San Francisco Department of Emergency Management and the legislation that you have before you today is a governing body resolution, authorizing the city and county of San Francisco to apply for this years home land security grant. And i am happy to answer any questions that you may have about this resolution. Okay. Thanks very much. Seeing no questions, we do not have a budget Analyst Report on this. So move on to budget comment. Anybody wish to comment on item one . Okay, seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you. Thanks for coming before us. And supervisor tang . All right, well i am happy to move this forward. I know that this is something that we consistently participate in and so, i would be happy to move this forward with a positive recommendation for the full board. We have a motion by supervisor tang and we can take that without objection. Could you call item two, please . I want to note that item 150945 was recommended to the full board with supervisor mar absent. Next, item two, resolution approving an amendment to the agreement of the department of Public Health and the bay view Hunters Point foundation, of the Community Improvement and increasing by 17 million for a total of 46 million. Okay, thanks and i know that we have dph here to speak. Perfect timing. Hi, im michelle rukels Public Health department. And so, we are in agreement with the recommendations, by the budget analyst office. This is a long standing contract that provides Mental HealthSubstance Abuse and within Substance Abuse methadone services so we dont want to have a break in services while we are completing the process of determining the best service mix to meet the requirements of the Affordable Care act and then a recent federal waiver that was given to california with respect to how the Substance Abuse services are organized. Okay. Thank you very much. I see no questions, mr. Rose, sorry supervisor, taning . Thank you. I dont see any problems with this particular resolution. But i just wanted to see if you might also talk a little bit more high level in terms of you know the changes coming under with the aca. I know that we are granting your extension to figure out how some of the local programs can operate, given some of the changes with the aca. And so i dont know if you want to speak about the efforts in that. So the department of Public Health spent a couple of years, more than than and it is ongoing. And we are configuring our Civil Services in order to create, the San FranciscoHealth Network, which is an integrated service, delivery system. So that you could choose the Health Network as your provider, and your delivery system. And so although the work was very much internal. And but we have over 250 Million Dollars worth of contract services, and so now we are doing, that process, to see how those services can best support the Civil Service clinics and specifically the primary care clinics. So we are doing focus groups. And we know what some of the, and we know that there are specific requirements, for example, under aca. Eventually, you will be, reimbursed, based on out comes that will not just be on the number of units delivered. And we have to do, utilization review and there is a lot of Case Management and care coordination, that we dont have the capacity within just the Civil Service to insure that that is spread throughout the system, but we want everyone to have care management. So how do we best utilize the contract agencies, and to do that, and what does it mean in terms of changing definitions . Changing requirements . And changing maybe, where services are provided. And maybe right now, it is in their own site, but maybe they will be providing groups on sight and in the primary care so that the people dont get lost, as at the get a referral out. And then the state wave, it is a federal waiver that the state of california provided to change how the Substance Abuse services are delivered. They are trying to achieve parody and insure that the services are stream lined and coordinated. So we are becoming a Substance Abuse plan. Like we have a Mental Health plan as well. So i dont know, if that. And i appreciate just, again, very high level of review. Kind whaf is to come. And understand that we have to approve thesing extensions so that we can continue to figure it out. And also, i will just say you will be getting in the next month, a whole bunch of them. The extension is the outside. We believe that we will have rfps going through the process but we dont know which order, which the outside date. Great, thank you so much for that. Okay, mr. Rose, could we go to your report please . Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee on page, 3 of our report, we note that based on the actual and projected expenditures from july, first to 2010, to 2017, requested nottoexceed amount of 46. 4 million should be reduced by 4 million, to a total amount of the amount of 41,647,000 and that is on table two of the sxrpt so the recommendations on the bottom of page 4 is to amend the proposed recommendation to reduce the nottoexceed amount by 4 million. And we recommend that you approve this proposed resolution as amended. Thank you very much, nr rose. Seeing no questions, we will move on to Public Comment. Anybody wish to comment on item two . inaudible okay, and anybody else wish to comment on item number two . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Okay we have a recommendation by the budget analyst to reduce the nottoexceed amount. Yeah, through the chair we make a motion to accept the budget, and to send forward to the full board with the positive recommendation. We have a motion by supervisor tang and take that without objection. That motion is passed with supervisor mar being absent today. And okay, mr. Clerk, could you please call item number three . Item three, resolution approving the amended and restated memo of understanding with the metropolitan transportation commission, and other bay area transit agents for the future governor ans and operation of the cliper program through june of 2025. Thank you very much, and have anybody to speak on this item. Good morning, and diana sfmta the item before you revises the current memo of understanding between the transportation and the 21 par participating transit agencies in the cliper fair payment system. Includes, revisions to the cost allocations and 2. 1 million in credit card and banking fees for the cliper purchases, at the ticket vending machines that are absorbed by the agencies, the most significant chance, is the establishment of the eight member, executive board, including representatives from eight agency and mtc. And it will be responsible for evaluating performance goals and a work plan and a budget and the approval of all matters suspected to have a fiscal operating impact. Under the current mlu and retains, Sole Authority for all of these. It comes for the region to develop the requirements for the next generation, cliper system and will enhance the agencis in this planning process and i am happy to answer any questions. Supervisor, tang. Thank you very much. Over all, i do agree with this change. I wanted to see if you can speak a little bit to the additional cost that mta will be absorbing because of this change . So roughly 730,000 and if you could explain a little bit about, why there is this increase . Yes. So as a mentioned the majority of that cost, is approximately, 700,000 a year, comes from the inclusion of bart and bta, credit card and banking fees. That are associated with their ticket vending machine, purchases for cliper. Currently, the mta, our costs for these, at our ticket vending machines in the metro vending machines were already allocated because they were purchased as part of the contract and bta and bart because they added those to the existing tbm and those are operating on the separate gateway and for the gateway, they agree that the costs because they are regional costs because they will be allocated accordingly. And approximately, the 30,000 of the other part of that increase, comes from the agencies agreement to pay a portion of the cliper executive directors position. This is an mtc, position. Currently, but, the mlu, allows for that to change at any time that the executive board is interested in making that change. And that reflects about 50 percent of the salary. And then, mtcs, i am sorry, sfmta 33 percent allocation that have cost. Thank you. And you know, over all, i really agree with the establishing the executive board, that takes more into consideration, all of the various agencies. And i mean, that i know that there are many more that participate and use cliper. But in terms of having it broader than just the mtc, i think that it is actually a really good idea. And this particular mlu, would be extended until, 2025, if approved today. And so i am wondering if you could speak a little bit about, you know, with the up coming potential changes in technology and how it is that we can continue to create a Better Service and experience for customers that what is this new mlu agreement allow for and how does it effect to achieve that. Sure. So the mlu itself is extending to 2025, the current contract with cubic Transportation Systems the contract holder for cliper, expires in 2019. So, really those two piece to this mlu, one is the governments portion, which i mentioned establishes an executive board and provides a process for the decision making. And it was the interest of the transit agencies and the mtc to insure that continues passed who ever is the vendor, for the new contract, that is going to be awarded. The appendix b, which is the cost allocation, form law is tied to the current contract with cubit and so it is understood by all of the parties that even though the mlu terms to 2025, we will have to come back to the board of supervisors when the contract is awarded because the changes to the appendix b will require additional approval. Not so much a question, but i do like that it includes the performance standards, with the goals of exexpanding the electronic payment to all modes of transportation and enhance, access to the customers for the value which i know that we discussed yesterday, about how customers would like to, if they are loading funding on to the card, online. If they can do so. And see it, immediately . And establishing consistent fare category and discounts and improving the operation, integration for the system. And i am glad that all of that is in this current mlu. Actually kind of surprised that was not in the current one, i am sure that we are learning from the past experiences and making it better for the future. And so, again, over all, and i am very supportive of this, and i want to see how we can continue to improve the customer experience, using clip , or whatever else is to come. Colleagues, okay, any more questions . Seeing none, could we go to your report on item three. Yes, mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on the bottom of the report, we note that the cliper administrative cost paid by the mta from the fiscal 2011, to 14, was 14 million and and under the proposed third amendment, the mta estimates that they are sure of the cliper program, and the administrative costs will increase by 2. 4 million or from 28. 1 million to 30. 5 million. And that is over the period for july, first 2015, through june, 30, 2019 and, that is shown in table two on page nine of our report and we recommend that you approve this resolution. Thank you very much, mr. Rose. Colleagues, no other questions, and we will move on to Public Comment and anybody wish to comment on three. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor tang . All right, take a motion then to approve this resolution, and send it forward with a positive recommendation to the full board. Okay, a motion by supervisor tang and we can take that without objection. Mr. Clerk, could you call item four . Item four, resolution approving the issuance of the bonds, in the amount nottoexceed, 7 million to finance and refinance, various capitol facilities owned by the Mission Resources center llc. Okay. Good morning, thank you for considering the item today, my name is vetty from the Controllers Office and also, here, in case you have any questions on the project, i have caroline from the mission, Economic Development agency. Representing the applicant. Just to give you a background on the proposed issuance that the tax equity and fiscal responsibility act allows the Tax Exemption of interest on the certain types of debt issued through the california, enterprise, development authority, which is the joint, Powers Authority to which the city and county of San Francisco is a participating member, the authorities are authorized to issue the bonds and debt. And the federal tax law, requires that the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the project is located approve the financing, and the project. And after providing the opportunity for dually noticed public hearing before the bonds can be issued on a tax exempt basis. In this case, in the city of San Francisco is not obligated for the payments on the bonds and so therefore the approval will no fiscal impact on the city of San Francisco. The hearing notices in the San Francisco examiner, and the public hearing was held at the office of Public Finance here at city hall on september third, and no comments from the members of the public were heard. And the purpose of these bonds, in the amount nottoexceed, 7 million, is to finance and refinance, the cost of acquisition and rehabilitation and improvement, and installation of equipping of the Real Property and improvements at 2301, mission street, in San Francisco, and 21,000, multistory commercial building and which is known as the facilities in the legislation. And to pay accountser certain costs with the obligations. These will be owned by the borrower and leased by the agency which is a nonprofit Public Benefit corporation, 501 c3, organization Whose Mission is to achieve economic justice, for San Franciscos low and moderate income families supporting the individuals and families develop and accumulate and machine, the personal and the material assets. Mission Economic Development agency has been in San Francisco, since 1973, and the community, and Economic Development corporation, located in the mission district. And they help the families open, and improve the Small Businesses and purchase the homes and prevent, foreclosure and both the credit and savings, and Access Technology and find sustaining jobs and the works improve, the economic, and social conditions for the San Francisco low and moderate residents with primarily, latino families as the constituents and the project is located in 69 and the legislation is sponsored by campos. Do you have any questions. Any questions on item four . Okay. We have no budget, Analyst Report and so we will move on to Public Comment, does anybody wish to comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues could i have a motion to move this forward. We move it forward. Motioned by supervisor mar and we can take that without objection. Could you call item five. Resolution, approving three emergency public works contracts with the services, and alta, and sierra, detentions to design and upgrade the Electronic Security system for the county jails number 1 and 2, with the total contracts nottoexceed, 1,116,047. Okay, thanks. Dpw here . Good morning, public works and the contract administrations i just want to say that we agree with the budget analyst recommendation, if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer. I guess, i just have one question. We got this about nine months later. So look, in opposition, here, we are stuck with this and it has been done and we are very much backed into the corner and it is not that these things dont occur. But 9 months later. Could you. Yeah, we realize that this has happened more than once in the past year. And to be honest, there is a new code requirement in chapter 6 that we are required to report to the board within 60 days. And when these and other emergencies happen in the past year, to be fully honest, for the department is more concerned with geting the work engaging the contractors and negotiating the prices performing the work, and it was not a consideration for us to turn around and report to the board, we realize that was an error and, we fully agree with the new policy and the new law. And we have committed to meeting that 60 day, and exceeding and bettering that requirement. It is just when these contract and this is the last of athlete that we have had in the past year, when these krts were issued that was not a requirement of law. Okay. I am hearing from you that this is the last one that we will see. Okay. I will take that. Okay. Supervisor taning. I am not sure if this is a question for you or someone from the sheriffs department, but it appears that the incident had occurred, in august of 2014. The work was completed one year later in 2015. And so i am just wondering what happened during that time frame then . Were there no security cameras in the jails one and two. No, the sheriffs maintenance staff, as soon as the failure occurred back in august of 2014, they did do some minor repairs just to get it, a radio shack solution to get the basic functionality, but it was not fully compliant with the state and federal codes, which is why the public works is engaged to do a more comprehensive repair and so we declared that the emergency in november of 2014 and issued a notice to proceed right away. Since november, the work has been ongoing. And we did wrap it all up in august of this past 2015. Okay. Thank you. Okay, thanks very much, mr. Rose, your report on item five . Yes on page 13 of the report and table one, and that shows a break down of the total contract costs of 1 million, 116,047 and that is for the full design, and repair and upgrade as well as providing the related support services for the Electronic Security systems, at the jails, one and two. And on the bottom of page, 13. We know that subsequent to this subject and emergency as you know and it has been discussed the board of supervisors approved at mendments requiring the emergency, contracts effective on august, first, 2015. That is when the board approved that, and legislation and, if the estimated cost of the emergency exceeds, 250,000, now the proposed resolutions approving the determinations must be submitted to the board within 60 days. On page 14 of our report, we note that the electronic and Security Systems in jails, 1 and 2, failed on august, 11, 2014, and the emergencies were declared on the 21st, and as was stated here this morning, the legislation, is not submitted for the board for over, 9 months. This is, we note that this is the third emergency resolution, in the past year, that was delayed, due to the misunderstandings on the part of other City Department and agencies regarding who has jurisdiction for declaring the emergency and for procuring the emergency, necessary contracts and so we made a recommendation on the bottom of page 14, where we recommend that you amend, the proposed resolution to urge the department of public works to work with the City Attorneys Office to immediately issue a memo to all of the City Departments under the jurisdiction, regarding the specific procedures to follow, and if an emergency arrives in the future and we recommend that you approve the resolution as amended. Thank you very much. And any further questions . Okay, we will move on to Public Comment, on item 5, anybody wish to comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Chair, all right, so i think that chair farrell made his points clear as well as the budget analyst. And so i would like to accept that recommendation, that the City AttorneyOffice Issues the memo, so that all City Departments are clear on the procedures. For the future. And then adopt the amended resolution, to with the positive recommendation to the full board. Okay. Thank you, we have a motion by supervisor tang and we can take that without objection. Okay. Sorry, the budget analyst, the deputy, and the budget analyst recommendation is that the dpw work with the office to craft a memo that will go out from dpw to the all of the departments about the process. And so, just wanted to make sure that that is your intent. Yes tha, is. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. All right. It will be providing the revised legislation to me . The public works. I will need that by 9 00 a. M. Tomorrow morning. Understood. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, could you call item 6 . Item 6, ordinance aappropriate ating 5 million from the waste water, enterprise, designated for the general reserves in the Public Utilities commission waste water enterprise to pay the claims and settlements and Legal Expenses and related costs due to the extraordinary expenses occurred as the result of the 2014, rain storms. Thank you, puc is here. Carlos, with the budget director and before su a waste, water supplimental in the 5 Million Dollars to fund, the plane settlements and the litigation costs. And could you put the microphone down. Sure. Again, five Million Dollars to fund plain settlements and the expenses associated with the december, 2014 storm. And the Funding Source is the waste water, general reserve, appropriation and my colleagues and i are here, and you know, available for you, and to answer any questions that you may have on this item. Okay, thank you, supervisor tang. Thank you very much. And so, i know that from the supporting documents that we know that there have been many claims filed already. And there is still opportunity for more claims to be filed. Can you just talk a little bit more about that . Yes that is my understanding, supervisor. And perhaps, the City Attorney can john . Deputies, the attorney john. And the limitations for the property related claims and ends in december and it is possible that more claims could be filed, before that date. And i am not entirely sure, how many will be anticipated but still it will open. And so far t looks like we have already paid out over 2 Million Dollars in terms of some of the claims, that is correct. We basically have paid out, over all of the 6 Million Dollars, of the last six months. Okay. And then, in terms of i mean that i know that there is potentially the future, you know, storms coming or whatnot. Could you describe a little bit about what puc is doing in terms of making sure that this does not happen again, or that we are able to really take preventive measures . I will and captain and. Good morning, supervisors cathy with the sfpuc. And we are doing, and looking at hot spots in terms of cleaning the catch basins for this winter, and there is about 700 and the hot spots where we have to keep an eye on the catch basins and we are also looking at Short Term Solutions and then also, long term capitol projects potentially for some of these problem areas. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Rose . Could we go to your report please, on item six . Yes, mr. Chairman. And members of the committee, on the bottom of page, 16. We report that the five million requested amount was based on the estimated costs for the additional claims settlements and related expenses and according to the puc, the Water Enterprises 14, 15, and 15, 16 budgets had 160,000 dollars per year for claims and judgments and that is fully extended. This requested appropriation of 5 million will increase the water, needed for the general reserve account from 6 million, to 1 million. And we recommend that you approve this proposed ordinance. Thank you mr. Rose. And colleagues any questions sf okay we will move on to Public Comment. Anybody wish to comment in seeing none Public Comment is closed. Motion to send this forward so moved. From supervisor mar. Approved. That completes the agenda for today, thank you everyone, we are adjourned. Good afternoon. Everybody welcome it the budget finance committee. Wednesday, october 21, 2015, my name is mark farrell ill be chairing this meeting and joined by supervisor tang thank you jim smith all leo from sfgovtv for covering this meeting and mr. Victor young mr. Clerk any announcements completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the october 27, 2015, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated okay. Thank you madam clerk call item one. Mr. Chairman would you like to take action on 7. Yes. Happy to do so you. The department of Public Health to amend 360 for approximately 3 o thirty thousand clients and i understand there are technical things we have to work on, on this item id like to propose to continue this item for one week i said your bftd and department okay with that i want to take Public Comment anyone wish to comment on item number seeing none, Public Comment is closed so if its okay to have a motion to continue. All right. So moved. Motion by commissioner tang. That item passes with supervisor mar being a little bit arrest; correct and mr. Clerk item one. Amending the planning code for the firearm dealers to have records of all ammunition sales to the Police Department. Thank you mr. Clerk this is an item he introduced over the summer we have a significant Public Safety issue happening in San Francisco on our streets over the course of the last year and a half ive held 4 safety tells you i know the community is vulnerable we cant do enough to promote go Public Safety on the streets here at the board of supervisors and in this brisk well finance more and more officers on the streets but doing everything we can from the budget prospective and the, of course, o legislative prospective to make Public Safety as a top priority in the city in terms of this legislation itself you know individuals not only in San Francisco but cross the state and country continue it have easy access to guns and ammunition it is a contributing factor to senseless violence across the city unfortunately, we continue to see since introducing this legislation Mass Shootings the most recent one up in oregon everyday in this country close to one hundred people are killed in our countrys because of gun violence and even though our city and state have some of the toughest laws on the books our Congress Fails us in gun safety and left to jurisdictions like ourselves in order to place laws on the books to make sure we have the safe it cabin laws in our country there are gaps that exist in federal, state, and local laws a so in response the legislation the item before you that i authored will require first of all, the videotaping of all gun save and the electronic transition of electronic ammunition on a weekly basis to the San FranciscoPolice Department we need to do everything in our power as a city to make sure we have the evict i did gun safety laws to have the Public Safety of our San Francisco residents come first so the details of this legislation the first portion is going to require that the videotaping of all gun and ammunition sales in the city and county of San Francisco that will be made public to the Police Department after a search warrant who also apply to other critical areas of business preemptors that sells guns not to exceed where all guns and firearms are sold or transferred and including all cabinets and parking lots and so forth currently no federal or California Law pose security requirements or Action Committee for women in prison Ethics Commission sellers to have videotape simple having all this will help to defer those that seek to purchase guns legally and use them more elicit purposes this is existing everywhere the status of gun violence violence over 75 percent happens with illegal purchased guns 80 percent of the shootings in our country 80 percent have occurred with legally purchased guns a vested from interest in San Francisco and quite frankly across the country to have regulations with newly purchased firearms and secondly, it is to give our Police DepartmentAdditional Research tools to be able to investigate crimes to the best of their ability i know and i see people in the audience that have been at the board of supervisors for years frustrated with our inability to prosecute or investigate crimes this hopefully b will provide additional tools for the Police Department currently the bureaucracy of alcohols and firearms and explosives didnt check the hundred and a 38 dealers across the city i want to give it city all the tools possible with the atf theyre lucky to do one random check of licensed dealers in. off the record. the Washington Post as a result of inadequate staffing they are disconnected 10 percent of the dealers on average their inspected once a decade dealers and palm brokers with were the biggest traffic of guns and the licensed claelz have access to dealers makes them a Public Safety violation this legislation will make sure we have evidence when necessary for Law Enforcement and the section portion of the legislation requires the electronic transition of the sales data with the San FranciscoPolice Department the goals of this legislation itself are to insure that the dealers in San Francisco about not be detrimental to our Public Health and safety and protect illegal public trafficking by the dealers and employees provide the loss and theft and a protective sale to persons that are prohibited from probation officer those items i believe this passage is necessary and simply common sense reform and additional protections here in the city of San Francisco since introducing this the legislation has gardened an incredible amount of attention for two reasons won the last remain gun store in 0 it has decided to close down in response to the introduction of this legislation and also, because of the unfortunate number of things that have occurred in recent months, in terms of Mass Shootings if we cant act as a congress and country after what we witness on the streets i believe it is shameful and we will continue as local jurisdictions certainly in San Francisco to make sure that in lieu of federal regulations we continue to pursue this this line of regulation as vigorously as possible and sells in terms of the last remaining gun store in San Francisco closing down if we want to close down because of legislation so be it and more power to them at the end of the day id rather see a preschooler and coffee shop or some other neighborhood serving incite that electricities to the vitality if thats the result of the legislation we will be better off colleagues, any questions or comments so i appreciate our indulgence a matter of claurtd but no legislative Analyst Report if anyone wants to comment id like to ask alison to come up theres a number of people involved in this top u topic so i want to thank you for your advocacy by i wanted to thank you for your time to thank katherine and steve i didnt from any staff is involved in the action i see a shirt in the front right now thank you for youll see groups one of the things weve learned ill tell you this city is mobilized around sandy hook a lot of people in the city and other incidents that have claimed lives locally but it is amazing what a village around the issue and we have a long way to go this is but a step locally but anyways thank you youll all your commitment and kathy republican on a personal level thank you for being here and im alison from the laws center to prevent gun violence this helps Law Enforcement to solve crimes and keep gun stores employees and purchasers safer and get guns away from people that shouldnt have them were honored to work with the city and county of San Francisco for over two decades to draft a enact sensible gun laws the gun sales will help the Law Enforcement officers to help identify crime but the purposeers from committing crimes like using false identification or robbing a Gun Store Employee 8 other cities including el cerrito and oakland and santa cruz have gun sales despite from the vocal minority of people in recent months, those laws are revery popular a 2007 poll find 91 percent of gun owners said that videotaping be gun sales make no difference to purchase their guns from a gun store or make them likely to pretty much a gun responsible gun owners want to buy from responsible dealers its a critical tool that Law Enforcement used to get guns out of the hands of people that you been shouldnt have them a similar ordinance in sacramento allowed 56 people that purchased ammunition from having them hundred and 4 had pressure convictions and as a result 4 dozen individuals were convicted of a crime we have assaulted weapons and thousands of round of ammunition la has a similar law and people purchase 10 thousand rounds at least at county keep records if you allow me 10 more seconds those laws are permissible and constitutional they authorize the locals governments to go above and beyond and nor do they violet the Second Amendment in fact the instrument said the commercial sale of firearms is a regulation thank you, again supervisor farrell and the city of San Francisco for leading the effort to reduce americans epidemic of gun violence thank you. I have a few other speakers calling names . If you guys want to come on up. Im claire i want to thank you very much for introducing this legislation i reside in bruno heights i worked for over 20 years as a Nurse Practitioner at snflz i felt the human to have gun violence this last december it hit me personally this is any only son his goal to be a San Francisco firefighter as a emt in the south bay and went out on december 7th to brunns open 20 and mission to celebrate when he was leaving the club that night a 21yearold unknown to him crossing fired two shots one killed my son so this not only changed his life but mine completely i think whatever he didnt make the news we see it from the news whatever brakes we can put on pass this gun violation epidemic a Health Epidemic in the country and if it can save one persons life thats the world whos life was ended along with any son that day thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And anyone else either i called on speakers are welcome please come on up. Hello this is sandra combrord glad to be here in support of gun control and i want to thank you supervisor farrell for being so such an very long for us im in support of gun safety for all citizens not only in the city and county but the country so i support the ordinance for videotaping any transaction with firearms or bullet as you said to please continue on this pathway to make it safe for all of you say in the city and county of San Francisco and by setting the example to other cities i hope they will do the same thing thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Excuse me. Never prepared. My name is pallet brown i lost any son ab before he 9 years ago august 14, 2018, and i want to thank you supervisor farrell for your leadership and the audience of recording and videotaping all transactions of gun transactions i want to tell you why i support this. I like to use the overhead my son a aubrey was murdered august in 2006 a 200 and 50,000 an award but still no justice for my child it gun ordinance about o will monthly help my child but innocent victim he died safeway someone elses life he hollered out on his way to work for bruno heights city and county of San Francisco i had to walk across the stage as he parents to get his diploma ive been on the battlefield for any son next week next year will you be a decade he carry those signs i need people to see how i feel gun arms with the third leading killers of age 17 my son was 17 when he was ms. Short a homicide that happened on in our area and these mothers i stand with i also stand is it with other mothers and farthest that lost their which were to homicide and they dont want to come out i want to let them know that ordinance will help so mothers like myself wouldnt hurt i die daily this is my son it left on a journey this is what gun violence do to all the mothers and farthest 0 out there we want justice for your child and this ordinance passed. Thank you ms. Brown. Yes. Im pamela we want to say, i applaud supervisor farrell for his courage and leadership that what is it takes in this epidemic with gun violence and it is a Health Epidemic my son was shot 42 times here i stand what it is going to stop when and the fact i had a gun pulled on me last year with our courage and leadership that begins local if we start local as the city and county of San Francisco which is already been a leader this is choosing our lives over economics i heard you on the statement on the television in an interview when you stood up and said that we need more elective like that when you vote for the elections he need to vote for people that stand up for your lives over economics weve had too many lives over hundred and 5 will 45 Mass Shootings on xhauz campuses i support this ordinance whorling and hope that the jurisdictions about listen and save our lives over economics where did the gun come from so we can get to the root of the problem and not chase its those who are responsible youre not responsible you wont mind being videotaped so itch support this ordinance and the bravery of supervisor farrell and the other supervisors that stand up im a member of the council with jewish women were against violence weve had enough of that people come here from all countries for safety so thank you very much. Thank you very much anyone wish to comment on item number on this item . Okay seeing none, Public Comment is closed supervisor tang. Thank you so much for everyone that come out and thank you to supervisor farrell this is a really tough issue to talk about especially in our country i agree with all the Public Commenters supervisor farrell was brave to take a stand i stand behind you want to see this ordinance so be it if our last remaining shop closes down in San Francisco our city will be better for that and indeed serve as an example for other cities throughout the country with that, im happy to make a motion i move we send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. I want to say thanks to all who came out with people as a parental of the 3 little ones i came back cant imagine this is a personal thing and well continue to fight here so thank you well be voting on this next week at the board of supervisors so motion by supervisor tang to forward this well take that without objection. That is passed without objection mr. Clerk, call item 2. Item 2 ordinance for 25 million plus consistent with 20. 8 million in, 6 hundred and 65 costco settlement procedures and 42 million to the Port Commission to support the completion of the Port CommissionCapital Improvement plan. I believe we have someone from the port here today. Morning im megan the director for the poster of San Francisco to increase the ports fiscal year 20152016 Capital Budget about 25. 7 million for a total of 38. 5 million. As you may know the port of San Francisco covers 7 and a half miles ever of dpoofs waterfront and therefore a lot of needs ranging from maritime to abilities and equipment of parks to Historic Structures including sheds and bulk heads and sub structure and but along with that need comes a great deal of investment weve got a 969 million backlog over the 10 years up to 1. 1 million and this is estimate is simply for renewal not code improvements or seismic or the seawall this chart is the structure deficit the issues in terms of funding the Capital Needs 40 and 50 million to cover our renewal requirements as you can see the blue line our spending is lower than this how have the supplemental makes an in rode getting close to our desired investment so the supplemental includes 75 million because 1. 3 pg e payment for cable that will run approximately 3 million offshore and 5. 5 million for the fisher 20142015 this is a combination of surplus operational and expenditures from personnel and nonexceptional and 14 point plus it was previously approved and closed out we found potentially found potential funding to cover ada improvements weve incorporated those costs into future projects and not able about 700,000 of the funding is the costco settlement that occurred in 2011 in response to the 2007 oil spill under the banging. The port is funding 16 projects just to go back to the Capital Needs the budget is to repair and replacement requirements that are specifically you know called out in the capital plan 8. 5 million is an enhancement project that will generate additional revenues to louse allow us to invest in capital and port staff identified the 16 projects based on is objectives you know remaining from health and safety to generating revenue. So go through the list of promotions 5 key projects that improve safety and reduce risk on the waterfront the terminal repairs if china baseline this installed in 1999 we need to install new equipment to insure safety store the public ladders and skylight pier 39 an investigation with contamination those will help us with a deeper dive into the translation and the fund is a a supplemental that allows us to have cash on hand for example, a fire at pier 39 this the funds to match our insurance support. Additionally seawall assessment this is the project i alluded to we have 5 hundred thousand invested start a study of the seawall and marginal works this Million Dollars will louse allow us to continue that assessment and ultimately determine the investment requirement of seawall and build it into the capital plan over the coming years. The next ill walk from north to south pier 29 is near your crews terminal this was as americas cup venue and currently vacant had the major fire in 2012 we were able to rebuild the super structure that is the bulk head and shed in the front of the facility this seven hundred thousand will supplement fund to a 2 plus Million Dollars for rail space and increases the revenue by 600,000 the belt line building a cute facility in front of the cruise terminal that is in the back and unfortunately an older picture not highlighting the beautiful but we envision this for rail and Passenger Space theyll come out of terminal and visit this this will be a small generator and generally in the area we have 3 projects underway the addition of pier 39 and the beltway building but were seeing the construction climate really having costs coming in higher than estimated this mom and dads will serve to adjust based on the bids that come in on all three of those projects. Pier 23 was also americas cup viewpoint an historic structure the roof was replaced in the 1970s and they continue to repair this is for replacement and allow us to lease out this space for approximately 700,000 a year sorry thats noting net in 10 years. And further down the waterfront the central baseline off of pier 70 you may be familiar with that the forest city project a shipping facility with the da important for jobs generates our nerd to equally take in cruise ships to federal ships any large vessel coming along the Pacific Coast this is a critical location were working with the Army Engineers to dredge the says that the port needs to spend within 1. 6 and 2 million to match the federal fund and the da will put in their match right next to the shipyard is the park off of crane coffee park is contamination is about supplement to complete that cap work. Be building one 02 part of project but current trofrments supplying the where green superintendant guerrero empower through the shipyard the tropisms will create a new power source this is part of our workforce to move the project forward the back land is a critically project that is the enhancement project i called out earlier as you can see were forecasting 8. 6 million net revenues over the 10 years as a result of grading the space and preparing it for industrial uses that compliment the southern waterfront and a great opportunity for the port to enhance the revenues were generating. The Street Project you may be familiar i brought in september and expends to one Million Dollars fund will allow us to complete the scope of the project and fully repaving the roads previously only partially repaired and power you may drive along 280 and see delipidated piers failing into the waters numerous are on the waterfront the staff as identified Funding Sources and entrants and army cosponsorship funds down the road to meet the needs an additional effort for pier 84 and other piers that is in the next slide the park the last terminal that very slim pier sticking out next to the park this project is funded by the cost could Development Funds and specifically will be completing engineering and design to stabilize that shoreline youll see areas the sediment is deteriorating so how to preserve that in fill that serves as a habitat for birds in summary thank you for your time this is a 25. 7 million we see a lot of opportunities to addressing the 10 year Capital Needs and improving the southern waterfront and other key things excluding progressively the ports financial position we see the construction climate as a cost hike up we do see a need for contingencies im here with Elaine Forbes our cfo and other folks for questions. Thanks nothing mr. Rose, can we go to your report on item 2. Yes. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee on page 5 we have a tackle one that identifies each of the 25. 7 million of Funding Sources that included proposed supplemental and on page 4 we have table 2 which identifies the 16 port Capital Projects that were described by the department and on page 5 we also note that as shown in table 3 the estimated pay back period for 5 of the 16 projects Capital Investments is 6 years generating 16. 8 million in new net revenues over the next 10 years to address and fund the ports Capital Project backlog we recommend you approve this legislation thank you very much mr. Rose if no comments opening it up for Public Comment monoanyone wish to comment on item number on number 2 seeing none, Public Comment is closed. All right. Through the chair thank you to the port your presentation was thorough and all the information we definitely see the needs and you can visually see it today ill be happy to to forward this out i move we send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. We have a motion by supervisor tang thank you for the port being here well take that without objection. That that item passes with supervisor mar being a little bit. Correct. Mr. Clerk, call item 3. Item 3 ordinance for the appropriation of 3 million plus of the city and county of San Francisco taxable goegd and fiscal year 20152016 the mayors development. Thank you. I building we have someone to speak on this. Good morning from the Controllers Office to speak on this item just to give you a little bit of background the Seismic Safety Program was approved under prop a in 1992 for money to provide loans for the seismic strength of the buildings frament the city issued go bonds and the cost going back to founding those on may 23, 2015, the Seismic Committee approved a loan for the building on pier 70 and in jill of 2014 the board of supervisors authorized the sale of this Million Dollars for taxable go bond for this project the bond were solid in august of this year and 2014 a if you notice the line between the time that the bonds were originally approved by the board and finally sold a delay in the project eventually the project was ready to be funded in the time between the loan that was being the bond sales approved in 2014 and the sale in 2015 the original amount that was authorized for the loan a reserve a total fund that of authorized 20 point one Million Dollars for the project and a 3. 2 million reserve that make up the balance that made the balance of this Million Dollars so the authorization of the bond sale and the actual sale the city negotiated favorable terms for the bond sale and this resulted in Lower Borrowing costs as a result that reserve that was being held for Market Conditions is largely available from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development would like to reappropriate the remainder towards the project costs and loan it for the seismic improvements so the ordinance will deappropriate and appropriate 3 million plus which represents the reserve and some of the issuance costs targeted towards the projects that will be looped to the developer and go back to pay for the issuance of the bond the fiscal impact to the city will be minimal to none and as the costs of go bonds and the depth from the developer to the city i also have ann ramer if the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development if you have me questions about the particulars of the loan. Thank you very much no questions at this point to mr. Rose, can we go to your report for item 3. Yes. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee Supervisor tang on page 8 of our report in table 2 the actual 24 million bond sales are total costs this includes the initial bond issuance in the mr. Writers discount instead of the 3 million plus so this results in the savings of 3 million 4 plus on the bottom of page 8 in may of 2015 the seismic comet approved the revised amount for the 24 million for the historic project on pier 70 if you approve this ordinance the project will then receive a . 22 million we recommend you approve the ordinance. Thank you, mr. Rose. Seeing no questions open up for Public Comment. I have one additional comment to make that this is a technical amendment it is my duty to suggest to the committee line 4 for 2014 that is around artifact of them being approved but sold in 2015 series 2015. Is that the only of only line. Other listens they were referred to famous designations those are correct designations but were entered in 2014 those with correct. Well entertain that but get to our checker the revised legislation by 9 00 a. M. Tomorrow. Okay. Were getting to the data from the budget committee. Anyone wish to comment on item number seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Tharl ill make a motion to amend the legislation line that had and any other references and replace that with series 2015 a and sends are forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. John gibner, deputy City Attorney. Yes. You need to amend the title even though there are other references to 2014 that is the way it is coded the amendment in the title line change it. Okay. Yeah. A motion by supervisor tang and mr. Gibners exemptions and to make that adjustment and approve the underlying item well take that without objection. Okay. Thank you very much mr. Clerk, call items w4r5e together item 3 passes with supervisor mar absent and not to exceed 8 hodz hundred thousand dollars for the city and county of San Francisco go bond clean and safe neighborhood bond 15 c and item 5 the authorization for the sale of not to exceed 43 million plus a principle amount of the city and county of San Francisco go bond and park bond 2012 and series 2015 b. Thank you mr. Clerk week. Good morning, again ill be presenting items 34 and 5 for the clean and safe Neighborhood Parks bond in february 2008 the voters authorized 85 million for Park Improvement projects sponsored by rec and Park Department and the port of San Francisco to data hundred and 76 million plus bond have been issued before you an item 4 the resolution for the sale of the 8 million plus from the 2008 authorization of the total the one homicide 85 million railroad allocated from the rec and Park Department program and the balance of 35 plus Million Dollars was allocate and the final issuance to continue the program under the 2008 bond in november 2012 proposition b another hundred and 85 million for the project sponsored by rec and park and the port and to date 71 million plus in bonds have been issued from the 2012 authorization the resolution before you on item 5 approves the sale of the bonds not to exceed 43 million plus for both rec and park and port supported park projects. Of the total precedes approximately 13 plus go to funding the port projects and the reprimanded and retrained 31 plus towards rec and park projects based on a total amount of 2008 and 2012 bonds of 542 million and using the conservative Interest Rate of the annual debt service 42 million over the total amount 200 and 86 million and 36 million to interest on the bonds. The interest annual property for assessed Property Value for properties that are assessed at 700,000 the city charter has a debt limit that equals 10 percent as the property in the city net exemption and the go bonds are the net assessment for 20152016 from the board of supervisors approves this issuance of those clean and safe bonds it increases from. 01 to a 4 well within the 3 percent limit and additionally the boards approved the policy constraint on policy bonds that insures the city Bonds Program will not be increased above the fiscal year 2006 but the proposed sale of those safe neighborhood bonds is consistent and will main the property rates blow the fiscal year 2006 were expecting to price and close those bonds sales this goes toward 4 park including the citywide parks and programs and waterfront parks this will fund the Capital Improvement across the city in the effectual an earthquake or in poor position or they ability to meet the recommendations the Citywide Program category bond fund will help to fund communitybased initiative and playground forest city and trails and will be used to expand the scope of projects that cant be met to at Funding Sources the citywide Parks Program allocations the bond to 3 citywide parks the Golden Gate ParkJohn Mclaren Park and park merced those are iconic parks enjoyed by san franciscans and 2012 program to dedicate the funding in their natural areas additionally the San Francisco waterfront is for the greenway and the constituent parks and as well other open space projects i can speak to any questions you may have regarding the specification of the bonds or questions about the details of any of the individual projects fund by the bond we have stacey from the rec and Park Department and eelena from the forbes theyre ready to present. Thank you, mr. Shaw for being here in questions or comments yeah. Thank you. No, that was extremely thoughtout mr. Rose, can we go to your report on 4 and 5 please. Yes. Shown in table one of our report of this 42. 6 million in bonds 850 plus to the project costs and one plus to the audit fund and 73 to the 0 cost of issuance and 4 hundred plus to the reserve that allows for market fluctuations with noted item 6 file 15102 on page 15 ive included the description of the estimated bond projects for the r and port on page 12 as stated the total debt service is 82. 8. 42 over the owners of bones and we also note as stated the increased property tax on seven hundred thousand for instance, with the homeownerships exemption is approximately an additional 15 bus u plus but stated the additional property tax will be offset by the outstanding debt that is retired by the vote and property tax basz base we recommend you approve both those resolutions. Thank you very much mr. Rose. Seeing no other questions or comments why not move on to Public Comment anyone wish to comment on 4 or 5 seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Through the chair thank you. The presentation is thorough you hit all the points so thank you very much those bones and the parks bonds have done Amazing Things for the city were happy to see all the projects come to fruition through the sale of the bonds all to forward out i move we send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. Motion by supervisor tang also want to say thanks fewer hard work and definitely to get those projects completed well take that without objection. That that item passes without observation with supervisor mar absent. Item 67 appropriation for 6 hundred plus precedes from 2008 clean and safe Neighborhood Park bond and c and 43 million plus precedes from 2012 safe neighborhoods bonds second series 15 e to the rec and Park Department and the Port Commission and the preappropriation of one . 4 million to the 2013 a for the ramification parks and open spaces and facing 52 million on reserves pending the sale of bonds in 20152016. Okay. Welcome back. Thank you. I will keep this brief the intent of this ordinance to simply appropriate the proceeds of the bond funds that will be resulting from the sale of items four and five with the market uncertainly of 4 hundred plus the rest of the proceeds for the costs of issuance. Thank you very much mr. Rose mr. Rose, can we go to your report for 6. Yes. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee and supervisor tang on page 60 of our report a table 3 the proposed proclamation of 8. 7 million for the park and thats from 2008 cleaning safe neighborhoods bonds monies and then table 4 on page 17 of our report shows the appropriation of 43. 8 million for the port projects and thats from the 2012 bonds so the 2008 and 2012 on page 17 table 5 shows the proposed the deappropriation and reappropriation of 1. 4 million for the port thats the 2012 clean and safe neighborhood bond projects again, this was a companion to the other two items we recommend you approve the items. Thank you very much mr. Rose seeing no questions or comments anyone wish to comment on item number on item 6 seeing none, Public Comment is closed. All right. Through the chair make a motion to send forward 6 with a positive recommendation. We have a emission by supervisor tang well take that without objection. That item passes with supervisor mar being absent. Thats correct item 8. Resolution 30 years the amendment which extends the original license beyond the time for antenna and related space on jones street with the jones Apartment AssociationCalifornia Corporation at 11,000 plus monthly. Okay. Thank you we have real estate here to talk. Good morning supervisor farrell and supervisor tang im the assistant director of the real estate this office an amendment between the city and the new Property Owner associations the citys continued occupation of rooftop space and other space in the building necessary for the department of Emergency ServicesPublic Safety radio and Communication Systems project the equipment is several antennas in the equipment room briefly we have someone to talk about the project if you need more information the site is nearly irreparableable the department of emergency replacement seeks to renovate, upgrade and provides better coverage for the emergency systems and the board of supervisors board approved it approximately 20 yoorlgz years ago when the systems were incorporated choose 9 sites a web of coverage if one is taken down they all need to be taken down part it renewing those lowes lazy think there are 7 of them so the sites what remain within the system and coverage is maintained the city and counties citys r city has leased the space since 2008 and it expires in 2019 this allows to continue to 2 and continues 4, 5 year option we can stay there for thirty years an you could of equipment or allows the experiment to come out of the site and the price to go down if he do that so Technology Changes we can change was there and allows allows for dual equipment to be at the site with no extra cost city currently pace 9 thousand a month under the new lease the city will pay 11 thousand plus a onetime fee for the total first year rent of 23,000 you plus the rent increases until 2019 and the utility are in the rents those rents and increases are compatible with similar tell coming leases and transactions and one plaza in the bayview and 555 california unless you very specific questions regarding the project on behalf of the department of Emergency Services we ask you recommend and forward this to do board. Thank you very much supervisor tang. Just one really quick clarify the increases in the rent is it are for the market or because of increased space that were leasing. Increased equipment at the location during the years certain things and upgrades were made and not reflected in the rent. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rose, can we go to your report on 8. Yes. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee Supervisor tang on our last point he note on the top of page 34 the city paid rent to the clara jones this is from the december 1st, 2015, through the existing license terms of january in any event 2019 and this First Amendment will increase that rent to 449 an increase of 86,000 or 24 percent an december 1st through january 31st, 2019, that is shown in table 3 and the reason for that there specifically is because since 1999 the city added equipment to the site not reflected in the origin license the rent to be paid by the claire Jones Association through the prompt First Amendment for the 24 most to the extension from december 1st, 2015, through january 31st, 2019, a 2 million plus that is shown in tackle 3 on page 35 of our report we recommend you approve this resolution. Thank you very much no other comments well move on to Public Comment. Open up for Public Comment be anyone wish to comment on item number on 8. Public comment is closed. Id like to send this auto with a positive recommendation. Well take that without objection. That item passes with supervisor mar being absent. Correct item 9 a resolution for relieving authorized the Public Defenders Office to accept and expend from the state c for the purpose of implementing the jewel accountability measures. Do we have pd and yes managing interest of the Public Defenders Office good morning, supervisors supervisor farrell and supervisor tang id like to thank supervisor campos for spors this resolution for over a decade weve received grant fund for the reentry attorney position she carries a caseload of well over hundred youth on any given day and to expedited the youth from detention into placements and also in developing rap services that meet the needs of kids when they return omen from the county came and for the past 5 years i maintain the data weve been able to keep recidivism down for our clients in defined recidivism as any new delinquent offense this is a successful grant award i hope we maintain the arrogant funding with the department of corrections. Thank you very much. Well move on to Public Comment anyone wish to comment on item number on item 9 seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you. Through the chair thank you for the presentation id like to make a motion to forward this out with a positive recommendation and we have a motion by supervisor tang were on track. That that item passes with supervisor mar being absent. Yes. Mr. Clerk, call item 10. Item 10 resolution approving the Landscape Maintenance with the state of California Point of privilege permitting the responsibility for state highway of San Francisco. Dpw is here. Good morning. Im rep public works. The proposed resolution for authorization to enter into a Landscape Maintenance with caltrain the city has sponsored work to improve the landscaping with the state his or her 101 and i 280 in the landscape agreement the estate has permitted those through individual state encroachment permits from the do you want a highway and to consolidate those under a single agreement to assure the improvements pursuant to the permit no fiscal impact as Maintenance Work and city operation is reimbursed by caltrain there the agreement and other locations maintenance is provided by Community Groups or local businesses using their founding r funding and staff okay. Thanks very much no budget Analyst Report so move on to Public Comment anyone wish to comment on item number seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Okay through the chair this looks at fine id like to make a motion with a positive recommendation. Well take that without objection. The that item passes with supervisor mar being absent. Correct mr. Clerk items 11 and 12 and Macarthur Park to the memorandum of understanding between the city and county of San Francisco and Firefighters Local 798 local one and 12 adopting and amending to the 2018 memorandum of understanding between the San Francisco and the local Firefighters Local 2. Okay thanks the gentleman is here from our d hr. Through the chair im martin grand Employee Relations director with the department of Human Services im joined by the excessive from the Fire Department and were presenting you today two mou amendments regarding the mutual aid deployments around the state office of Emergency Services request that individual Fire Agencies assisted other local agencies in fighting fires especially in Northern California we tend to be called the San FranciscoFire Department has responded to 7 fires since july 1st and the given dry conditions throughout the state we expect this to be continuing about the pace of mutual aid requests reimbursement for the labor cost of those deployments for decades the state has project gated reimbursement rules and Reimbursement Policies that recognize reimbursement on a portal to portal basis this is what the firefighters leave San Francisco and through from that time all the way back to they get to San Francisco and prepared to go out to service for San Francisco vents the two mou before you are the merrily summons documenting the current policy the state requests a written document acknowledging this practice so we are presenting this to the board so we can maintain the current state reimbursement practices and continue to pay the employees on that same basis while their deployed on mutual aid calls this is a no change for the city by insures to continue to bring back the reimbursement dollars that allows us to continue to fight fires in Northern California and do so with the reimbursement from the state. Okay. Thanks very much seeing no comment or questions. Sore r sorry supervisor tang. Thank you, mr. Grant i want to clarify we had received from San Francisco or sorry from the state weve received those reimbursements that weve recently been asked to put it to memorialize our current practices. Thats correct and in terms of the timing of those before us now really just because the state asked. Yes. The state requested this and deadlines triggered by the comments weve experienced this year so we are doing this to make sure we can capture the reimbursement dollars for the july fires. Thank you. Okay nothing from the Fire Department and none in the schafrm well open up for Public Comment and close Public Comment. Through the chair i would like to make a motion to forward items 11 and 12 with a positive recommendation. Motion by supervisor tang also well take that without objection. The that item passes with supervisor mar being absent. Correct mr. Richie any other business today. That completes our business for today. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, we are. Good morning. Today is wednesday, october 21, 2015. This is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. I would like to ask everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. The first item on the agenda is roll call. President melgar, here. Vice president clinch, here. Vice president mccarthy, here. Commissioner mccray, present. Commissioner walker, here. Commissioner lee, here. We have a quorum and the next item is item b, the oat. Will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. No one here. The next item is item c i think were checking to see if any of the apellants are out in the corridor just in case so they dont lose their chance. Just a moment, were checking for the appellants. Item c, is approval of minutes, discussion and ps action it adopt the minutes for a meeting held on august 15, 2015. Move to approve. Second. The motion and second, any Public Comment . Are all commissioners in favor . Any opposed . Minutes submitted are approved. And also wanted pars3 do we hear even if the apellants dont show up . Do we hear or can we . We have two cases. I think you could do either. I think you could make a decision because they had notice of the hearing. You could also continue it to another hearing and provide them note is again. If we do not act, does the abatement automatickally adhere . If you dont act . Yes. I would have to look. Im not sure. Okay, we should probably find that out. Excuse me, can i possibly make comment . The tradition, from what i understand, is if the apellant isnt here, we do a quick report and their absence is stating they dont dispute it. Well, i do think we have to swear them in, right . Right, right, we will, now that theyre. I believe the apellant is here. We are going to go back to item b, the oath. Will all parties giving testimony before this board today raise your right hand and be sworn in. Are you going to testify today . Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge . Okay, thank you. You may be seated. And also for the record, item 6815 regarding 2246griddich street, they requested a continue answer and board secretary has granted that continuance so if anyone is present to speak to that for Public Comment, you can do so now. Could i ask the reason for the continuance or does it. They told me they were out of town and they couldnt make the hearing and they asked if it could be put off for another 30 days. Go on to item d, new appeal, case no. 6814, 247 sagimore street, owner of record action requested by apellant to reverse the order of abatement. Were going to hear from the Department First and then from the apellant. Yes, im sorry, to clarify the way the hearing works is each party has 7 minutes, the department has 7 minutes to present their case, then the apellant has 7 minutes to present their case and each side has 3 minutes for rebuttal. Good morning. Good morning, john henson for the department. The address, 247sagimore street, this is a Single Family dwelling, the violation involves work in the basement rooms. There was a directors hearing on march 25 of last year and the result was an order of abatement issued. In 2009 a permit was issued that if that work was completed and signed off it would clear the violation. But unfortunately that permit expired on may 16 of 2010. Therefore, staff recommends that you uphold the article of abatement and uphold assessment of costs. That concludes the report. Thank you. You may come up. Good morning. Good morning. My name is jennifer villia i am owner of house 247 sagimore street since 2007 when we bought this house, San FranciscoBuilding Inspection Department provide documentation that everything is right and everything is okay and no violation. We have documentation sign it off the Building Inspection Department and management. We took microfilm of this house before purchasing it. No violation. I dont know whats happened, it was three owners before us in 2005 owner of this house going to inaudible to make some construction. We dont have any information about that. We first time received information from San FranciscoBuilding Inspection Department about some violation in 2009, two years after our purchase. I provide you all the documentation on recommendation of the documentation. We have to believe that San FranciscoBuilding Inspection Department provide documentation in accordance with law to Title Company and to company who, Real Estate Company who kept all documentation for us. This house change many owners only three years before our. Purchase. Our neighbor told us three years nobody lived in this house and as i read from inspection, 2005, 2006, this house was closed all time. Then this house was sold few times and all time it was clear. I go in to make some construction when i receive documentation from San FranciscoBuilding Inspection Department. I did not want to have any problems because were many younger and three boards work and i order Engineering Company how can be built in accordance with todays code. This is very old household to 1928 here building and nobody knows what it was built and how it was building for about 80 years. I going to do it and i think that this is, would be affordable, little bit of cosmetic construction and everything, all programs problems would be closed. Morover i pay 2600 to San Francisco building inspection for permit. But all Construction Company check house and they said the house too old and has joint wall with neighbor. This is impossible and any construction work result neighbor involved and morover, this is possible only to reconstruction this house. In 2009 it was 250,000. Right now it is even more. For this year what would have happened in our family, my husband, you see him, he has two stroke, after second stroke he is able since 2013 and such stroke was a stroke in Kaiser Hospital in beginning of this month. Morover, i have my son, our son, and he has low parkinson syndrome, he is disabled too. He live with us and he has no to go ever. I think that, it was fraud, permission to purchase our house or it was mistake but no mistake, we did not do anything for many years. I am simply teacher in middle school and i cannot afford any reconstruction. All neighbor that bought the same houses in our block, they make total rebuilding everything change. I cannot afford it and his payment for disability and my teacher wage, this is not enough to do any construction. Much more that this is surprise of this house right now and i think that this is, if it was a violation it should be reversed and if something has changed i dont know how, i dont know when it may be possible to reconstruct this house. Right now we have live here and. Thank you very much, you have had 7 minutes. Thank you. You are welcome. Can we hear from the department, please . When your packet was being distributed somehow some documents got separated so ill just give you additional for reference. If you look at the case history on the bottom of the first page, you can see that there was a directors hearing scheduled for april 13 of 09. Around that time, the permit to clear the violation was issued and in response to that action you can see the entry on the next page on june of 09 where the case was returned to staff. So what happened there was the hearing officer felt they were making progress with the permit and the case was put on hold to give them an opportunity to get the work done. But unfortunately we discovered at a later time that the work wasnt done, the permit expired, so we rescheduled a hearing on march of 2014 and then an order of abatement was issued and thats the order thats before you today. Yes, commissioner walker. Thank you very much. So the zoning on this building is a single residential unit. Single residential, yes. And when the apellant refers to documentation provided by the department that everything was fine, is that the 3r report . Theres nothing else that we, we didnt inspect to determine that everything was up to code . No, the 3r report simply gives a history of the property. Of the actual zoning and the legal use. Yes. Now, what can often happen is you could have a notice of violation and if it hadnt gone to a hearing and an order of abatement issued, that wouldnt show on title. So as this happened in 2005 there was a hearing . The notice of violation was issued in 2005, but it didnt go to hearing until after they took ownership. I see. And when they took ownership and they were notified then in good faith they did go ahead and get the per mitt. But unfortunately the permit expired. One more question about the permit and the condition. So the issue, it looks like that it could go through a process of legalizing but it is just a financial situation as the apell apblt. Unfortunately thats the case. Commissioner mar. Is the unit being rented now or just being used by the family for their own use . I am led to believe that there is a Family Member in the downstairs and there may be health issues. So its challenging. So it is being used by family, its not being rented to outside tenants. Thats what the apellant claims and i dont wish to dispute that. Just a followup question. When we did the has it been a long time since we did the inspection . Because i remember another similar case, illegal unit, we went through and we did the inspection and we really looked for life safety hazards in terms of legalization because it was being used in a similar situation, it was being used by in that situation an elderly parent. In this situation maybe a disabled child, but it was still the same situation, it was only being used by the family and we were mainly looking for life safety issues. So did we do that in this case . Our policy doesnt allow us to do that just for no reason, but since you have done this in the past, you know, thats something open to you. Okay, commissioner walker. Just a followup. So i think in that case there was the issue of the kitchen being taken out i mean we actually just made it an additional room rather than an additional unit so that there wasnt a full unit down there, it was just an extension of the rooms upstairs. Very different well, if you have. Forgive me, i dont remember that. I remember we grandfathered in for a limited period of time and it was an elderly lady in the marina, as i remember. I dont know that there was a kitchen there. Yeah, there was a kitchen there. The one difference in that situation, there was no permit to remove as in in this case the permit is ground floor interior remodel, abatement of notice of violation, plumbing under separate permit and one new bedroom, one family room, one storage room and one half bath on the ground floor. I see. Im sorry, and the permit that they filed, this was in 2007 . They said that they were going to take out the kitchen . Is that what. You can see here may 21st of 2009 the permit was issued. So they, in this situation, made the decision to legalize the rooms downstairs, not clear the second kitchen. In the previous case that was before you there were no permits to do anything with the space and the new legislation had just about come through encouraging legalization of units. So it was in that time frame. So the fact that they got a permit in this situation its almost hurting them in a way because its shown their hand. So thats the difference between this situation and the one you refer to. So the permit that is currently applied for and expired was to remove the kitchen and just make it an extension of the house . Yes. Just a minute. Commissioners, anyone else have any questions . Did you want to ask the apellant a question . Yes, i would like to ask. They have 3 minutes rebuttal time also. Thank you. She has a 3minute rebuttal. Why dont you go ahead and then. We did not do anything, any construction, since the day of purchase. This is only one kitchen and we have never had idea of second kitchen, no. Okay, let me clarify. Did you want to add more to your testimony or is it okay if we ask you questions now . You can ask me all question, i answer true and everything that i know. Okay, commissioner walker. So our understanding is the permit was basically to remove the kitchen thats there and to just use your basement as an extension of your house with rooms and a bathroom and a storage room. That was the permits that were taken out, it was to remove the kitchen. I have never seen any kitchen downstairs, never. No kitchen . Since the day of purchase. We have only one, only one upstairs and thats all. Morover, this is to he has problems of the stroke and i turn off all gas, even upstairs. Theres no kitchen downstairs . No, and i dont know about many i need to worry but i have never seen it. I never seen it since 2007. Okay, thank you very much. Inspector, is it possible that the prior owner removed the kitchen without the permit prior to the sale . Have we been bk to see it since . So when a notice of violation is issued in this case the notice of violation says, site inspection of above property revealed a kitchen, bathroom, two bedrooms and living room. No Building Permit exists for these 3 rooms. So that was the violation issued in february of 06. The new ownership came on board in 2007 and in response to this violation they acknowledged all of this being correct by getting a permit to legalize all the conditions downstairs as described. Naturally they didnt make reference to the kitchen because that would be removed. Now, that kitchen could have been removed when they took ownership, its possible, but all were asking for is that the permit that they got issued, the existing orders, that they would simply renew that permit as is customary and get it signed off. Thats all were asking for. Yes. So. May i ask question to inspector . You said, you said 2006. But this owner left the house to county wide bank and then different people bought this house from county wide bank then and we dont know who did and what. We have never seen any kitchen. And as inspector said, two bedroom and living, this is i dont know how and who built it in small place. Okay, i think were going to try to get to the point where we can see the easiest way to get you to a resolution, not necessarily who did what. You know, were not blaming you for taking out the permits or not taking out the permits, we just want to get to a resolution that complies with the law. So did you have another question, commissioner walker . So just let me clarify the ownership. So like in 2005 or so it was taken over by a bank or some other owner and then you bought it so there was. Yes, it was sold three times for this permit. Thank you. Yes, commissioner mar. So i was wondering if i can make a proposal and check with the City Attorney to see if this is appropriate. First of all i would like to put this in abeyance with the caveat that okay, Public Comment. You may be seated, maam. You may sit down. I guess we need Public Comment before i. Is there Public Comment on this item . Thank you, commissioner walker. Procedure. I would like to ask actually our department to go back out there and do a reinspection, an up to date inspection, to see the downstairs unit to make sure that there is no kitchen, regardless of who removed it and check other maybe life safety situations. And then, you know, come back here. I mean the apellant said a magic word to me, which is country wide. As someone who fought foreclosures in the city during this period of time, they were not the most up and coming people to deal with. So i feel like we should at least do that. So she may have applied for this permit not knowing to resolve the nov, not knowing what this would do. So i would but i think we should go out there just to look at whether it is an illegal unit. It may not even be an illegal unit, it may just be rooms downstairs being used by her family and that would trigger a different set of rules. Commissioner walker. I tend to agree. Id like to know what the facts on the ground are and what were dealing with and they can know what theyre dealing with when it comes to legalizing, whether theres one set of things they could do just to legalize it as an extension of the upper unit, versus a separate unit, and what the Health Safety issues are. I think that would be helpful to us. Could the apell ant possibly verify with us that they are open to giving us access, would that be fair . Will you commit to an inspection to that so we can figure out what were dealing with. I dont know about. Will you agree to have our people come out right now not right now, but make an appointment. In schedule, yes, of course. Okay, perfect. So is that a motion, commissioner mar, did you make a motion . Sure. Did you second it . Hold it in baipbs. Continuing it. What we need to do is continue this and request that an inspection be made by the department. And have the staff report back. Second. So 30 days, next meeting . Next meeting. Second. Theres a motion and a second to continue this item to the next meeting, along with having the department do an inspection. Yes, commissioner. So maybe we can make a date at this point or change information. Okay, great. Thank you. Ill do a roll call vote on the motion. Let me state something, what i think is going to happen. Id like the apellant to be sure because when our inspectors go out there, i think the inspector is going to see what has been completed and what haus pbt been completed, right . Thats the whole idea that we are sending an inspector out there. So the inspector is going to look at what has been completed, what hasnt been completed, and if theres something that has been completed is it a life safety hazard, then afterwards the apellant, the Property Owner, would still have to fix those things. I just want to make sure everybody understand that, right . Yes. I understand it as they have an expired permit and we are giving the courtesy of a free inspection on that expired permit. They would resolve it. The permit. Need to renew it and get it signed up. My understanding of also the inspection, what she pulled the permit for was to try to legalize an illegal unit and what were saying is there may be no illegal unit. If theres no kitchen, isnt it an extension of the house . So basically were going downstairs to inspect two bedrooms and a bath and a storage room, if that is what exists. And so. It still requires a permit. Yes, it may require a permit, but its a much different standard than to legalize a unit. And we want to focus on the life safety issues of those, you know, whatever the requirements are for a bedroom and bath, egress, that type of thing. But other than that, were not looking for the requirement that a permit be issued to legalize a second unit. Correct. But the permit that they have already got issued that expired was not to legalize the unit, it was to legalize the rooms down. The standard permit to legalize rooms down, no kitchen, connected to the floor above. Its a very straightforward permit that simply expired and all we want is renewed. Through the chair, to commissioner lees point there, really thats what were going out there for, just that. To get a free inspection. Thanks to you. Yeah, were not trying to theyre a little bit skeptical about looking at other stuff. I think were trying to, this is the mandate of the inspector on this permit. And whoever you send out, you be very clear on the mandate, john. I think Additional Inspector would do out and do his normal inspection and we just tell him they are not paying you, were doing it as a courtesy thanks to the board. Thank you. Commissioner. Mr. Hinchon, when we met again next month can you bring the file of this complaint, the nov there must be pictures, i want to see the permit that was issued. You have the permit in your packet. I dont see any drawings. It wouldnt be normal to provide drawings, the permit is in the packet, its to legalize one bedroom. When you offer a permit you fill out a form, you sign it. I want to see that. Okay, okay. And i want to see any pictures from 2005. Thats not it. We wouldnt have pictures from 2005. They didnt take a picture of the kitchen . That policy only came in thanks to your encouragement only about 6 months ago. With the dates on it, john. With the dates on it, yes. Thank you. I dont know, commissioners, how you feel about it, im probably a little bit off here, but do, looking at its probably very difficult for the apell apblt to get here. If it becomes favorable that everything is as the permit is, does the apellant have to come all the way back down here for the hearing . She should. It seems, you know. Are we ready to vote on this motion . Do the roll call vote. President melgar, yes. Vice president clinch, yes. Commissioner mack car think,ie. Commissioner mar, yes. Commissioner mccray, yes. Commissioner walker, yes. Commissioner lee, yes. The motion carries unanimously. See you next month. Item e, general Public Comment, is there any general Public Comment for items that are not on the abatement appeals board agenda . Seeing none, item f, adjournment. We have a motion to adjourn. Before we adjourn, isnt there normally on the agenda a chance for us to bring matters to staff or ask questions or is that more for the bic its more for the bic ill do it on the bic, thanks. Are all commissioners in favor of adjournment . Aye, aye,. Any opposed . We are now adjourned, it is 9. 44 am and we will reconvene as the Building Inspection Commission at 10 00 am. meeting adjourned . Good morning, today is wednesday, october 21, 2015. This is the regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission. I would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. The first item on the agenda is roll call. President mccarthy, here. Vice president mar, here. Commissioner clinch, here. Commissioner mccray, here. Commissioner melgar, here. Commissioner walker, here. Commissioner lee, here. We have a quorum and the next item is president s announcements. Good morning everybody and thank you for coming to the october 21, 2015 meeting. I have some president s announcements here and we will get into our business then. Congratulations to director hui who in advance of the 26th annual observations of the loam ma prieta anniversary attended an event in chinatown to increase Public Awareness of the need to prepare for the next one. inaudible supervisor district 5 and 10. There will be in addition to the alreadyawarded grants in chinatown with educational workshops are already on the way in helping San Francisco ans prepare for the next big one. Do read the october issue of the dbie news letter which features loam ma prieta anniversary activities. Dbi Emergency ResponseCoordination Team who advocated dbis Department Operations center, known as doc, on october 15th, as part of the great california shake out training day and enable staff to train, improve preparation and response skills so that were ready for the next major earthquake. Special thanks to director hui for the third annual state of the department and all dbi staff meeting on october 14, where he talked about mayor lees city of innovation theme and that need for all departments, including dbi, to think outside the box and take steps to improve our efficiency and to our customer service. Director hui has also provided results of the recently completed Customer Perception survey, which included polling and a focus group of more than 1,100 dbi customers and which we found, which i found this incredible, to twothirds strongly approve and approve of dbi professional services. Roughly 5 percent disapprove so that is not a bad outcome for that survey and we should talk more a little bit about that and the questions that were asked. I know a lot of the commissioners would like to talk further on that. Director hui also announced a total of 60dbi staff who reached 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 year anniversaries at the city, so congratulations warm congratulations to them, thank you so much for your service. Thats a long time. On october 24 director hui and other dbi staff will participate in the town hall with board president london breed, Building Code requirements, inspection Code Enforcement and new programs such as the legalization of illegal units and additional dreling units, which are known as adus, mitigating San Franciscos severe Affordable Housing crisis. Director hui also had a round table discussion with media representatives of the San Francisco neighborhood Newspaper Association last week, along with Deputy Director ed sweeney and dan lowrey the executive team explained the key responsibilities of dbi mandated to carry out on behalf of building safety as well as respond to reporters questions. Thanks again to dbi staff, Fire Department staff and sfpuc staff who will be covering again on october 27 for the fourth Public Meeting of the board order interagency Fire Safety Task force. With the final meeting scheduled for november 10, the task force will develop findings and recommendations to convey back to the board for improvements on fire and life safety in older multi unit buildings that we know are more at risk for serious injuries and fatalities. Finally, just a reminder to the staff and managers to submit nominations for the dbi employee of the quarter for the quarter 3, 2015. Please send your nomination forms to William Strong at sfgov. Org as soon as possible to enable Employee Recognition committee to choose our next winner in time for the november meeting. Madam secretary, that concludes my announcements. Thank you. Thank you, is there any Public Comment on the president s announcements . Seeing none, item 3, general Public Comment. The bic will take Public Comment on matters within the commissions jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. Seeing none, item 4, discussion on othello permit and project tracking system. Good morning, commissioners, my name is henry bartly, i am the project manager for the othello implementation on dbi on department technology. Im sean buellen, also a project manager, helping on the project. Last gave our update last month. Dbi has taken a decision to pause the activities with the vendor on the project. The reason, the main reason for that decision, which was supported in support and conjunction with the city administrator and the city cio, is that we find our selfs at this point in the project with the amount of work to be resolved and the remaining budget that we know that we dont have budget to deliver the project as currently scoped with the amount of work that we know is ahead of us. So, given that and the inability of the project team to set and commit to a firm timeline and be go live date, director hui had asked us to pause the activity so we dont incur any more charges and has requested that we bring in a Third Party Assessor to do an assessment of the project and provide recommendations and a plan for proceeding, getting the project on track and proceeding to a successful conclusion. Sean is going to present the deck that youve been provided which goes into more detail around the basis for that decision. Thank you, henry. Commissioners, good morning. As henry said, on the first slide dbi will engage a third party to perform a project assessment. The primary objective is to determine what it will take to get a firm dollar amount and a firm date. Some project activities Going Forward, we do have a number of testing items and a number of report development that is done internally. That activity will complete, we dont want to send the message that the project is totally stopped. Internally we are continuing work on the project. Can i pause you a second there, pause, can we get that up on screen there, madam secretary so for the rest of the public i know people would like to see. Continue with your presentation, sean. Item 4, put up the overhead. That would be great. There, perfect, thank you. Sorry, sean. No problem. Its the vendor activity has been paused until we complete the assessment. What trug erred this, the triggering action was some feedback that we received that any project funding, any project reserve, anything that might exist would be exhausted around the time we completed addressing all of the severity 1 and 2d defects. We knew further testing would be needed, we knew that would be further defects, so that basically meant there wasnt enough money to implement the project. The next slide, the open issues slide, this shows you that there is pretty severe increase in defects after we completed our testing in august. Basically what that is showing you, theres a number of different sources. The defects, different types of defects are tracked in different logs, but the sum total is around 204 and the business definition of critical is its critical for go live and theres no work alive so you have to do it or it is critical or might be a work around, but the work around is too onerous for the business to do. So were looking at this list of 204 were talking about severity 1 and 2 issues that the business says arent acceptable for go live. The punch list is a list of items that were arrived upon in april of 2015. Some are projects that require their own work that basically address the number of functional gaps that were identified earlier this year. Some examples youll hear people talk about these, thats why we report on them. There are a list of 25 and the way to read this chart is if its closed and signed you have and completed, everything would be green. The dark green at the bottom. If its awaiting user acceptance test its the lighter green and if its in progress its in the blue. Ideally what you would have wanted to do was have the dark green slowly move up and identify all 25 of them, as all of them are properly closed down. The types of things that were identified on the punch list include things like grandfathered fees, which is a funny name, a funny way of saying that you need to be able to utilize historical fee schedules when you are updating a project of very Long Duration. Can you go back, if a project started 5 years ago, you may need to adjust it. Can it properly look up and calculate the fees. There are other things, multi squad inspections, the ability to handle Long Duration inspections, permit suspensions are another one. We have a list of examples. These were chose lepb because they are kind of easy to understand. Some of them are a lot more technical and arcane, but this is just an example. Ill give you some, a few specifics. There are a number of issues, as you go through, youll see there are a number of issues with the permit extension process. There are issues with the product not yet enforcing contractor license classifications, the wrong type of licensed contractor can apply for and get the wrong type of permit, that type of thing. The last one, 1294 on aca, which is the Public Access site, a registered contractor can look at documents that werent his, for example, thats another example of something that is open. Starting on september 21st, the excella platform was upgraded, it is much nicer than the old one, they are having some i object e issues with the 8. 0 rollout, at the moment we cant schedule any inspections using the citizen access portal, which is normal functionality. The main thick the 8. 0 issues have done to us is its made testing a lot more difficult for about the last month. Any questions on the open issues . Can i, im open to suggestion here. Would we better getting through this, commissioner walker, then going back to the questions or do you want to do it as we go through it . Im open but it seems more efficient if we got through it and then we can build. Im fine. If theres no objection, if theres okay with fellow commissioners, then we can backtrack if thats okay. Continue, sean, thank you. The gaps in functionality, this is kind of at the very heart of the matter. In the early stages of the project and, you know, we could probably go into the details as to how and exactly why this happened, but at some point the Business Users, key Business Users throughout dbi were excluded from the requirements process. They did not sign off on the business requirements. The requirements were signed off by internal project team members and thats what was developed. So from the very outset thats the problem. The business would not sign off on the requirements. The requirements are basically your agreement on what you want to build. And due to whatever conflict was going on early in the project, the business refused to sign and internally to keep the project Going Forward internal project team members signed off on at least half of the requirements. And if you look at them youll note that there are things missing from them that are described in the defect list that i reviewed with you earlier. So over time of course the actual stake holders, the actual smes throughout dbi have expressed frustration that they talked about these things and for whatever reason it was not captured as a requirement and not implemented in the product. So now, of course, we ask these same Business Users to test and get a license through and they cant do it. It doesnt capture the required information or some similar thing, some similar stop gap that prevents them from issuing the permit or scheduling the inspection properly, right . And thats how the business considers a defect, right . And thats a key distinction, i think, needs to be made. Defects versus scope changes, dbi considers it a defect when they cant execute a business process. They cant capture the proper information for a certain license, they cant schedule an inspection with the proper criteria, they cant do a specific type of inspection and so on and so forth. The fees are calculated incorrectly, thats also a problem. We have a lot of issues with fees. And another thing that happened and has been happening throughout the project is better work, 3 months ago, stopped work today for some reason. Again we take the users in, we ask them to test and there are issues with these things that seem to be going back and forth. They work one day and they dont work the next. To be fair, there have been scope changes, right . You know, a vendor trying to hit a target, trying to hit a date, needs certain stability in the requirements in order to be able to meet that date and there have been scope changes. There have been requirements, we admit, that were signed off and when it came time to test, changes needed to be made. Some of that did occur, right . We freely admit that. Not a huge amount by our estimation but it does happen, right . And of course i think you are all aware that theres an awful lot of legislation that gets enacted on a regular basis and by and large new legislation impacts the business process and the software changes. So no matter what we do were trying to hit a moving target and the vendors are trying to hit a moving target. We did an analysis of a ticket, this was an internal analysis by dbi, looking at items that are opened, and we only looked at the last 4 months, high 80s of the tickets had defects relating to things up above. 13 percent were new legislation or we did say, oops, thats a signedoff requirement and we admit that ones a change and that one is on us. The vendor, of course, based on what i had mentioned earlier about the requirements not being signed off and, to be fair to the vendor, you take a number of people in and you tell them what to code, what are they going to code to . What are they going to develop to . They have to code to whats written down and thats the requirement, right . So thats why theres such a wide disparity between what the vendor believes are the gaps and whats new and whats out of scope and whats in scope and what the business believes what is in scope and what is out of scope. And the root of that issue goes all the way back to the beginning where the business would not sign off on the requirements and we had basically had key professionals signing off on the requirements which is not Good Practice. We have had issues with quality and turn around. We looked at the defects that were raised during the testing in august and about 18 percent, some were shy of 20, were things that went away and came back again, again frustrating for the testers, frustrating for the users but thats just something thats just a simple fact that occurred and further project history at this point. A number of things that once worked, failed and that was pointed out and documented again in the latest round of testing, things like site permits and a number of different fecal klaitions. I remember commissioner mccray asked how long do these take to fix and 3 out of 10 took 6 months or longer. Theres something wrong with the governance and the approach and what it takes to test, get a clean test, and resume the testing and have a reasonable expectation that the issues that were raised prior had been addressed. It kind of feels like whack a mole, to be honest. People are working hard but sometimes there are inadvertant issues introduced elsewhere in the application. Customer service, performance and stability is a concern. Incident management and problem management, there we are talking specifically about we call and theres a problem with the environment, our reports arent running, that type of thing, they simply are not addressed unless we escalate and thats a problem. So its hard to, again, get a bunch of users in a room, you try to test and things freeze and hang, you call and you dont get a response. Thats what were referring to there. It has been difficult. Im sure some of it is were not quite in production status yet, but when we do raise issues and tickets we do want some response. They are good on the critical 1s, but severity, total, everything is down, they do followup on those and turn them around but its Everything Else that is the problem. Performance and stability, we did some because we did seem to have issues with the performance, with the environment slowing down or the environment not being available, and we were actually told a number of times by the vendor that there was our own internal network, the city of San Franciscos network was the issue. So to eliminate that from consideration we used a Third Party Site monitoring tool and that Third Party Monitoring tool thats not hosted in excella, not hosted in the city, its a vendor that monitors web sites and their performance and availability for you, that revealed certain instabilities. In a onemonth period, i used a free trial, it lasted one month, in a onemonth period there are 3 episodes of down time to the environment. Were not used to things going down like that so stability is a concern. No proactive monitoring, i think i should clarify this. Im sure the vendor makes sure their servers are up and certain processes are running and what not. Im talking about the Third Party Monitoring that measures true end to end, that measures what a user would see. Somebody out there on the internet trying to access the web site, not somebody within your 4 walls trying to access the web site. If you really want to measure a User Experience its got to be done from a Third Party Site. It cant be dbi, it cant be the vendor, its got to be somewhere else and there are vendors that do that kind of service and its my understanding, based on talking with internal people at excella, that they are starting to pursue that themselves because it is just Good Practice to monitor from a third party neutral site. The best way to mimic an end User Experience. And concerns with performance and stability arent just us. We have had one other major jurisdiction contact us and say, are you having challenges with customer service, performance and stability and we said yes we did and we changed notes with them. So that is a concern as well. I know performance and stability are important to people. We figured we would share the information we had. Thats it. Any questions . Thank you, sean. Okay, commissioner walker and i know commissioner mar and then well take it from there with the other commissioners. Thank you for this honest appraisal. I have to say just going from the start that im pretty upset about this. I think everybody is aware of that. It would have been nice to have this type of information, especially about the first issue arose, that proper personnel were not in place, i think that we, every time we have seen this at this commission we have asked before even henry came aboard we sort of demanded to know, you know, that proper personnel were in place in this process to make sure our Business Practices and those whatever we call them, i cant remember what you called them, the things you aim at. Experts, smes. That they be attached to this. We went through this, this was maybe before a lot of you also were on the commission we went through a whole reengineering of our processes to give those directives to this process. And so at this point i am a little bit frustrated that we didnt have that in place and that is a large part of this problem and i believe it rests solely on us. I agree we need to have a Third Party Assessment of our practices but i would prefer it if the bic would manage that, choose a vendor and get the report. Because we need to also evaluate our departments responsibility in that. So theres a couple because i wrote things down. So i want to make sure of who the proper personnel is Going Forward of who should be at the table to input to our practices so that doesnt continue to be an issue. I kind of would like to know why we didnt have that in place from the beginning. So when we talk about folks complaining about not being included, i want to know who they complained to and why it wasnt responded to. I would like to hear from the vendors who are here, thank you for coming, why there seems to be not enough personnel on this to respond to our needs. We have again every meeting that weve had discussion at i have demanded that we make sure that we have personnel both from our department and the vendors available. I get that we are, like, 4 years into a process that was expected to take a couple. Yes. So im not surprised the budget is blown. Im disturbed but not surprised. And so i think that, i mean for right now those are my issues. I want to support taking a pause because i think we need to breathe and figure out where were going. We need to make sure all the partners were working with are working with us. It often feels like were working against each other and i would really like it if that didnt happen. So thats all i have to say right now. Commissioner mar. So, first of all, i want to thank both of you for this report. I know that in other meetings and past meetings, henry, youve been the target of a lot of my frustration. Youve put a lot of work in to get to where we are now but i want to echo my past frustration and also some of the things commissioner walker has said today and also even what commissioner mccray asked about the last meeting about how long and how much. You guys are from the it experts expertise from the city. And due to the fact that our it person left abruptly, but its the same problem. And i feel like not having a business lead, not having somebody on the inspection side thats a lead, not just an inspector, housing side thats a lead, not just, you know, front line staff, that was the problem from the beginning. But it me its not a new problem because ive been yelling about that for at least a year, maybe more, as long as ive been going to the meetings. So i dont want to direct this at director hui but thats what ive been yelling about. Its great to have great it people, two on loan from other parts of the city, we appreciate it. Regardless of who but what we needed was somebody who could work with our inspection staff, all the division, and said this is what we are going to do now. This is the transformation and i think part of the problem is that we werent, we didnt just want to take the pts the old system and make it into excella, because part of the problem was maybe our old system wasnt that transparent to begin with and thats another one of the issues i was harping on. This is about permits so one of the biggest gripes of citizens in our city is how the hell do you get a permit among some people and then among other people is why the hell do those guys pull 100 permits easily . You know, because maybe its not the same. So if you want to put something in a computer about how to pull a permit, well, for one guy its one way, for another guy its another way. Thats one of the things that from the business lead side they had to get that stuff together before you could give it to an it person and put this in a computer. So my complaint, and i dont want to compliment our Sister Department in planning a lot because i know they have their own issues, but one of the things, the reason they are up and running, i believe, is they had a business lead very early on. They had someone that was into plan checking, that was into the planners, and someone who was in management that could tell the planning staff, this is how were going to do things now. Maybe its not that great and i think they still have a lot of issues, we have issues here too, but we needed that kind of leadership in our own department and we didnt get it. So before i go on, thats one of the problems. And i agree with commissioner walker its time for the bic to become involved. This is what i feel bad about. Im kind of pissed about the way this was thrown before us because i asked for very specific things before we put this on the agenda. I asked for this report to go out in our friday packets, we get our packets on friday. Okay, i asked for the original contract that we had with step 21. This was a contract, some of it was signed in 2011, so i know sometimes we ask staff to do hard stuff, give me something on friday were going to talk about wednesday. But this is not new, this is a contract that came out in 2011. This was a xerox job that somebody stuffed into our packet on friday. I cant read 65 pages 5 minutes before the meeting. I want to see the original weaknesses, if it was weaknesses on the vendors part, i want to be able to understand that. If it was weaknesses in our part, i want to be able to understand that. So my thing is dont come to the bic and ask us to make a decision and you dont give us information. You can continue, but i just want to say we were gathering information. There was legal issues that had to be talked, the secretary was given stuff that had to go out but the packages have to go out so were all trying to make the right decision so we can have this hearing. To your point, though, we have the information. Were probably missing some information but well get that information and well get to the bottom of it. Are you finished . For now. Thank you. To the staff, i think the important thing here this morning, i see theres the vendors are here, and i dont want to dismiss that that was then, this is now. What are we going to do Going Forward . Thats what i want the focus to be Going Forward. Commissioner mars point, we acknowledge them, we get them, but whats the next actions . How do we get to where we can have our system up and running. Id like to kind of focus on that now Going Forward. Commissioners, are there any more. Id like to hear from the vendors. I want to wrap up this segment here with the other commissioners, if theres any other commissioners, and then go on to the vendors Going Forward. Commissioner lee, you are good . Commissioner mccray, are you going to, do you have a question before i ask these guys to sit down . No. One point i wanted to respond to, a question about commissioner walker and commissioner mar brought up about the business lead. What i can unequivocally state is when i arrived on the project in september of 2014, the second week i was on the project dbi issued a memo appointing ron tom as the business lead. So since that time i have had full unfettered access to ron tom. He, of course, knows nearly every function within the building very well, he has access to every person that he needs, and has been instrumental in making sure we have the right people in the room. In addition that memo outlined every Single Division within dbi who the lead and who the backup was for every business function. And those have been in place again since the second week of september, 2014. I cant speak to what was in place prior to that, but i know from my involvement in the project we have had that business lead role filled. And yet we are here. We are here. And there was a lot of items there that unfortunately we had to get to this point to understand that it wasnt done and so on. I think were all acknowledging and facing our demons here and thats the whole idea of this hearing so we can plot our next step. Commissioners, if theres no more questions for staff, thank you, henry, thank you, sean, thank you for that presentation this morning. Madam secretary, whats the next protocol here . You want to call. If they would like to call forward. Two vendors, excella and 21. Its three minutes. However, im sure if you need some more time well ask you a question and we can go over. Its not three minutes, its a presentation. Its a presentation. I would like. So you have up to, how long does a presentation take, 10 minutes . It doesnt matter. Theres a lot to be talked here. I do want to respond to some of the things weve heard some far this morning. Absolutely. So you can make your presentation and then there will be, if theres other members there, is it up to. This is not a hearing per se so we dont have a time limit. Perfect, so you are good. Please state your name for the record, please. Linda short, Vice President of professional services at 21 tech. Thank you for having me this morning. I think a couple of the things there have come up this morning so far that i would like to speak to is your question about how did we get here having this meeting right now today. And i believe part of that is that the project team, the people on the ground working every day hard to pull this together, and the vendor team and the dbi team do work really well together but we have always felt like we are just so close to the finish line. So in february there were meetings where the punch list items came out. This is a functionality that dbi needs to go live. So we felt, had that directive, that when we completed these punch list items, that we would be in a position to go live. So we felt like we were, have been making incredible progress towards those pretty big piece functionality tickets. As part of that when we did deliver them there were additional requirements that came out of the end users actually seeing what was delivered, which can be typical. Sometimes you dont know exactly what you want until you lay your eyes on it and have your fingers on the keyboard, but that is part of and effects a delay in a project like this. Another thing i wanted to talk about was defects and the number of defects reported here today. There is a difference of opinion on the definition of a defect. I understand that from a users point of view a defect is something they feel like they cannot move forward with their daily work, but from a project teams point of view, a defect is a negative connotation on the quality of our work. So i do want to qualify that there are defects, there are bugs, but in oug analysis its about reversed, its about 20 percent bugs with our work and 80 percent are additional things that we had not heard in the past. So as we go through and the users are spending much more time with their hands on the system this last summer than they have previously, they are getting more and more familiar with excella and they are starting to look beyond that base functionality and into how they are going to handle exceptions to their normal processes. And i believe a lot of what were seeing come out now are exceptions to their normal processes that the Configuration Team has been looking into. I just wanted to clarify those couple things and answer your questions. Commissioner walkers has some questions for you. To this point of defects, exceptions, the list that was included in the presentation from the staff dont seem like exceptions, things like needing to put the inspectors name or the plan checkers name in, those things are, like, pretty routine. In fact, all of the things listed are pretty routine. There are a couple i can speak to directly. The last one about the reporting and a contractor being able to print any permit, that was a known limitation to basically putting the print button out there on aca, so we let it be known if we put this out there, thats a limitation that is beyond our ability to control. So it was requested anyway, we put it there with that limitation and now that limitation pops up as a big. So thats one that i can speak to specifically. But youre right, this is a crosssection of that 108. So do you feel that you are properly staffed . Yes. So we have two excellent excella resources, they are very familiar with dbis implementation, we just added a third based on some earlier meetings, Steering Committee meets, so we did add a third resource with 9 to 10 years of excella experience so they are now waiting for project restart and will look for other things to keep them busy. But, yes and we do have also access to excella resources when we need those. I ask that question because when we have been briefed on this there are, like, 6 months time periods before things get fixed and then when things get fixed it so it feels to me like theres not people on the ground with us as were doing this. Okay. So when you look at that statistic, the 6 months, 12 months, i would like to take some time and come back to you with more information on that. But what i have seen in this project is that a bug is logged in the uat tracker where we keep that. Or its not just one, its 8 or 10 or 12, all in one item. So we fix 8 of them, say, four of them we say this is technically impossible and so it looks like its open for a long time. Or we fix two or three and while theyre testing the two or three they find more things and it looks like the same issue number so it looks like its open a long time. That is something about a year, 14 months ago we tried to address, we cant look at the statistics of our team and say what quality of work they are doing when we have this perpetual logging going in on one item and we tried to address that and the entire team got better at handling that. I would have to see where these statistics are to be able to answer that. What is your assessment, i mean have you experienced issues with new people coming in and giving you sort of new scope . I mean thats what were talking about, the key users, why werent the key users identified and brought in earlier on . Right. So i dont know the answer to that, its only hearsay, but i know that or ive heard that when the project started, vivian wanted to control that and that was kind of our first implementation and she did not control the end users, probably because she was trying to streamline the processes. I dont know the history there. I dont know what happened when hemma came on board, why hemma was the wall between us and the end users. When hemma left and henry came on board those end users were starting to get more and more involved in the project and that really has been great, but it was only a year ago. So i think theyre busy like were all busy so they are not all day looking at excella and working through their processes and trying to understand how what they do today translates into that. So when they spend more and more time, i believe they see more and more things. Oh my gosh, for me to sit down with a line of 20 people waiting for me to process their permit, i need to feel really confident that i can do it. So i totally understand their concern. I do have a sense that we are probably trying to configure to too many exceptions to the rule but thats not our call, thats the business call to say this is a sub 1, this is a sub 2, we have to have it to do our job. As a consultant its not our place to go in and say, no, no, no. I dont feel that. They are the ones on the ground having to deal with the public and trying to process them through so you are not hearing about it later so i understand their concern. The project team i think we feel like every time they look at the system they do see new things where they want it a little quicker, a little cleaner, they dont they want a little bit more and the more they understand how flexibility excella is, i think the more they want. So its difficult, its been difficult for the project team to draw that box around this is what we need to go live and we can add some of these other things later because were not, im not the one on the ground, im not the one by the keyboard with 20 people in line. But someone needs to be that person. Uhhuh. Commissioner mars question, please. In my mind business lead, and thank henry for putting ron tom on the spot, but when we assigned him as the business lead or director hui assigned him as the business lead, it was my understanding it was his job to be much more involved with excella. Not every inspector is on there every day, neither are the clerks. And if there are problems within the division, the channel was him. Thats the purpose of the business lead. So it was not up to the vendor to deal with questions from every division or every inspector but one of our senior people, which i believe was deputy ron tom who was that kind of conduit that hemma could not do, even though she was assigned, she couldnt do it because she was an it person and ron is not. He comes out of that side of the house. So thats what my concern is. Did that improve . Because he was somebody that the vendor could have gone to every day, in my book, not just henry or sean, but ron, and said if your guys have these complaints which one is a category 1 versus a category 3 . The other thing is, he should have enough knowledge of what is the requirements for excella. That was the other thing, there was we have to come up with what are the requirements, you know, before the vendor could do it. So is that clear to the vendor now, what are the requirements of the performance, what is he supposed to do so its not just constantly additions or change orders . Were not building a house as we go, were supposed to have plans. That was the other analogy. Would you agree thats why we need to build that, that framework. You have a blueprint. Ideally yes. So we have that pause, we get really clear vision and direction, Everybody Knows where were going, we stay within that scope. Write the rules then stick by them. We would love that, yes. I think that would be healthy. If theres no more questions . Next speaker, please. Hello, im one of the partners at 21 tech. Linda was the lead project manager and i really appreciate everything she very candidly spoke to all of you. I just want to add a couple of points to that, a couple of suggestions. And i think she talked about the history that we had one set of requirements when miss day was the director and then there was another set of requirements, that was put on hold and another set of requirements when hemma came on board and then that was put on that we were coding to but they didnt quite like when they were testing and there was a third set of requirements so that punch list, 25 items that came up which we got with the Business Users, and that was very detailed with the Business Users. My concern and my suggestion is Going Forward when theres uat, when theres testing going on, that the testing actually goes with the requirement and says is this requirement being met . Yes or no. And then thats the way you put a box around it. But if you are testing just generally and say, oh, i dont like the way this button drops down, id rather it be a touch button rather than drop down, im being facetious but if theres no requirement i feel that whack a mole is going to keep going on. Were never going to get a boundary put around. Thats typically best practices of how we do uat a second point i think linda and sean and henry talked about, from a technical perspective we feel we have a very strong team thats addressing every technical issue thats come up. The issue were having is a defect is, from the business side, a defect is something they would like to have, not whether this meeting the requirement or not. So what we consider a detect is drastickally different from whats considered a defect here. Until we align that, lets define if we have a work around then its not a severity 1 or a severity 2. It doesnt have to be exactly the system you have today. And our concern is sometimes end users are so aware of what they do today, they want to replicate 15 years of what they have today. And excella is built with a different perspective and wed love it if the business could actually get, really understand the excella process so they understand what the differences are and then own that. Just wanted to add that. Thank you so much. And one last point is our team, weve added several members of our team and we thought we were going to go live. What linda didnt address that we also have an excella teamworking with us. Our entire team is pretty significant, we have 7 to 8 or 9 people working on this, the excella portion is these 3 members we were working with. Thank you for your time. Next speaker, please. Hi, im maury blankman, ceo of excella. I dont know if you remember me, commissioner, but we were only two people in the room dating back from when this project started and i came up to start about the frustration the commission had that they had planned this project for 5 years and that it was going to take two years to implement it. I say that somewhat sarcastickally but i want each and every one of you to know as the ceo of this company, we have 700 employees, we have 2200 Government Agencies that we work with, this is my city and i am 100 percent behind getting this thing live regardless of what it takes on our part. I participated in a meeting back in february with president mack car mccarthy and other directors and volunteered up free resources from our company to make sure this project took live, to take people out of the field and put them behind the doors here without getting paid for it just to make sure that what we were doing as a vendor what we could do to get this project live. I share your frustration, director, when i came to this meeting it was the first time i saw a lot of this. I want nothing more than what you guys want. Again, this is my home town and i love it here and i want everything to be transparent, aboveboard, open, everything that we stand for in this great city. A year after i met with you we signed a contract with the city of oakland. They are actually live now using this. So, you know, we have city of sacramento, sacramento county, pala alto, oakland, contra costa county, they are all our users. If theres any doubt that it does work, it does. And when i go through this list of open examples, open issues, you know and im not here to argue against a pause. But what in my experience in working with many, many large size accounts that encounter issues like this, you know what i would like to see is you heard from 21 tech and they are our prime vendor on this. This isnt the first project we worked on to the. I think it was 7 years ago we brought up the San Francisco port as a team and they built expertise and helped work with us to bring up salt like city live on this project and its been running for 5 years and they have a fantastic implementation as well. Salt like city went through a similar stage to what we had here but they had very strong leadership that basically said, okay, were going live on this, lets put a stake on the ground, lets make it happen. I think as relates to the pause what i would suggest if theres 200 open issues and these are, you know, 21 tech and excella think that 87 percent of them are new requirements, the Agency Thinks that 13 percent of them are defects, its reversed. We believe that 87 percent are new requirements, 13 percent are defects, they are the reverse, lets sit down and talk about it amongst ourselves and come up with a meaningful list. Because when i look through here and i see things like mol inspector app does not require an inspector to comment when inspection is resulted. Ive been standing in front of people before and they said your inspection results are too complicated, i just want result approved. I dont want to have to put a comment. Speed is important to me. I think these things need to be discussed in an open forum and there definitely does need to be someone who is willing to stand up and say, well, speed is important and we dont need a comment if one is not necessary. But if we do, well, sure, lets address that and move forward. But thats what i would like to see happen as a next step. And i do applaud the statement that the bic would like to get more involved because i think any time theres oversight in a project like this, you know, great things happen. And the final thing that i heard from the team that has been somewhat of a discussion amongst our group is that we dont believe that well run out of funding for this project. I mean we believe the funds are in place, we can make this happen. You know, i guess its somewhat, you know, of against what i maybe i should want more money. But i really am just saying that i think the budget that we have we can make it happen. And one of the things thats very important to excella is when we these projects in that contract, even though it was 4 years ago, we have a reputation in place and we want to stand up here and say, you know what . We may not have been on time or under planned hours but we still did it on budget. And, you know, thats our goal. Thank you. Thank you. I am commissioner melgar, please. I just had a question for director hui. Why do you believe you need a pause . Why i need to have the pause, after the end to end testing with 200 items and then from my information from henry and sean and the consultants say they will run out of money, you know, even with that, and then we were pretty sure we will be over. Also we dont know how much more money, thats what is different song from previous speaker. And also to talk with, you know, department of technology, you know, with city administrator and to move forward we want to make sure, you know, for our road map to see how to proceed. For some of you now is good now you talk about the scope change or not a scope change. For example, i remember commissioner mar also attend a meeting for one of the meeting regarding what we call grandfather fee. Always in San Francisco in the Building Code, its not the process or anything, we cannot deviate from the Building Code. For our city and county of San Francisco, permit issue is based on the fee on the day of file. Its not only our department, all department, including planning, fire, puc and everyone. And they told me, oh, you can do it by hand, go around by hand with my staff to calculate it. That means we cannot issue any permit because from their standpoint is only one or two permit. But theres 14,000 permit on hand in the pay line. This is just one example, there is some other stuff. How to get the scope if we have, these jobs start from the beginning, we should have the scope well defined. Suppose we, every meeting i tell the consultant they are the expert, they should come in to see what we need. Certain thing we want to streamline to do a better job, but certain things we need to stand by the code. We cannot just, oh, thats all you can do. Initially the consultant tell me, oh, we cannot change the fees, only one fee. But in our case we cannot. Thats why i want to pause it and then see how we move forward because pretty soon we run out of money per my staff. Can i just one clarification. How long a pause do you think you need . Right now we, you know, have department of Technology Help me to find independent, no conflict with our vendor 21 tech and et cetera and then hopefully by this friday can identify that particular consultant and inform you who is it right away, who is the consultant. But how long . Thats why we have the scope and then we will define. Right now i dont know. Probably henry, do you have any idea . Yeah, could i have ive got to i dont want to go to commissioner walker right after me here, but ron tom, could you come up a sec and tom just for i want to frame something here and then commissioner walker can have her comment. Its kind of hitchhiking off commissioner melgar here and i dont know which one can answer. So listening to where the fellow commissioners are, including myself, were kind of rewriting the script so we can have some construction format Going Forward. The word pause, even in my industry, is a very delicate word right now. Its used a lot in development, how to stop development for a while, pause. Moratorium. Yeah, i get the word. As a commissioner we need to define what that pause is to commissioner melgar, is it two months, three months, i know you dont have the answers route now but i want to frame it up, is it two months, three months, four months, that is something thats going to be very important for us as a commission to understand. The big thing is the Commission Oversight. To me, i think we do need a Commission Oversight so whatever format is come up with that Commission Oversight whether its an Ad Hoc Committee or whatever i think would support mostly whatever, who sits on that, give it some thought and what would their Job Description be as an Oversight Committee to help you guys, to everybody i think would be very important. You know, the teams, im pretty confident based on the testimony today that we have enough people now, we have the right people in place to kind of bring this on home. So i mean obviously the personnel thats involved it looks like were going to be having this same personnel bring this on home because its in the best interests of everybody. So the consultant who we get i guess is probably going to come back to us with a report, right . And in that report is going to answer a lot of these questions but i think its important that its framed in this context, time frame and so on, Oversight Committee and when the real legitimate go live date that we can dig our teeth into. Commissioner melgar . I just need a clarification because im not sure what you mean when you say, we need a pause. Because having been in these kinds of projects before if we say, okay, were going to have a pause that means that the vendors not involved, not incurring costs . Because if thats the case then that really worries me because i feel like those guys need to be engaged. If they get reassigned, the company is still going to employ their people and theyre going to be paying them. Theyre going to be working on something else. By the time 4 or 5 months, we get our act together and hire them back again to be on this job theres a lot thats lost. So i want you to define what you mean by a pause, please. Commissioner walker, i dont think we can answer that question now. Do you think . I dont. Can that question be answered right now . It can. Go ahead, commissioner henry, sorry. What we mean by pause, i think i spoke to but probably too briefly, is with the situation where we know that we dont have budget and this was news communicated to us by our partners that with the given amount of items that we have to fix and the punch list items and knowing we have further rounds of testing that will bring up more rounds of items to be addressed we were running to risk to not have any budget left to get all the way to go live. Given that, what pause means is to stop and stop creating more costs is not enough and during that pause to go ahead and perform the assessment, get a clear path, a clear plan to get us to go live and then start things back up. You are exactly correct that we do run the resource risk that the consultant partner resources could get deployed to other projects and may not be available when we restart. But that is a risk that we run. Okay, thats a good answer, thank you, commissioner walker and then commissioner mar. So i dont support a pause. Its to the same point as commissioner melgar. Not to say i dont think internally at dbi to get our own house in order. I think a lot of this is because we didnt have the right personnel from our department from the beginning and that has been the case for 4 years. Now we have it, we have identified the fact that we should have done what we did sooner and i think that we need to sort of chiu gum and walk at the same time, that we need to actually take the information that we have and continue engaging our vendors in helping find the solution forwards. You know, i will use an analogy that you cant fix a broken tool with a broken tool. We need help from our vendors who are creating this but we need to really, like, have leadership which commissioner mar has been saying for 3 years, determining which of these things, gosh, it would be better if we could do it with the left hand than the right hand because new people are using the system. We have, i think, a failure to interpret our extensive permitting reformating process into this system and not having the key people. So we need to do that regardless of a pause or not and we should have been doing it for the last year. Having said that, i dont want to lose our vendors and i want our vendors, some of whom have said they are not going to go beyond the budget so we now have a different statement from one of our vendors, we need to engage them in helping us fix our problem. I also support a third party coming in and reporting to us what in the heck happened. And, you know, if you need a pause maybe a week pause or a month pause but i have no patience with this, we went through the same thing with our pneumatic which was intended to help our process and increase transparency and got, pardon my french, shit canned the department. So we now have the same issues coming up about favoritism so this is not going to happen with this. I am going to be here on this commission until this system happens and if it takes 20 years, i will be here in 20 years. Promises. 15 years in the making, right . Its already been 15 years since we tried to do this and three different rfps have not given us a new permitting system. So if you think im frustrated, i am. So im not going to support another pause, i will support a third party looking at what occurred. Commissioner mar. Im not very sympathetic to a pause either but im not going to make the same threat commissioner walker made because i hope not to be here in 15 years. Heres the problem with the pause. Its related to what commissioner melgar said, how much time and also to me the most important thing, what do you do during the pause to do with the problem . Its the same way when we have abatement appeals, if someone says hold off on my nov, we need more time, okay, what are you going to do . 30 days, 60 days, what are you going to do in those 30 days or 60 days . Well think about it. But you guys and the staff, you guys director hui, you are not giving us that. You are not telling us heres the thing about the consultant, im also concerned. Hiring a consultant, more money, it is not the weak link here. Sean, henry, you guys have been great. The weak link has been the business side. So this is where i feel like the commission has to become more involved because, yes, we could hire another it consultant to do something you guys probably are just as capable of doing. What effect will they have on the business side . What effect will they have on transmiting to the division this is the most important thing and this is what we want to do now and get the divisions on board. You know, i dont see that plan. And so, yes, its only been a year, sorry, ron, its only been a year since you were given this thankless job, but its still a year. Its still a year. To me if we were fixing it a year is a lot of time. So to me adding another it person doesnt fix the problem. Well, i guess what the question is were asking the experts. Youve given us concerns that you have. Were not ready to go live and i dont think anything is going to change that dialogue here this morning and i do understand the frustrations, we are all frustrated about so what im trying to do is frame so the commission knows next steps here. And anybody that can frame it based on whats happened here in the discussion i would greatly appreciate it here this morning. Ron . Commissioners, good morning, ron tom, assistant director. Our staff has not stopped being engaged. In fact, im part cheer leader and part assistant director. I keep getting people to realize that without their participation, regardless of how we handle it on the periphery of this internally they have to stay engaged. So they have to and i participate in those attendance testing and review of current and past tests, part of them for uat, but some of them are brought forward from uat, results and fixes that were, fixes that were documented for us to test. So i just want to say that im representing our staff, we have not stopped being both engaged and even though it sometimes is a level of enthusiasm that may not be where we all would like it to be, its part of the longterm frustration that everybody has pretty much expressed here. So our staff do continue to, they do take it upon themselves like for instance the fifth floor. Its a very important floor for all of us on a daily basis because we turn out so many permits and we process them and collect the fees for them and issue them so people can work. Susan buffka, to her credit, continually almost every day brings in two to three staff to go through the training process that will take away a level of trepidation when we go live. So shes a very good example of staff that we dont ask her, i dont need to prompt her, she does it. I show up in the training room and there she is with staff. So we do want to go live. There is no doubt about it. We have, everybody has invested so much time and effort and just, its like anything that we want to have success at, there are the difficulties that we face and the challenges that come about and probably, in all frankness, and i think it is true, we have had lack of continuity over the course of the beginning of this project to the current time. Certainly in the last year we have not had that lack of continuity. Thats why we can see a list that manifests the issues that are brought up and by the way, i sdwruft just want to make sure that the commission is clear. Issues that have to do with it would be better if the left hand did the thing than the right hand, in other words it would be better if it could do this or that, we cut that off. We cut that off early and advised the staff we can do those kind of improvements in the next phase. We can look at them and assess them. But certainly in the go live phase we want to only implement Core Functions and we know what those are, from the permitting side to the inspection side. The inspection side is a great deal of complexity because of the three different divisions that we have for the plumbing and electrical and building. And i dont know about other jurisdictions, i suspect other jurisdictions dont have the same complexity we have. Because of volume of work, the type of work, the scope of the work and the fact that we have 3 different inspection divisions all having to coordinate on a sunk he will project at any given time. So those are complexities that maybe the program didnt face before but they are facing them now. So i know weve spent a lot of time on the inspection side trying to figure out basic functions like having a multiple floors on a high rise, the ability to inspect those floors at any given time, any given day. I hope the message at least from my perspective is clear. The staff have not stopped working on this. They are asked to continue to work on it and we will keep looking at anything thats been passed forward to us that says its been fixed and we will test it to see if it was. Open to any other questions. Commissioner walker, please. Do you feel confident that our set of requirements for thioj