to get noticed every week now? >> they do happen you are talking about a process you informed, these costs, the department heads they make judgments and the benefit of the city and the people they serve. so we have to once we let you know, we're willing to review what types of costs we're looking at or what emergencies we're faced with at that time. >> thank you. >> supervisor breed? >> thank you supervise christensen brings up a good point, again my goal is not to get in the way of the ability of any department to address an emergency, but you more importantly to make sure that the board is properly notified especially when we're at a point we know for certain, over 250,000 is going to be spent, we

should be properly notified, we're aware what is going on so we can poerptly inquire and deal with it proply, with that mr. gibner, do you think the language i'm proposing to address that particular issue? because the point is -- iffage emergency happens you don't know at the time of the emergency what it might cost but in some instances for example, with the firehouse we know that is definitely know that is over $250,000 i don't know if it's appropriate to suggest how would you you immediately know? i don't know. what do you think the appropriate language is in order to address this issue when it is that particular threshold? and how would you even though when it will be? some cases you know right awap, some cases you don't

as director nuru indicated. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. as to what the best policy answer is i don't think i'm in a position to say the proposal you are making to amendment ordinance would -- actually, the ordinance that is before you you would require to notify the board when the emergency happens, however much the amount is the department heads, and the board members can work together to figure out a way to talk through the likelihood something is going to be over 250. the ordinance requires -- or the proposed amendments require that the department submit a resolution to the board to approve the work within 60 days, that's not -- that's the outer limit so if there is work that is done, and it's clearly going to cost

millions of dollars, the department head can submit a resolution. the next week. and it could move through the board process quickly that is really something that i think the board could impress pom department heads is important to you. >> just for clarity, the other thing is i don't know if it's more appropriate po put in the language, if there is a clear expectation that this emergency could potentially be over the thresholds that's when we want to be notified. i don't want to be notified if it's below the threshold is that better to insert into the language if there say reasonable expectation that the amount will exceed or a reasonable chance it will exceed is that better language

to make sense for the threshold? >> it's a policy call for you. the current proposal has the benefit of providing a bright line, there is a lot of discretionary -- choices about what constitutes an emergency, whether there is something to put out there to bid what you are proposing is adding another level, does it feel like it's going to go over 250, by the calculation the amendment proposed by the budget analyst. to tell the department clerk every time. there say benefit to that too. it's a choice the board can make. >> okay and the last question to director nuru, you said emergencies happen 5-10 times a

year, how many emergencies happen under the threshold annually? >> several. >> there's a lot. >> lots of elevators, lots of stuff at the hall of justice we have lots of emergencies every day people never see. >> okay, so i'm not certain i want to go that route. i'm going to withdraw [laughter]. but i will add under section 6.0 i will add that the immediate notice to the board of supervisors so not just the president, i would prefer that under section 6.60 b that notice to the board of supervisors striking the president of the

board. then i would be fine with that. >> i think we're in agreement with that. >> supervisor? >> i think that satisfies my question. >> okay. thank you. i will save my comments for later, any public comments at this point? come on up. >> thank you supervisor my name is miguel galarzo, the chair of the lcbe sub committee, i want to thank everyone in this room, i have worked with over the last few months, i want to bring this up not only to the contractor community. we have had numerous meetings, here, in the conference room but the lbe, community they have taken the

time for the lbe, change, that it will not effect small businesses, increasing opportunities for lbe's and micro lbe's, i want to thank them for their work, and approval of their ordinance. and the sex hundred thousand dollar threshold that say key for growing a small scale business to allow them to grow into useful tools for the city to use in the future. >> thank you any other public comments? no other comments it is now closed. >> i want to make the comment, now that we have gotten out of the weeds, i'm excited about this having dealt with city contracting, and it's implication, thank you you all for this, it's going to make our lives betters i'm excited about

the mlu's the furniture equipment in base contracts, i know libraries digital bid notices what a concept why didn't somebody think of that sooner? so i'm thinking that will help our outreach we hold our breath hoping we get an adequate number of bidders on a process. gentlemens, the timely notice of emergency is a good idea even the threshold which initially gave me pause, i realize the cost of construction these days is going to make things a lot easier. a couple of things i wanted to notice here in the hopes they're still on somebody's mind i didn't see contractor performance evaluation registerses as part of that i think it's great we're encouraging more and

better bidders i have had experiences with serial poor performers caused costly delays ate up department staff time, weeding out those folks, would be another good thing a cost saving measure. is that on the scope any where? >> yes, supervisor. contracting eval indication eval weighsuation eval eval evaluation is the next phase. >> it won't be 2030, right? >> no. we're looking at other cities los angeles, philadelphia -- what penalties we will be able to use. who should be allowed to continue

work or if somebody doesn't do the work, there is quite a bit of work but we will start it, and bring you recommendations, as we take this to the next level. >> i thought even a merit system responding to rfp's. >> that is part of it when they're on-site and completion of a job, and how things are awarded. >> we do have best practices, i think in other cities for that. >> they are, but they have to work for san francisco. >> the other thing is it seems, for example with the pneumatic tube situation in general the difficulties are caused at the point which rfp is crafted, is there any way to put oversight or guidelines, in the establishment of contractor with

rfp criteria with system incompatibilities for examples? >> we are also working with the client department and new techologies things that will make more more efficient with whatever the project is. so we have to evaluate that. and sometimes, when we invest in some of these new techologies we have to start changing for new projects but we do look at what the trends are, and what is best for the city in those cases. >> it's more administrate i you used the for example of a sprinkler head to the facility, the rfp, would say, must be compatible with the system. are there ways to tighten up our criteria for contracts or for rfp's, so we sort of do a double

check for those kinds of issues? so we make sure we're asking the right question or specifying the right project? >> can i take a crack at this? i thought what i heard with the sole sourcing piece we will get to your issue. >> only if it's in the contract in the first place. >> that's right. >> yeah. so this may be a rhetorical question in the end, but it seemses like what is it einstein's quote the first step in the solution of the problem, is the definition of the question. so asking for the right things, when we continue tract seems like a good way to get what we want right? >> those rfp's, are thoroughly vetted. >> so it's an anomaly. >> and the staff work hard to make sure before the contract goes out. >> we're in safe hands thank you you.

>> there is several policy decisions and each one of them i would have questions about. and concerned but i'm willing to move it forward. however, one of the things i would like to see is the performance evaluation piece i guess have been working on it a while and hopefully, will be ready soon. i would like if it's possible to put language in there we will have an evaluation process set up within a year of passing this legislation here. is that something that you you can live with? >> that is great news for us. it's something i think the city is in dire need of. lit -- it

will be a process with the contractor dialogue, they will have to be involved, in support of whatever system is being proposed having language in it is very much appreciated. >> deputy city attorney? is it possible to add that language in there to say that they will be a performance evaluation implemented for these contractors. >> we're actually already in the process, there say legislative request to draft the new program. our office is working with the group with the department group to come up with how the department's may actually implement the new program. but it is already requested, we just don't have

any drafted legislation yet. >> it's requested. but is it time? certain? >> no, it's not. >> that's what i'm asking for, is time certain. >> supervisor i recommend we report to you at intervals, how we're moving forward with that process of creating an evaluation system. >> that doesn't do much for me, in terms of reporting this for three years. >> no you you can do six monthses you can ask for every six months we would like an update on where we are. >> yeah, i'm not asking for -- i guess the question i have we have been working on it, it seems like you are pretty set to complete it and i'm saying within a year, is that reasonable or not, you said yes, so i'm just saying make it time certain at this point. the

hearings, and so forth i don't want to hear it, i just want to hear that it's completed. >> give us a year. >> okay can we build language in there? >> deputy city attorney john giber. i don't think ordinance would require them to submit another ordinance by a certain day. i think you you could, probably add some uncot fied language saying the board anticipates based on the departments, that this additional legislation will be introduced at the board by april or may 2016 whatever the date is. >> i will do that then. the other thing would be as you maybe alluded to. because of these policy changes my

concerns would be what impact does it really have? i would like to have a hearing one year after the passage of the legislation to look at these issues of what does it mean? what happens with a threshold in terms of who is getting what. is it having the impact that we wanted? what is sole sourcing what is the impact of that? even in emergency, we can look at what has happened to see if there is the system that we have is the best we could have in terms of dealing with emergencies. so if the departments are open to that, i would like to suggest we have a hearing within a year of passing this legislation. >> that is acceptable to us to report back.

>> thank you. supervisor christensen. >> for clarifications can we handle both of those things administratively in other words, a hearing after the fact, we don't have to put that in the legislation we can request that for the department legislate ily? and perhaps we wanted to deal with the contractor same way perhaps this committee wants to call on that separately, check the progress, and set the deadlines. >> i think that was the suggestion there is commitment to actually do this. for the evaluation piece, we can actually create a piece of legislation to say, in one year's time it will be completed. >> i guess what i was wondering is i'm a real fan of succinct ledgelation, i hate weeding out

stuff that is planted and forgotten, i wanted to keep this legislation focused on the contractor issues and contractors evaluation which is dear to my heart, we can handle that through a hearing process, and then effectively establish ted lines i don't know if that solves it -- >> i think at this point, i'm not including those elements into this piece of this policy we're doing separately. okay? okay. nothing else? who would like to make a motion for the amendments? >> so i would like to -- oh, public comment. >> i did that already. >> you did? oops did i mess that? [laughter]. >> it was brief with you gentlemen came up. >> okay i would like to make a

motion that we accept all recommendations of the budget and legislative analyst and make the appropriate changes i would also like to make the motion that we strike "president of the", to ensure that the notification to the board. >> we take them together? >> second. >> the amendments are incorporated is there a positive recommendation. >> yes, as amended i would like to propose we move this item forward with positive recommendation to the full board. >> with no objection, the motion passes thank you very much. so we still have a meeting here. could we leave the room quietly, we still have a meeting

here. ma'am clerk, can you call items 3- items association of bay area governments and abag financing authority for nonprofit corporations - . >> is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on i team 3-5, seeing none the item is closed. okay so closed session. colleagues is there a motion to convene in closed session >> so moved. >> okay. >> we're now back in open session. >> deputy city attorney john gibn re. the committee voted unanimously for items 3-5 with a positive recommendation. >> kol lean can i have a potion

to not disclose what happened in closed session. >> so moved. >> the motion passes, anything else on the agenda. >> there is no further business. >> with that the meeting is adjourned. (meeting ends at 12:26 .

>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco egg regular hearing for thursday, may 21, 2015, disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. we expect a busy day and quite a few of the people joining us we've arranged for a overflow room in the light court i believe there are a number of people that dparltd for the last item on the agenda we don't expect to begin hearing that item until 3:30 possible 4 o'clock i'll recommend taking