project. the community at large will be watching closely. commisioner wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> walk san francisco. we have a number of important product before us. cesar chavez improvement project. that is something the committee has been looking forward to, as well as the haight and market street project, second street, again, something that the community had been looking to see implemented for a number of years. this is not about picking one product over another. however, i do think there is a contract, if you will, between public agencies and the public. when the public is promised something, such as pedestrian safety, walk ability improvements, that those improvements are made.

i want to emphasize it is important. we realize we are where we are. this transfer has to be made, but it is important that the city deliver for the residents along the second street corridor and the ring conde, south beach, mission bay, down town neighborhoods. commisioner wiener: thank you. are there any other additional public comment jurors? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there any final discussion around item 2? seeing none -- supervisor kim. commissioner kim: i appreciate the efforts of everyone has made to come together on the second street corridor. still unsure how this happened,

the communication breakdown. i have long been concerned about pedestrian safety management, especially under multiple developments -- departments. i hope we can work better to make these products move forward. i appreciate the earnestness of many individuals committed to this project on the work they have done. i understand the delays. we cannot expect everything, the community to love all our work, but our office is happy to engage on those issues. we will probably doing more regular check-ins on a variety of these projects. i did have an opportunity -- it is hard to be angry on and a such as today. we had an important victory over the decision over proposition 8. i just want to congratulate our city and community over that. i am looking forward to the reprogramming of these funds. cesar chavez and the markets/ haight street transfer is

important, and happy to move this forward. commisioner wiener: see no other names on the roster, please call role. -- roll. >> [roll call] the item passes. commisioner wiener: my apologies. i did not ask for a second. could we move without objection, rescind that boat? without objection. -- vote? commissioner kim has made a motion. , 2nd by david chiu. please call the roll. -- second by david chiu.

>> [roll call] commisioner wiener: the item passes. -- >> the item passes. commisioner wiener: introduction of new items. are there any items? is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. item four, general public comment. anything within the jurisdiction of the transportation authority. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. are there any other items on the agenda? we are concerneadjourned. we are concerneadjourned.

[horns honking] announcer: the first step to getting into college is finding someone who can help. for the next steps, go to knowhow2.org.

president hechanova: good morning. today is thursday, february 2, 2012. this is a special meeting of the building inspection committee. the first item on the agenda is roll call. commissioner clinch? >> here. commissioner lee? commissioner lee: here. we have a quorum. and i would also like to introduce jackie hoverubbard, an

assistant that will help with the commission. the next item is item number two, report discussion and possible action to approve the department of inspection commission budget for 2012-2013 and proposed draft budget for 2013-2014. >> good morning. pamela levin, department of building inspection. this is our second meeting on the budget for 2012-2 thir12013. we have responded to the issues you have brought up. i first want to tell you where we are in the budget process it's self and what the key dates are. we have to submit the budget to the mayor's office on february

21. this is a charter-driven date, and there is no leeway. any changes we make on the budget really need to have been prior to the time we submit them to the mayor's office. the reason is it makes it easier for us to make those changes, because after it gets to the mayor's office, it is their budget, and we have to negotiate any changes. our budget is considered by the board of supervisors on june thfirst. between february and june, there is negotiations with the mayor's office. negotiations with the unions for the open contracts, which will affect our budget. there will be changes that would be made for work orders based on what the department has

submitted in the budget. we have not gotten most of our large work orders in the agreement on what the numbers are. we still have the estimates in their, which i feel confident that we have sufficient money to cover what changes might be made. probably in the meantime from the time the budget is submitted to the comptroller's office and mayor's office and the mayor proposing his budget, there is public meetings, neighborhood meetings, various budget meetings to get feedback with the community, and so that process occurs. of course once we get to the board of supervisors, we go to the budget analyst making recommendations, going to the board of supervisors in negotiating the budget, which will all happen at the end of

june. the budget will be approved by the board of supervisors in july in between -- the month of july we are on a steady budget, which is the budget we're on right now. that gives you an overview of the deadline. during the timeframe that we have been the last meeting in this meeting we met with central shops, under the city administrator's office. we met with the department of environment to make sure we fill the city's climate plan, which essentially says all department s will switch vehicles over the

next amount of years. the meeting was very successful. they did think it was a great idea that we replaced 10 vehicles per year. they gave us the list of approved vehicles, and at this point our plan is to go with prius's and rangers. >> [inaudible] >> chevy colorados. smart cards are not on the approved list of vehicles. in terms of long-term projects that we have been discussing in the budget arena, we will be implementing kinematiq-matics bn this time and march 5. we will be working on this federal of training, public our

reach, it should. we're going to go back and review what we had done iprior o the november timeframe and implement it. we have gotten a consensus of the various unions that were concerned about the system. the other issues are all listed in the memo, so i would be glad to answer any questions on the door in the that you have on the budget. >> what is the date it has to be submitted to the mayor? >> february 21. there are standard i its forms and information live to submit, so it does take a little while to do everything. -- there are standardized forms

and information to cement. -- submit. >> commissioners, questions? >> i am looking at the our reached schedules. if we are as the city to act on of mandatory seismic strengthening program, might we amend that? are there additional funds that might be available to do that is what i am hoping for? i know there are plans to have a mandatory program has some point this year. >> good morning, commissioners. director of d.b.i. the funds for the mandatory seismic retrofits will be through the city administrator's office, because the permits are

paying for the services of dbi, and since we are an enterprise fund, we cannot loan those monies out from the enterprise fund. the mayor's office is looking for other funding sources, maybe through the assessor's office or something to tax credit on the bill or something. >> bank you. is that specifically where our funding is to be spent within the department? -- thank you. >> yes, that is the first priority to spend it within the department. for your information since last month we have only gathered $80,000. we are actually supplementing our disaster coordination unit with d.bi.i. funds. construction is picking up, and we do not know what the next six months will bring.

so we're not getting it again. >> the quarter of a million for training, and that seems low. now that we have a new code. is that sufficient, 245,000? it seems very low to me. >> the travel and training budget is 324,000. basically what we did was we had everyone request all of the things they felt they needed. the issue on training really is being able to have a whether you have it on site or on site is

making sure you have available time to be able to have the people go to that. to the extent that this is low, i think everyone would like to be able to send more people to training, but the realities of being able to free people up from the current job to do that makes it such that we have to look carefully at what people want. i am sure the director has -- >> we have a proposal on my desk right now to train 40 people in the caps program for actually being the inspectors we need. that is coming out of this year's budget. this might seem low, but we still have money in this year's budget to do more training.

so what this is is split up between two years of training come and hopefully it will be sufficient to train everyone in what we want. it is not everything that everyone wanted, but it is close to being realistic. the>> the current year we had of plumbing trainer brought in. in terms of electrical, we got together with puc and did other departments involved, and they brought someone in to do training, and we took some of those training slots. what we're trying to do is look at bringing people here and making sure it is targeted to what exactly we need to know. you are right, it is -- there is an incremental difference. it is usually a more cost- effective to have them come in house. >> the a good thing is we're

talking about bringing q-matics back on. are the employees trained sufficiently to bring that back on? >> that is what we wanted to take a month to go back and retrain people. go back and retrain them and make sure that when we come around to march 5 that they are ready to go. so we do know that having a delay does put the skills behind the back of your head rather than in front. what we're trying to do is make sure they are ready. >> it sounds like the funds are there to implement the program, but are they there for the training? >> yes. the training comes from within. the people that have worked with the vendor for a couple of years

have developed a training program and do it ourselves. if there is any questions, of course we can bring in the vendor -- have they dopresident hechanova have they done anything regarding the stakeholders that come in and speak a different language like chinese, spanish? i see a lot of possible confusion. and have the address that at all? -- have they addressed that at all? >> we have people that speak burial -- various types of language that it bilingual pay. we have people available for bvarious languages.

as much as possible. we will look at, and make sure there is siphonage and stuff and other languages. w-- signage and stuff in other languages. president hechanova: good luck with that. that was originally designed to work on one floor. now we're talking about four or five floores. >> we're only doing it on the fifth floor and sixth floor. president hechanova: another question regarding -- i would like the public to understand. the city grants program is that

1.7 million. can you give us insight on where that goes? >> sure. i have a slide that i wanted to show that gave the distribution of the funding. give you a background on how we got to where we are. we could put out an r.s.p. at the end of the fiscal year, and because all of the contracts were up on did your first. in that we equalize of the services between entities, so that means the unit of service

and what would be done would be equalized so people came back and requested more money to do this service. president hechanova: what i am really getting at is who are these people and services? >> if you could put that up. i know it is hard to see. for the code enforcement are reach programs, we have just cause. chinatown cdc, tenderloin. san francisco department association and housing rights. that comes to form grid $16,000. and--- that comes to $416,000. dolares street is mission

neighborhood center. in they do the same thing as all the other collaborative, which is work in the s.r.o's that are there to try to work with the issues that affect us. so it is housing issues. >> they also, if i may, they have major our reach to the swedish-speaking communities where i think most of our our reach is really trying to take organizations that are ready to are reached in these communities that are not english-speaking. >> i understand that, but i was asking so the public would know where the money is going. she is doing a good job of explaining coverage as give her time purit, just give her some .

>> when we put the r.f.p. out what was required is you could provide the service, that you were able to link up with the community in that competent way, which means in the same language, understanding the various aspects of the group of people you were working in, that they would meet the units of service that they had to provide. that they're predominantly lived in the community and understood what was in the area. the languages that we have was spanish, cantonese, vietnamese -- what was the other? korean. so we put out a specific --

there is some russian. so we put that out and said can you provide the services and meet the criteria? the people that came back, the areas that came back were dolores and chinatown families. that totaled 1.7 million. the reason that is in the design item is because the comptroller's office and the mayor's office to a cross- department look at these types of funding to the community. so it stands out like that, but that is what it is. >> who approves these contracts? >> the city attorney approves it and the mayor's office.

the three signatures are the dbi, contractor, executive director, whoever can obligate the department -- their entity in the city attorney's office. >> is there any role the commission can play in that in reviewing the contracts? >> no. maybe in the future? this might help solve the problem of educating the commission on what they do. >> this would be one of the administrative functions of the department where the commission does not have any sort of direct control under the charter. and you do through the budgeting process and through -- you can hold hearings and asked the staff about the status of

things, but this is administrative day-to-day decision making of the department. and the scope of service tht was established in rfp has been tightened up from what it was before. we have worked very closely to make sure on the programmatic side that it matched criteria that was being looked at. we cannot ask of the actual entities to do more work than the scope of work states. scope of work -- we said we would work with seniors, low income, and families coming and if an entity volunteers, we cannot provide more money or

change the scope of service without an amendment to the contracts. and the programmatic issues are looked at by the housing area, and they do audits and questionnaires and talk to the communities so that we make sure what is being said is being provided is actually being provided. an>> is there a reporting mechanism that shows the level of success rate based on what they proposed they were going to do, and is that on part of the rfp? >> in the rfp required there be a reporting mechanism that would say how they met the levels of service. that can be evaluated in numbers