv of last year we were exceeding them. so, once again, i think this is a great story. it's nothing for us to hide behind. we should publicize these, we should review the neighboring months and we should hold them up as an example of how a private event is trying to support the [speaker not understood] of the city of san francisco. >> so, mr. barkley, so, the prizemen is 50% and you're at 80%? >> correct. >> ~ requirement >> and the small business inclusion. you talk about vendors. can you maybe give a few examples of what you mean by vendors? i would like to understand from someone else what we mean by small business inclusion. how do you mean when you say vendors, the requirement is 30, what do you mean vendors? >> we contract with a company, say for example, -- i was going to say trivial, but that's not the right word. the cafeteria across the road where we get the meals, we would be spending potentially thousands of dollars per week and those sorts of things on that sort of stuff, et cetera. that would be a vendor. the sign that's contracted that we use, that would be a vendor, you know. kind of original company. anyone we do business with in san francisco or anywhere for that matter is a vendor and we count a lot of them. >> okay. and have you -- the agreement said to notify first source. if that wasn't done, correct it going forward. have you given that data, however, to our oewd, this 80% and 41%, have you given that to our office of economic workforce development? >> i'm sure we haven't. i'd be -- i would be surprised if we haven't. the reason i say i'd be surprised if we haven't, the event authority fund to the tune of $90,000 to the san francisco chamber of commerce to provide a person to create the linkage between the event authority and business and those sorts of things. that person is responsible for the procurement, prices that we use, for example, putting the business connect, the companies that register business connect, putting them on the contract list for the city, also for jobs that we have going for advertising the city process and doing those sorts of things. so, i would expect these percentages were compiled by the person who we fund through the chamber that worked on our premises. i would be surprised if those numbers weren't published >> if by chance they weren't, you wouldn't have any problem -- >> new york city i'll make them public today. >> all right. we'll follow-up. if that hasn't been done, i'll collect that data so our oewd, mr. mulligan, can have that data and hopefully even enhance that going forward. ~ >> thank you. >> mr. barkley, thank you very much. i think what you present here is very compelling in terms of the department participation. if what we have is right, the data is very strong. as well as your commitment to local business inclusion as well. i think on the city side we need to be doing a better job of informing and communicating and end tracking that as well. and that's something that has fallen through the tracks. it helps us to make sure in the future we're doing the best we can in this regard. future folks like yourself who are doing work here would not be going through what you're going through now. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next up i'd like to call up solama jokunu from contract compliance. and she is going to be discussing how the city is that -- the authority and the americas' cup has made our subject seclusion qualities and make sure we're following and tracking that. >> good morning, members of the board. my name is salomay [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] participation 30%. we have been with the event authority for 30% of our local participation. and part of that agreement was that the event authority by may 31st -- may 1st, 2004, give us what we call a procurement plan and that procurement plan would strategize how we were going to meet the 30% goal by the end of the event. [speaker not understood] we see the procurement plan. we have contacted them and they are willing to provide it. the mayor's office offer work for economic and workforce development is working with them to provide the procurement plan. also, one of the requirements of the agreement was that they advertise their rfp [speaker not understood]. and in those advertisement, the cmd required -- the event authority lists the percentage of lbs that would be participating, the goal they have on each subtrait, the rfps and the [speaker not understood] advertise. as of now we have not seen any of the advertisements that have got local participation on the individual trades. also, we require that they have [speaker not understood] meetings [speaker not understood] and we have not been informed of any of those meetings. two meetings [speaker not understood] local business enterprises are invited by the [speaker not understood] to network with prime contractors who tend to beat on the proposal [speaker not understood]. also, the human rights commission expected that the event authority will give us regular information on all the beat or the lbe participation. on normal city contracts we have what is called the local business enterprise participation form. when proposals submit bids or rfps, they give us better participation -- we contract the percentage of lbe that have been included by the prime contractor. if you have any questions, sir, i'm available. >> one of the things you mentioned, the advertising hasn't been happening to the outreach to small businesses. mr. barkley talked about going orctiontion i think it what small business connect. is that one of the places where people are supposed to be going in terms of the small business inclusion process as typical for the city? >> that is in the agreement, but we also require that specifically advertised on the city's website that the office of [speaker not understood] website, that is where normally our local small businesses go to local business. but i don't believe that was done. >> so, mr. barkley talked about the participation rate has been rather high. so, i think that -- because the fact he doesn't follow the letter of the law in advertising there is still high participation rate. i want to call up mr. martin to talk about how we make sure we actually put our standards in place for what entities are doing [speaker not understood]. it seem like that hasn't been the case. >> okay. what we've done is that the [speaker not understood] participation, we provided them with paperwork, what we call the form 2a, the participation form. all the forms of these proposals have gone out already. we have provided them with those forms, so they have a great staff to provide information to all contractors with whom they have contracted already. so, we go to [speaker not understood] and we can come up with an independent report of our participation of local business participation a compared with the reports. so, we don't have that information from [speaker not understood]. but we met with them and the mayor's office of workforce development, they are willing to provide the information and the procurement plan. that is very crucial for us to measure, you know, to measure the lbe participation and to an advertise the work that is going to come out so we can help them outreach to local business enterprises. >> so, in looking back at what's been done in the past in this project, do you see that we're able to get data to understand how some participation level has been? >> no, we don't. we have absolutely no data yet. we have no data. >> thank you. mr. martin, just to call you up one last time and then we'll go on to the fund-raising part of this hearing. it seems like we have a report from mr. barkley that there has been some meeting of the goals that we had around workforce, around local hire, around prevailing wage, that's not quite as much informed in a timely way it was actually possible to implement prevailing wage around what happened last year and small business inclusion, but it seems like we don't have any data to show that is actually happening or we can say as a city, this is what happened. so, how can we, looking back, make sure that we're actually not just saying it happened, but proveding that it happened. what do you see we can do to get that information out? >> supervisor, i guess i want to take a step back to some of the things that were mentioned by