>> commissioner with regards to the proposed language involving the 7 to 28 piece from a practical prospective i'm not in a position to commit but from a legal prospective it doesn't want seem like with the commissioner is proposing is legally problematic. it could be addressed on. practically with the rules of apprenticeship and all that could be followed and i don't see that the sanction is a problem. i'd like to have the language repeated >> maybe something for mr. tom here. >> i'm trying to clarify the proposal. you're saying then that if a subcontractor since our talking about by trades is unable to meet the 25 percent target they could demonstrate or use the term off-ramp waiver if they can demonstrate they have hired a san francisco resident in any of their jobs and that they have to work it through the academy; right? >> so to clarify the off-ramp to work on another 9977 job is a separate sanction that i'm proposing the amendment too arrest to the number one if they can demonstrate their hiring san francisco residents at another job that is not a sf project but they're working in admission bay a that's an off-ramp. the second amendment i've proposed is bullet point number two would then state you can get writing confirmation there wasn't enough san francisco residents to work the project but you could get the waiver only having after you are willing to take on an apprentices on that job >> on a district job or non-district job. >> a district job. >> again, if i apply this to all 25 or thirty traits this means adding workings to every trade? >> so it is the intention to add workers to every trade. it's the intention to have more appends working jobs on site jobs getting apprentices hours so if you can't hire an san francisco job but you hired someone from our apprenticeship program as an apprentice on your job that's an off-ramp for them >> but if they hire that person haven't they filled the quota. >> well, there's a local participation rate and there's a local resident apprentice participation rate so they would be taking on the apprentice but they wouldn't be meeting the local hiring richlt. don't that make sense? >> you did mention he early on in our suggestion that this principle this off-ramp principle would apply to non-sf jobs so a contractor or spashth didn't hire a resident but. >> i'm suggesting that the first off-ramp is that you can hire another san francisco resident on another job a and non-job could be in oakland. i understand that >> the second sanction that allows you to get the waiver you can get the waiver because there's not enough people to work the job as a local requirement but that can be waved only after you demonstrate that you're willing to have an apprentice on your current job with us. >> that makes it so you would you're making the subcontractor to to hire workers they don't need. >> or in substitution of its - an apprentice is a learning opportunity and it's not a local resident labor participation. it is - i guess i'm proposing is that they would over an apprenticeship to someone from city billed or one of our graduates and a instead of fulfilling the hiring requirement >> i'd like to study the proposal i can't give you an adequate response to that. >> i have a question for commissioner and a statement. the question about the amendment to the recommendation for now and then cinnamons. isn't it true they have to sponsor two internships. i don't understand the language. so for clarification in the sanction it says that the contractor is able to provide written confirm but despite a concerted for the local residents were not available at the time. we're saying in order to get the waiver you must comply with the preapprenticeship program or city build >> so mime statement is that we had a lot of discussion about the body of the proposal before us. so i'm not comfortable making a decision on new language together. we heard from the community there was a lot of work done and i'm not sure i medical grasp the prelimss of some of the new language. i want to say this has been a good process. we've heard a lot of from the community and staff has put in many, many hours. we have a budget analysis for this proposal. my inclines is to support the proposal as it is now and, of course, we're going to go down landmark path and we can't anticipate every single implementation of what we're doing so there's 0 going to be adjustments a year from now. i'd like to look a year from now where we're at. but i'm comfortable to work with it is 7 trades. i want to revisit it in a year from now. i'd hate to see that postponed. i think we're prepared to take action tonight and i'm prepared to do that >> commissioner. >> thank you president norton. i'll continue. >> okay. >> so i guess that we're and he appreciate our honest and candor mr. tom. just about what you're trying to grapple with. i also get as conspires has said and let us know here that our ultimate goal is to get a comprehensive policy passed by the board of education we can work with. i'm talking to the audience as well. as we have at least in my times on the board there's been many firs so far as policy changes that address what are huge arguments and discrepancies on how we work with our clients and their families but also the larger san francisco community who inherently work with us. i believe that our community members who have participated along with us in the process want that to happen. so for that particular item although i want it to be trades and not a number factor. i think there's things i'm unsure show you to get there. we need to have some justification >> i think that's all a bunch of folks to figure out that out. i don't want to wait a year. i don't think we - i just don't believe we need a whole year to understand what we're grappling with. i think part of the capacity building on our end is to find staff support. part of the capacity building on the krashth s if they want to participate in our funding stream a they'll find the capacity to do that or i think we can make this happen if we're on it all the time. we want to make as minimal tweaks as possible to move forward. my only other comments and i hope our student speths may speak to this is regarding our internship program. i see someone put i don't want the blanket benefits that were so those of - i made some notifications. but the trades we want to encompass those as many as possible and put the responsibility on the staff department and also giving the contracts an opportunity if you want to participate with us you're going to have to do that. there's a reason we have it so if you want to step with us in the process those are things that have to happen. folks want to be a part of our progress. if they say they're not their modern i believe, you know, willing to tell you it's come. i wanted to explore a little bit were what we're asking contractors to do is contribute to the cost of the internship program. isn't that correct >> because so that's clearly different but in addition to that i just think we need to pay attention to the way construction projects are actually organized. so i couldn't support any sanction that says an apprenticeship is a paid employee of the contractor on that job and by the way, requires there to be journey mann men with them. there are not apprentices on the job by themselves. somewhat depending upon where they're in their training and skills. but mr. tom said we - i don't see how we can pit sanctions on the jobs to keep employees on your jobs and that might include jobs. we want to find a difference. we expect contracts to hire apprenticess and keeping them beyond the time they need them >> i release appreciate the internship part especially for kids after graduation. i was wondering as part of those internships will they be paid are is it just for experience and a i'm not really the person you have to direct the question to i have no control over the apprenticeship program >> so commissioner i can address that. historically they pay the auto mechanics and the bio techs there's a rate it's fixed by our academic group and there's the ones who pit together the plan and administer it. we'll fold it into our construction effort but i think historically all interims receive payment. i wanted to know a speaker said that there were only 3 jobs on the 2011 bond on the revenue bond how many are under one million >> there are a variety of projects commissioner. there are the designated modernization project of which probably roughly 85 percent of that work would have been sort of over the $2 million category. most of our projects are larger. there are also a bunch of projects after a project is finished we call those go back projects. they're not always spelgd and they have to don't with the roofs and windows put in. generally most of how projects are larger there are about 8 to lifting projects of the total range that are somewhere between $2 million. and those abilities aren't defined yet. our goal is not to manipulate budgets but to find out what we need to do with the projects and attack the problem. there's not just two projects. the goal would be to try to have a kufrn of work we can equaling distribute to union and non-union and make it work for everybody >> so it isn't true there are only 4 jobs under one millions? thanks >> i wanted to follow up upon an idea of veteran owned. there's something that is tracked and deported can we make it a priority as well >> i don't expect under federal law there is disabled veterans it's one of the classes we must reach attest to legally and we do on every job. but certainly i you don't have no problem with interest that - >> the state percent is 3 percent. >> i would suggest that we take i guess and at responsibility and we make that at 10 percent and we do the category veterans and not just disabled veterans but all veterans and we make our goal i am not a very modest goal and we state in our policy of 10 percent. >> are you making a formal amendment. >> so a i'd like to make a formal amendment. since there's a lot of confusion about the amendment i've proposed we can add later. i thought this amendment would assist the krakts and opening up apprenticeship for our students. i am limping willing to tell look at this at another date since i know i did bring this late to the board. but since we didn't hear opposition from our trade council that i'm in agreement that we should do it by trade and not just the 7 trade >> what was that an amendment? >> those were two different things. >> i realize those are two different things i think the commissioner made the amendment and not me. >> so far as i'm concerned no one has made any amendments. >> it's my intentions i make the amendment not by trades but keep it at 7. >> trades not only saying only 7 make it by trades. >> then it's my amendment to add the 10 percent. >> let's do one amendment at that time. we're going amendment section a to strike for the 7 trades; is that correct. your proposing to strike the word for the 7 trades in both roman numeral one and two >> my position is to have the biggest impact would be to focus on the 7 trades. i don't think we know enough about the remaining 23 trades so i'm not going to support the amendment >> well, i want to make a motion to divide this amendment. i'm responsive active of taking out by trades but not the numerat numeratortion of the amendment >> as i said in this would impact greatly. there's two people on the job and they're not going to meet the 25 percent >> there were many commissioner many trades on each of our jobs that may fall in this category. i mean this isn't for the most part we're doing moderation jobs. you know, we expect folks out on the job for a reasonable time. somebody may show up and tile one bathroom for two days the shower guy may come out for two days. those are for so many of those trades it's difficult. the other problem is administratively we're looking at in part because at law is going to make us prequalify electrical plumbing for sibling krashths next year. but if we look at 20 trades or 25 trades the amount of time because a staggering administrative chore. we want to get the kids back in the classrooms. i'm totally willing to come back and have this discussion in a year and see how we're doing. if it looks like it's working fine i'll expand it for 10 or 12 but we put in a considerable effort to respond as a committee as a whole we met with the superintendent to put it through. right now we feel comfortable here and we want a chance to try it out >> you made a comment that 4 percent or more to the 7 trades represent 4 percent or more on the job. >> they account for 70 to 75 percent of the total hours we have in our database. >> so the other smaller trades are not listed as below 4 percent on the jobs. >> yes. >> okay. any other comments from the board? >> okay. i'm going to call for roll call. >> on the amendment we're striving roman numeral one and two 7 for the trades; is that correct? disabled veterans. >> it's where the percentages are you're looking at it right under where minority workers and women workers we have put veteran workers as stated goals. >> we can if you like to add it to veteran owned businesses is that your suggestion. >> yeah. and a okay. well my amendment is veteran workers so if you want to add an amendment after we vote le