if we did it this way the cost may be more. >> go back to your slide that shows the low bidder may not win. >> if you could go back to that slide. >> through president i would like to remind every one to speak into the mic so the comments are captured by our colleagues at sfgovtv. >> a bid might come in higher but be evaluated as better value. that is something up to us to determine if we are rejecting bids or not, right? >> the key is the low bid contest price is everything if they meet the minimum competition. it is 100% on price.

this is best value. a bidder may come in higher than the lowest price point and win this award. >> it opens up a door for protests to have more legs on them than just a raw low bid. >> i am not certain that is the case. in professional services we don't do price only. it is qualifications. price is either a factor or not a factor opened at the end and you negotiate on price. we have protests but a very well understood ability to base contests on other qualifications than price. >> general counsel. one you have the requirements for doing the best value is set forth in the administrative code.

how it is scored that sets forth the process. those agencies throughout the city and enterprises have undertaken this scoring method. we are confident yo you are not facing new challenges using this as your criteria. >> thank you. okay. erica, thank you so much. commissioner adams. >> i am in favor. i wanted to make sure we were on the same page. i heard a lot of different things. i support it. thank you for the presentation. what i wanted to understand what

commissioner makras was saying. are there other options? for your benefit and benefits to the community. >> yes, there are potentially. there are other options. this is one. we have used the low bid for a very long time except for the cruise ship terminal. it was not a price competition. we have been talking in earnest with the dpw about ways to have more social impacts through contracting. we have consistently heard best valubestval is a good tool to -- best value is a good tool to try. some contracts have been too small and some too big. this is slightly lower than recommended. it is close.

we want to tries this. it is recommended to us. it is a great conversation. i am grad it is on the calendar. when we come back we can look at how it worked and before it comes to award. we are as curious as you are. for us this is the first time. >> any other comments? i'm sorry. public comment is closed. erica, thank you so much for this presentation. i think it is great that we are trying the best value approach. i think it is great we will be able to ask about the safety record and project history and experience so we don't just get the lowsist bidder. we don't know how many times they come back for an amendment.

this will save us money in add advance, i hope. i want to understand the bid alternate. what is the base bid? what are we put anything the alternate? >> the construction estimate $3.9 million, 4.3 with the 10% contingency. the bid package an option for the restrooms and at the time we were looking for way to save money, the project is lure kind of value engineered a lot. you can't take out the roof and foundations. the rest rooms we saw as one of the only options at the time. that is a backup if things go wrong. >> i personally don't see

spending $4 million without a restroom. >> if i can add a different component. you are adding a higher cost later. at mi minimum i would do the infrastructure for the bathrooms. we are putting in concrete floors and the grading and a slab and later go cut it and find the main line for the sewer pipe and bust up what we built. put in th the infrastructure ano the physical part of the bathroom from the floor up. >> i would not support spending $4 million on a shell. >> understood. we are trying to scope it in a way to save the project if it is higher. that is the bidding climate.

we want the rest room included. it is a deductedtive alternate so we understand the pricing. in the long-term we are looking for a partner to run a cafe. there is an opportunity for ti down the road. we are pushing to get a restroom in the facility. we hope to come to you with an award to do so. >> our $3.9 million estimate will tell us how up for the bathrooms. >> that 3.9including the rest rooms. they are about $750,000. >> $745,000 is underground. it is the pipes underground. >> any other comments?

all in favor. resolution 18612 has been approved. >> item 9 new business. you would like to see gordon ball back in six months to give a contractor's router. when we do the he wall project we are looking at the funding sources and the gap. any other new business. >> six months for gordon ball, six months from when they start. >> i would like to have the master tenant for pier 70 if they can come back to do informational to us. >> we will have them come in. >> one other thing, commissioner woo ho was talking about the rfi responses. she wanted more of a dialogue on

that. >> we will get you a calendar of the plan. >> on the pier 70 if you can send me the lease so i can review it on the same subject matter. >> sure. >> it is a good idea for an update on the project and where they are ozi. >> i can't help but support what the neighbors are saying. the board of supervisors says no smoking and they are telling people if they can't smoke all over town. >> we will put it on the agenda. you. >> any other new business? can i have a motion to adjourn. >> motion to adjourn. meeting adjourned. sfgov-tv, wey

to begin. good morning. today is wednesday, october 17th, 2018. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices and the first item is roll call. president mccarthy. >> here. >> clerk: vice president walker. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner konstin. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner lee. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner warshell. >> here. >> clerk: we have a quorum. next item is item 2, president's announcements. >> president mccarthy: good morning, and welcome to the october 17, 2018 commission.

as most note today is the 29th anniversary of the 1989 earthquake and i would like to ask for a moment of silence in honor of those who died or were injured by that disaster. [moment of silence] thank you. engineers and all of the rest of us do learn from each other and every earthquake and we're better prepared today to respond to the next major earthquake. we also know, however, that we still have lots of work to do to improve the city's resilience, excuse me and our overall ability to respond and recover, including never-ending training by both the private and the public sectors so that we can be ready and better preparations such as success to grab and go bags. to help us to manage our own for the initial 72 hours.

and we are better prepared mentally and emotionally to resist panic and fear as the ground shakes and rolls. and to be able to think clearly and to practice training we have to do. it's all -- it's a tall order and, make no mistake, and one that reminds us to keep working on -- with our families and loved ones every day to get prepared. and related to the ongoing observance of the 1989 earthquake, i want to let you know that one of the departments contracted non-profits c.y.c., is hosting 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. today another fire safety and emergency preparation fair at 290 irving street the they'll hand out information on the material to help people to prepare to respond effectively and quickly to the next disaster. and they will do hands on c.p.r. demonstrations on-site as well. and they will also give away

free smoke alarms while the supplies last. i also want to recognize director hui and the staff who took tours on october 4th of the modular housing factories. a tour that commissioner walker and i took in mid-december. i'll ask commissioner lee and warshell to have looks at the way to address the housing production and challenges. thanks goes out to commissioner konstin, and the director hui and director lowry who had a letter of appreciation for the reference in guiding the company through their permit process. and finally our employee recognition committee received 11 nominations for employee of the quarter, quarter two and three and selected mark langan as our winner for quarter two. mark was singled out for his

impressive performance in terms of responding quickly and efficiently to often complex computer-based research requests. mark is particularly good with customer services and able to make tough calls with plants and with respect to the working collaborative with the entire m.i.s. team. so congratulations, mark, and thank you for all of your outstanding performance during quarter two. and our quarter three winner, bern net perez, a senior clo clk was nominated by four members of the housing staff. she's had persistence and professionalism as he during quarter three when the housing division was going through transitions with new staff and new leadership. and we -- with more than 30 years experience besh get has a steady hand and very well informed mind and she shows dedication and exceptional skillsets in assisting problem solving. so congratulations, bernadette,

and thank you for providing a brilliant role model for the staff to learn from and to -- and to become. present -- i think we will do the presentation. so commissioner lee will take care of that. so we have two -- >> clerk: the staff can come forward, the staff and the recipient. >> president mccarthy: lily, you're taking pictures? good, all right.

>> (indiscernible). [applause] >> congratulations. you can make comments if you like. >> thank you to all of our commissioners and staff and we will continue to support everything that goes forward. >> thank you. [applause] >> i would like to express my deep appreciation to the staff and the commissioners. they've been really good in dealing with the transition. i'm thankful for your patience. once again thank you.

>> thank you very much. congratulations. [applause] >> bernadette and i met in 1993 and i had long hair back then. and she looks exactly the same way as she does now. she's incredible and hard working and very cheerful throughout the 28 years at d.b.i. she oversees a busy staff. her staff carries out the important measures that the inspectors have to use to get compliance on important cases. and her duties range from compiling statistics for this commission to collecting everyone's timesheet. she's the backbone of h.i.s. and she's the glue that holds us together. and she's one of the reasons that i applied to work here. so from everybody in housing inspection we'd like to say congratulations, bernadette. [applause] >> president mccarthy: thank you, and congratulations to all recipients. madam secretary, that concludes my public announcements.

>> clerk: any public comment on the president's announcement? seeing none, item three, general public comment. and there will be public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> good morning, my name is jerry gerantler. on august 30, 2018, the department of building inspection, deputy director gave an excellent presentation on residential demolitions. mr. o'reardon's presentation demonstrated the progress that the planning commission and the building inspection commission had made over the last nine months. it's important that the planning department and the department of building inspection embrace this progress and support d.b.i.s and mr. oh o'reardon's position that it includes a demolition. you can't add a floor to a

structure without removing existing supporting structure. all vertical additions should require a separate set of plans, showing what was demolished and what will be added. these plans will bring clarity for district building inspectors and planning department planners. building inspectors like planners are not structural engineers, and we have been assigning the responsibility to both groups that is unreasonable. i am asking the building inspection commission to support mr. o'reardon's proposal and to request to support the development of an implementation plan consistent with his proposal. thank you very much. >> president mccarthy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: there's no additional public comment. so going to the next item. item 4, commissioner's questions and matters. fa, inquiries to staff.

at this time commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. >> president mccarthy: commissioner walker. >> vice-president walker: i wonder if we could put that item on the next agenda for the meeting and to have a presentation of the report. >> president mccarthy: so i think if we're talking about the same thing, we are waiting on some legislation to come from supervisor peskin's office. and the latest that i heard on that is that it was supposed to be introduced on tuesday. but, you know, some tweaks, some more work has to be done. so my understanding, which i don't have 100% confirmation of, that it will now be reintroduced next tuesday. >> vice-president walker: so it would be assessed anyway? >> president mccarthy: so that rolls into mr. reardon's

presentation and to your point, commissioner warshell said to me, that when we get this report that maybe we can calendar something around that. and it will have to go through a process of land-use planning, so we'll have opportunity, but the big one i guess is to have the joint meeting when everything is finalized on this piece of legislation with planning and we can go forward there. so that hopefully is the way that it will play out. >> vice-president walker: so it wouldn't be at the next meeting but it might be -- >> president mccarthy: yeah, but we definitely could get an update on what was introduced by supervisor -- >> vice-president walker: i think that is a good idea so we're aware of what is coming even if it's not the official review of it. >> president mccarthy: definitely. we could have our own input on that. >> vice-president walker: thank you. >> supervisor yee: future meetings and agendas. at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine those items

that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. our next meeting is november 21st. >> president mccarthy: so on that i got emails because it's thanksgiving, correct? the next day. so my decision was to keep the meet asking keep it short and i know that people will be leaving time. i hope that we have quorum. i know that commissioner konstin, you won't be here, right? but if it's okay with everybody i will just -- we'll keep that date unless there's objections. seeing none. >> clerk: thank you. any public comment on item 4a and b? seeing none, we'll move on to item 5. discussion and possible action to make recommendations with current memberships and tomorrows to expire november 1, 2021, and november 1, 2022.

>> president mccarthy: so commissioner lee or warshell, who will give the update on that? commissioner lee, you're ready. >> commissioner lee: commissioner moss and commissioner warshell and i met -- what was that, last week? and the nomination committee and we reviewed the current members of the access appeal commission and decided to reappoint all four members who had seats expired or will be expiring this year back on to the commission. and that would be commissioner.r walter park, and learner, and alice brown, and william scott-ellsworth. >> i believe that some of our members may be here. >> commissioner lee: i think that we need to recommend that the full board approve as well. so i make a motion that b.i.k.

appoint these members back on the commission. >> second. cb.>> clerk: are all commissioners in favor? any opposed? and congratulations, the members will be reappointed. if you're present and would like to come forward. >> i would like to thank you all for the service that you provide to our city. this is a really important function in making sure that we have access to buildings and we can do it in a way that makes it possible. so the work that you do is really appreciated by all of us. i don't mean to speak for the commission. but maybe i do. so thank you again for serving. >> clerk: i have to take public comment.

public comment on this item? seeing none. okay. >> president mccarthy: commissioner moss and commissioner warshell and three members. commissioner park is not here with us today.

>> (indiscernible).

>> i william scott ellsworth... (indiscernible).

>> president mccarthy: thank you, candidates. if you would like to say a few words you're more than welcome. >> thank you all for your confidence in us.

>> president mccarthy: not at all. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> clerk: congratulations, everyone. we're on to the next item, possible action regarding ab-082, and administrative bulletin presenting guidelines and procedures for structural, geotechnical and seismic hazard engineering design review of buildings and other structures. >> president mccarthy: deputy director. >> good morning, commissioners. deputy director of permit services. i'm here to speak about the administration bulletin with the guidelines and the procedures for structural, geotechnical and seismic hard ard engineering design review. and this bulletin addresses structural and geotechnical and seismic hazard naturalling with buildings and other structures.

and wherealterations, and it may apply to the prescriptive provisions of the san francisco building code. and for the projects with the prescriptive exemptions of the building code. and the discretion of the director of it may include one or more, structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, site specific seismic assessments, and scaling. the term geotechnical and seismic hazard engineering design review is referred to as a peer review. and it encompasses design review as required. if the director determines that the review is required they may request geotechnical or seismic hazard reviewers having knowledge and experience to provide professional opinions on the design aspects of a project. the purpose is to have an

independent objective technical review of the aspects of the project design that are identified in the scope of the review. reviews contract with san francisco department of building inspections are responsible to the director. and they are responsible for the payment of fees and other expenses for professional services of the reviewers. and they shall sign all written communication to the director. this is a new process by d.b.i. sf-dbi new process retains the reviewer's responsibility to the director in align with the number of jurisdictions that the contractor -- that the contract directly with reviewers attach the clause for the project sponsor. previously the city of san francisco procedures for procurement of professional service have not been suited to directly contracting with consulting engineers.

and reviewers instead contracted with the project sponsor. the revie rears are, nonetheles, responsible and under the directions of the director. so the change to this is that we contract directly through the peer review group down. the engineers -- the engineer records is solely responsible for the construction contract documents. documents in the reviewer will be retained as part of the fdbi files. each reviewer is selected by the director based on the reviewer's qualifications applicable to the project and considering the availability with the project scale. the director may at his or her discretion consult with the project sponsor and the engineer of record and others before selecting the reviewers. the reviewer shall disclose to the director in writing any potential conflict of interest related to the project and the desired scope of review. or the ability of the reviewer

to be independent in other objectives in the review. each reviewer provides professional engineering services shall be a registered professional, holding a professional license in accordance with the california law. qualifying staff and reviewing not registered as a p.e., including reviews from academia, can contribute to the review under the responsibility charge of the registered engineers. reviewers should be engaged as early in the design process as practical. and this design team has an opportunity to look at the disciple decisions that could disrupt the design development if addressed later in the design phase. early in the process the initial of record, and a representative of the director and the reviewers should convene a meeting to establish the scope

of the review. and the methods, the lines of communication, the timing of the review milestones and the degree to which the engineers of record anticipates the designs will be developed for each milestone. and at the conclusion of the review and sequestered by the director the reviewers shall submit to the director a report documenting the scope of the review and the comment logs and the professional opinions of the reviewers regarding the design performance and the criteria identified in the scope of the review. so this has been a long process on this and it's still in draft form but it's tasked by con and under the city attorney's review right now. and san francisco d.b.i. just added to this ordinance all projects of new buildings 240 feet or taller located in the city's office.

>> he has been working on this for years, if you have any questions. >> i have a few quick questions on projects. we don't have the data, that is fine. obviously, we had last week where we had fleet week and i had the privilege and honour to go and talk at fleet week where we had a building and safety strategy program. you were there and i appreciate it. i thought it was interesting the level of conversation as to the different changes that are coming down the pipeline. well if you think, as a city, we are based on your years and years of constantly evolving on this, where do you think we are compared to other cities and how far are we advanced in this arena right now, as best we can

be? >> we are at a point that this is the ten year anniversary of this administrative bulletin. the first was developed ten years ago. requiring more scrutiny by the engineer professionals and more. right now we are at the point where we expand from the structure. we have more scrutiny on the geotech issue. >> in that arena, compared to other cities, are we exploring

the geotechnical side of things? do we want to break it down more than l.a. or are our requirements more stringent than others? >> much, much more stringent. we already have the slope protection act and we require further reveal and detail resign -- design review as required. >> and the industry as a whole, how are they responding to these extra measures that we are taking, particularly in tall buildings? for example, is a lot of projects -- are they going to bed rock or are they taking a look at different -- what is it doing to the industry? have we had many projects lately that falls under these new criteria even though they are not necessarily implemented yet, legally? >> actually, we are still implementing the old one.

that was already updated two years ago by a minor change with a peer review. >> we were paid by the director of the city. we have more control of the third-party review. >> ok. all right. >> and when we are further -- to geotech engineers require a new tall building -- >> president mccarthy: right. >> we encourage people to drive the pile all the way to the bed rock. >> it is important if they choose not to, this is the procedure that is in place. >> yes. >> this is already the procedure in place. we have information sheet in the

interim before this is effective >> ok. good. >> with those extra geotechnical requirements and they're already we are already enforcing most of it this will make it more formal and more pressure on the developer to design for better buildings. >> ok. director? >> good morning. i am the director director of department building inspections. your questions asked about how we compare to other cities, of course, in california, l.a. and asked, in parallel, i had a meeting with the california building official. every monday we have a phone conversation and a conference call with experts. and also we are closely in

contact -- regarding the developers that looked at this, they wanted us to come with this kind -- everybody looks at the same thing. they look at the information seat without this approval, yet. we asked them to anchor all the way to the bed rock. you asked how many buildings we do. before salesforce, only one or two buildings go all the way to the bed rock. the fillmore goes down. we have better criteria regarding the geotechnical expertise in the panel. and also we ask people to get the settlement. the ten year settlement after the c.f.c.

the developer is welcome to do that because they want to see what kind of settlement to prove the building is good. they say they are down to the bed rock. that is what they want to say to make their building more safe. the public wants us to do these kind of things. and then to answer your question , we learned from l.a. and l.a. learned from us, we are all in parallel. i think we are going better now with the code and then we improve on it. >> all right. thank you. i appreciate all your hard work on this. >> i know director, when we have these conversations in the past, looking out to other cities as the last question referenced, has always been a key interest that i have held and i know we had some issues of going internationally on the pacific rim to cities like take it --

tokyo. yet we have, beyond l.a., other west coast cities like seattle that are in a tall building boom as well. we had significant outreach to seattle and portland where their building boom with tall buildings is progressing. >> also, i want to mention, i also remember the icc for the major jurisdiction for all the subcommittees. we are not only working locally in california but we are also working nationwide. i don't have the privilege to go to japan or new zealand. if you can send me, i can go there to learn. [laughter] >> we are all signing up right now. >> may be we can see the manufacturing and those sights. we have questions and we want to

learn how they do it. we are always comes -- constantly learning. we also are joining with other jurisdictions nationwide to make sure we are not all blind. >> ok. >> one other question, are you satisfied that the post- construction issues of monitoring are being adequately addressed in the current documents? where a building's performance over time doesn't always meet expectations? are protocols for monitoring post- construction, beyond just

the complaint driven processes that we currently had had? sorry, commissioner. we are talking about, overall, about the housing. we will monitor it. we are concentrating on the 240 feet of the high-rises. that is why we want to have the continued monitoring for settlement for ten years. why ten years? because all these condominiums and all those buildings -- also we have department monitoring watching the safety annually and also our inspector will be sent there to inspect.

of course, we will be going on a complaint driven staff every time. it is difficult. but we are having a five-year program to make sure they have the inspector for the safety part. >> a final question, most of what i read is really directing itself, especially to the places where, you know, this structural soil issues are of great concern the landfill areas. when you look at the map of where we have most of our high-rises, they are really concentrated in unstable land. but we also have some very major construction plans in areas that are not unstable lands like the hub. can you speak briefly to the

extent to which we are geared up to deal with those, as well? >> the soil interaction is not -- for the soil, that is a special soil, like we mentioned. if it is not anchored all the way to the bed rock then we will have two geotechnical experts look at it. if we are not satisfied we can ask another party to look at it too. that is why we want to pay more attention on the geotechnical part and then we want to improve on that. >> i understand the profound concerns where we are building on unstable soil. i guess what i am asking about his areas like the hub that are not known unstable soil.

are you comfortable that we have enough oversight in the building of 400-600-foot towers in those areas? >> i feel this is a common one. it is not really our city. you go to new york or other places with similar situations. we have enough a geotechnical review to make sure the soil is ok and all the way to the bed rock or not all the way to the bed rock. i think we feel comfortable with those. >> thank you for your presentation here. >> is there any public comment on item six?

seeing none, item seven is update on s.f. permit and project tracking systems. >> good morning commissioners. i am the project manager overseeing this project. i just have some guests who are present if you have some questions. we've got some people present in case you have any questions. so i have a brief update, like i normally present every month. if you are interested, we also have a couple of very brief demonstration videos as to how the application works and looks

today. if you are interested when i'm done with the presentation, i will ask if you want to see what that might look like. so status, what we have done over the course of the last month as we have completed and to end demonstration sessions. in these sessions, we have had the vendor show us all the key processes that look like i'm permitting to complaints, to records management functions. to code enforcement and housing. we have had two weeks of it many hours a day, often two rooms going on in parallel of observing exactly how the application is working and how it behaves today. they were completed and those have been very successful and very positive. i briefly mentioned this last month but we did engage the vendor to dramatically increase the amount of training before

going live. training is very important. our contract initially only had 15 days and now we are looking at that and what we are going through as we think we will need more training. we increase those 15 days to 36 days and we are working to work on exactly which course and when and what days does take place. that was a pretty dramatic boost in the amount of training prior to going live. lots and lots and lots of statistics on this project. since our last report, well over 200 issues and that's very positive. and i closed out we mean the vendor fixed them and people in d.b.i. have gone back in and retested them and have confirmed that they can be closed out. a full life cycle that we have closed a lot. there is another close to 300 items available to retest and we are working on testing those as we get them.

and we will also expect the bulk of those to be close once we enter a formal user acceptance test. because that is where we are at and that is what has gone on over the last few weeks what is going on is a lot of testing. lots of resolution and retesting we reported, over the last couple of months a lot of attention on fees and we are still validating fees and they are much better off than they were a few weeks ago. the ongoing process working end to end that i talked about is ongoing. and of course, there is also a lot of attention being paid to reports. we had issues with those earlier that cycle is almost completed as well. that is a set of activities we have undergone.

so what is coming up? we have gotten passed to the end to end session. that next big activity is the user acceptance test. we worked with the vendor and worked on a series of criteria as to how many of the effects must be available to retest prior to starting you a tea. we are close. we are back to get there over the course of the next week and a half and that is our goal. if we meet the goals we will start testing. if the application is not ready to test, we will start testing. that is consistent with the approach we have been talking about the last couple of months. we will not proceed until we are ready. and we are working on one milestone at a time. right now we are working on getting ready to test. so that is our approach. we are milestone focused and delivery focused. if we get there, we will start testing.

dates will be shared only after we complete a very healthy set of user acceptance tests. it is very important that testing goes home -- goes well before we start sharing dates. the biggies are closing out the defects and working on the next couple of rounds of user acceptance tests. we have at least two on the books. and training. if all the dates are met, we will start the training. if all the goals are met, we will start the training. the big news here is on the lower right-hand corner. we believed would be able to wrap this up prior to year end and the current plans, giving the significant amount of things we had to work on and retest, it is not going to end before the end of year. that is the big nose -- big news we are supporting today.

we want to assure you that progress is being made to. we working to go and work with the vendor. these issues are being locked and tackled and closed out. we are proceeding, i believe, with due diligence and making sure that what we have is usable and the go live can be as smooth as it can be. that is the big update. we will not make end of year. i do want to assure you things are moving forward and moving forward pretty well. do you have any questions on that? >> commissioner walker, police. >> sorry. thank you sean. i also want to thank you for meeting with me and going into the very specific details we went into the other day. i. i appreciate that you reached out when we realized that -- having made you commit to the end of the year under duress, we

realized that it may not happen by the end of the year. i totally understand it. there's a lot of moving parts to this. what i will say, just for the other commissioners, there are some major obstacles are prevented even going to the process and to end. and now the team is able to go through the whole process and in that process, are locating bugs that need to be worked out. that is a positive step that they are able to go through the whole process of issuing a permit and to the fees are populating the right areas. even if there are slight bugs, the position of being able to weed out these small bugs is really a huge step forward from where we were last month. i think that since about hearing

the details of the process, it is really important to not focus on dates. i know that that was the director's intention all along and the process in this really important project is actually moving forward. thank you for keeping us up to speed on this, for sure. i don't know if you all have any questions for them, but i feel really confident we are moving forward. one of the things i would like to mention, which i did the other day about the training is i know that a lot of this, it is not just about a new system, it is about a new process for us. implementing some of our reengineering of our permit process that has been talked about for a decade and one of the responsibilities that is going to each and every employee is getting the data at the depth

that we have never had it before on properties and locating in a single location. that is a lot of responsibility that we are putting on our employees. as we train, i think we need to reset the expectation around that. it will take longer. there is a lot more information that we want to put in one place it is carrying forward a commitment to transparency, not just for our own process, before the public to be able to access. having it all accumulated in one place. it is really an added part of the job for each and every employee that wasn't there before. certainly not as concentrated. so i'm confident that we will be doing that as we do the training and i really thank you for moving this forward, sean, and for the