okay. stumbling blocks are -- one of them would be we submit clean data to them and it blows up because their system cannot accepted in the ways that they said they could accept it. that would be a stumbling block and maybe a change order. we would negotiate that away because we are not paying. i do not have a way of knowing that answer. it is a fixed-price contract, which says that we are getting this product, this is what you are going to do, and that is what we are going to pay you. commissioner hechanova: how long will there be a test period before it goes live?

>> i will have to get back to you on that. i do not have the rfp with me. >> excuse me, commissioners. it is 60 days. two months of production that would run parallel with our old system and new system to compare the figures, to make sure they are coming out correctly, reports are being duplicated correctly. it actually takes two months of data to do that, rather than one month. you used two months of data to do that. we will be running parallel in staff, in house, testing it before we go live, for two months prior to that, and then we will go into a three-month post testing to make sure that it does not crash after we go live. we have them on board for actually five months of testing.

two before, three after. that is common practice. these are big installations. you also have to realize we are not just creating our database and moving it over. we are taking public works, all of planning, fire, puc, department of health, other divisions data that will be incorporated. we have been working behind the scenes all this time scrubbing the data from the different departments. that part of the conversion process may not take as long as normal because we are doing a lot of this behind the scenes now, knowing it has to be done. what has also been brought into the mix is we now have a city standard add dressing database, also provided by the department of technology. all of the department's can now go in -- there is a standard

format for street names, such asixsuffixes. different departments have different suffixes in their database. this is part of what we're doing now behind the scenes. the conversion, where it might normally take six months to one year, might be shorter here. we are hoping for that. all of the departments have programmers working behind the scenes on this. and they meet around the master address database. everything is kind of happening concurrently, which will lessen the actual project time for us. a lot of things happening that are in the contract that we asked for help on that is already being created behind the scenes by the city, city-wide. we do not have to do it ourselves. that will also lessen the

contract price. commissioner hechanova: one more question. is there going to be a connection between the caps program and the seismic safety component, that any new building or application of these buildings, relative to its geographic location? there are certain areas that are more vulnerable due to geographic and geological characteristics. >> we will have something that will show you which seismic zone -- in the city -- how vulnerable your building is. we can download all of this information into screens and have that information come up on any property, and have it available for anyone. right now, the system is not that robust to do it.

commissioner walker: are we able to search? in a seismic event, we would need to be able to look at data searches. >> once you have something inputed into a field, we want to make everything searchable. you can create either a custom report or not. we are asking to have a report rider in the system that is user-friendly that allows anyone to create their own report. commissioner murphy: pam, you spoke about the technology committee. are they made up of city employees?

private, outside consultants? >> for the evaluation, all city employees. commissioner murphy: i agree with commissioner mar. i think we definitely need some bids and deadlines. maybe we need to bring someone in from the outside to carry the ball here. the ball has been pummeled so many times, i am afraid it is going to be fumbled again. i will be in the back five years from now, looking at another commission, still talking about this online tracking. it worries me. i have heard nobody come in here and really convince me that

they have an understanding, the complete picture of this online system. i have heard people come in from the public, the private sector, who work in this business, and they talk about implementation in three, four months. i am pulling my hair out here. i am not giving you a hard time here, pam. you are delivering the message and i do not need to take my frustration out on you at all. but it is -- is it possible to have a so-called expert, and give us an evaluation? we had a similar -- if we had a similar situation with caps, i think the commissioners would agree. toward the end of last year, we

voted not to extend their contract. we got that finished in 30 days. there has to be someone here to motivate and run with this thing, and i do not see that happening. i just do not see it. that is my concern. commissioner? public comment? >> good morning, commissioners. i am not saying that the current system that you have -- dbi tracking is quite good. it is really about the other departments. i think what we should do is get

these other departments involved. why should we be running this whole show and not have anyone else in the picture? they have to be in the picture. let's get this all together, and that way we will be able to speed this up. as far as dbi is concerned, i am quite happy with the tracking, but it is the other departments getting them tied to the network. get the other departments to be involved in this, and that way, maybe we will be able to speed this up. commissioner murphy: thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 3d. update on other activities. >> i would like to introduce a family morrison. she comes to us from dhr < now

our manager of personnel and payroll. emily, if you would like to come up and say a few words. commissioner murphy: nice to get to know you, emily. >> good morning, commissioners. i am quite honored to have this assignment. i am excited to take on some of their projects and to actually oversee their personal issues come and get the department moving in a positive direction, and be as much help as i can. commissioner murphy: we appreciate it. welcome. >> in your package under item threed, we have included our requisition tracking list. we gave this to the commission is for the first time. this shows the date we put the requisition and, where it is going through the department,

and eventually, if the commissioners would like, we could do a flow chart on how the requisition process works in the city. it is quite involved, like the contract administration. as you can see, we have been unable to fill several positions, due to the fact that there are no current lists that exist. a lot of the employees we are bringing back are coming back in temporary positions or limited duration positions, until these lists can be created by dhr. we have several of our requisitioned that are being treated as we talk about. the mechanical engineer list just came out two weeks ago. we are waiting for the referrals to come from dhr on that. we will be able to fill our full-time mechanical engineer list. that is one good thing that will happen in the next couple of weeks. commissioner walker: can you remind us were hiring?

>> we have one on board, a temporary position. we have another requisition out for a full-time employee. and we are trying to get another full-time employee. commissioner walker: thank you. >> if you have any questions on the requisition list, family can probably answer them for you. -- emily can probably answer them for you. commissioner murphy: we have adequate cash years now on the fifth floor? >> i am told we do have enough on the floor. we just moved two people up there. that was the result of being able to fill some of the limited duration position from within the department. as we do that, we will be bringing in people to fill in the position vacated from the holdover list, hopefully. that is all in progress. that is on the last page where we requested those requisitions

to backfill positions. >> and as requisitions are pending approval by the mayors of the anddhr. once approved, we can move forward with filling those vacancies. commissioner murphy: which might not happen? >> given the process, it does take longer. you just have to persevere through that process. commissioner murphy: [no audio] there may be a budget shortfall. requisitions are not quite frozen [no audio] >> freezing or semi-frozen requisition approval process.

commissioner walker: even though we are an enterprise department, probably the only department that covers its own costs -- it is a city-wide policy. as you can say with all of these charts, it takes a long time. >> so the commission knows, we have 40 vacancies, a full-time position. our attrition rate is between 25 and 26. as you can see from the list, we have much more on the list. this also includes some positions that were approved in the budget that we could not hire until march. that is part of our reasons. they will show up in the organizational chart in the next outcropping of that organization chart. commissioner hechanova: what is the general approach when you are coming to the end of the fiscal year, you need somebody

and that is not in the budget? do you just shortfall on the staff side and wait to roll them into next year? trying to find out what the general approach would be. >> typically, toward the next month or two, they will put on a hard freeze, and we will not be able to hire anyone until next year. if it gets down to the end of the year -- we have hired people at the end of june. it is possible to be able to bring people on, but as long as they are budgeted. unless it is in the aso, we cannot hire. does that answer your question? commissioner hechanova: i guess. there are such a large number of positions to be filled.

how do you accommodate that and the projected budget category? >> in terms of savings and our budget projections? i think in the next month's report, we are going to look really carefully at what we have, in terms of filled positions, but classification they are in. we get reports from the comptroller's office. we can do a little more of a technical production on how much we will save. we have had a great deal of luck getting positions filled because they are getting through the mayor's office. i need to show that we have sufficient funding in order to do that. as commissioner romero said, it will be tight. the committee and mayor's office has not met for two weeks.

i do not know if they are meeting this week. if we had savings and personnel, because we had not hired the people, it goes into our fund balance. then we have our budget for next year, unless we go to the board and ask for additional authority. commissioner romero: is it not possible [no audio] >> anything is possible. the board's budget analyst, which is now in another legislative analyst's office, always looks at their process and how many requisitions you have that are vacant, how many have been vacant for a year. we have to justify why we have not been able to hire. the testing issues will be easy to justify.

the delays in the mayor's office. we have enough justification to say that we have been trying to fill positions. there is a danger that that could occur. >> i would be very worried about all of this hiring. i do not think that we are out of the doldrums at all. the private sector, especially the construction business, it has been out there for the last three years, burning gas and rubber and not making any money. just because we got some big checks from downtown, let's not go crazy here. i would hate to bring back a lot of people and then have to lay

them off. >> we have been talking for the last meetings about not being able to respond to the public's needs. the department, rightly so, business levels are going up around building and we are responding. this is kind of a mixed message. we asked to have the department get ready for what looks like the economy improving a bit. and that has. and we are responding. i am confused as to the mixed message. >> i did not mean to confuse you. all that you have ever heard me ask for here is an extra cash years on the fifth floor. but a couple of cases i asked for a mechanical engineer. i have not asked for anything

else. look at the minutes. any further questions, commissioners? seeing no one. public comments? seeing no one. >> we can move on to item number four. public comment. the building inspection commission will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> any public comments? seeing no one. sorry. >> my name is [unintelligible] and i have lived in the city and county of santa francisco for 30 years. i have been a building inspector for a long time, but i am here as a citizen to ask two questions. i would like to start by asking

-- how many directives as the director actually issued,, initial, and be responsible for? i think she may be neglecting that portion of her duties. i have a copy of prop g from 17 or 18 years ago. "the director shall have the power to implement or remove assistant superintendents or deputy directors serviceable under the provisions of the charter. -- charter." the teams we have gotten further out. i am confused as to how we now have three deputies. i would like to suggest that the person occupying the most recent position, the third deputy position, is occupying

that illegally. i think that she should be for it to her salary. those are my two questions. i have an inquiry about a number of written directives. i m at a loss as to how to explain how we got a deputy director. i see that my issue is timely, given the proposed legislation for a fourth deputy director. i would like to remind the commission that the citizens voted against these deputy directors. thank you. >> any further public comments? seeing no one. >> item #5, report, discussion and possible action to approve the proposed budget of the department of building

inspection for the fiscal year 2011-2012. this is a continued item. if any of the commissioners need a copy, i have extra right here. >> pamela lavan, deputy director. we provided additional information on february 24 responding to the questions you had on the budget that you submitted to the commission secretary. so, if you have any questions, you can address them to meet. i am not giving a presentation on this. >> commissioner? >> i did not have any from the last time. >> i had plenty of questions,

and i am not sure that they were all answered, but that is where it is. >> we have no further commissioners? >> i will wait until after public comment. >> any public comment? >> si no one. >> ok. commissioner? >> i would move to approve the budget. >> we have a motion to approve and a second to approve the budget. we need five votes for the budget to go forward. president murphy? >> no. >> vice-president? >> no. >> commissioner clinton? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mar?

>> yes. >> commissioner romero? >> yes. >> commissioner walker. >> yes. >> the motion carries. we can move on to item number six, election of bic president and vice-president. >> i would like to say a few words before the nomination, if i may. for the last 15 years it has become increasingly difficult to do business here in san francisco. many people have moved out of state, to different parts of the state. because of reasons like they cannot get their children into public school and cannot afford private school. it has been difficult. personally, by have been doing business here for 35 years.

san francisco has been very good to me. i love this city and have been delighted to give my time to help the department through what i would call the worst recession since 78. especially in modern times. i was honored, commissioners, to serve as your president for the last two years. i really mean that. when i was asked to become commissioner by the mayor, six years ago, i knew that the department was dysfunctional at the time. one of my objections and most of the commission at that time was

getting the ddi. i happen to like that name. i wanted to get the cost to permit plan review inspection services in line. there are still difficulties in this process. we set about finding a new director. we hired someone with very ambitious plans. because the skills it reached out, we touch every department. every neighborhood, every homeowner and the tenant. at that time there were 10,000

inspections per month and at least 600 complaints. he brought in a modern management way of doing business. he made changes. and he upset a lot of people. he also saw the writing on the wall. dbi was running out of money and he left for another opportunity. he did pave the way, somewhat, and as easton bowed out we had to reduce our budget and downsize staff considerably. civil service requirements on how to left staff go meant that we lost a lot of people. we survived those challenges.

now there is a building commission. the over-the-counter permit process has moved to the sub for and is making a big difference. there are still some improvements to be made. but we are determined to have it working as a well oiled machine. people that i would like to mention for help in that process worked -- [lists names] some other highlights, with the help of commissioner walker we have the vacant and abandoned buildings taken care of. an attempt to clean up those buildings in our neighborhoods.