if it's unlucky with the timing it has to wait through an entire cycle. have you multiple complicated car movements in that intersection easily waiting several minutes. if you have multiple trains getting there, that thing gets multiplied. if have you outbound ks and ms stack up behind them, maybe they've waited 5 minutes to get out of west portal and another 10 to 15 minutes in st. francis circle. i hope muni can give focussed attention in terms of giving the "k" and "m" priority and getting through st. francis circle in a more timely manner. >> commissioner: thank you. mr. wiener. >> i noticed my name is spelled the same way scott wiener's and it should be w-e-i-n-e-r.

i think the goal of muni should be service delivery should match the density of the city. now, for decade ago this was the case. you had a comprehensive system. now you're stripping services from the neighborhood and focussing on the most heavily-used line. this is a supply and demand principle instead of services meeting actual need. i appreciate the addition of coaches but i wonder how many have been taken from the neighborhoods. so in essence you have a zero sum solution. what we need to do is beef up the services and have more coaches than ever before and that also consists of restoring eliminated bus stops and runs.

for instance, at 26 valencia used to run to st. luke's hospital from downtown and ran to the merced extended neighborhood triangle district. it doesn't do that anymore. you don't have a direct link with downtown. i don't live in that area but i know people who do and they share that concern. so basically, you have to constantly expand services in order to meet density. that means meeting need. right now the way the muni forward is is like amputating the toes and grafting them to a kneecap to a printer to make him run faster. -- sprinter to make him run faster. that's crazy. the overall delivery system is not good at the present time. i don't see a significant change in improvement. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. any further public comment on item number 12?

seeing none, i have a few questions for ms. kirschbaum. are there others that would like to address anything? director eaken. >> i have two questions for today. one, i heard a lot of concerns about the switchbacks on the "t" run and a know we're doing those. i believe as part of trying to fill service gaps but i think there's equity implications of the switchbacks not making it so i wonder if you can talk about that a little bit, one. and two, you talked about congestion as a key barrier and a loved the slide that shows the different types of busses we have. i think we have five rapid lines of the lines. we've celebrate the success of the rapid lines. i wonder if the long-term solution when you think of

getting busses out of traffic is a long-term solution it take the five routes and make more and more especially those of the 72 stuck in traffic to do more dedicated bus only lanes or do you believe the solution is something more system wide to address the bus routes that aren't currently served with a dedicated line to reduce congestion more holistically. >> we have made a commitment to eliminate switchbacks other than a line blocked or mechanical failure. starting april 6. we chose that date because we'll be done with the construction we

currently have busses on the "t" line and we'll be implement new schedule win -- with additional running time we believe say primary driver of our need to switchback throughout the system. we suspect the overall system will become healthier as we add in additional running time. it's not what i ideally like to do but if our schedules don't reflect the reality, we create reliability problems. so we're always working on two paths. what can we to to improve the train speeds and then making sure we have accurate schedules. so we'll be looking this year in addition to downtown mission, we'll also be looking at the j line and some opportunities to do some of these leaning forward investments in that corridor.

in order to have transit priority treatments, i don't think you necessarily need to be a rapid line. i think a lot of the treatments that we do to prioritize busses and trains work for a lot of different types of service. a rapid route really only works on a corridor that has really frequent service like four or five-minute combined service. the reason is if you're going to split out into two type of service, a local and rapid you need them both to come frequently or nobody's going to wait for the other. we constantly get requests like why can't we have a rapid on the 29 and sunset or a rapid on the

7/haight. part of it is there's not an overall density in service types. i think one area we in general haven't cracked is how do we protect the infrequent routes from traffic. routes where we can't justify take whole lane of traffic for a 15-minute route. there's just not enough frequency of use so what other things can we do in the system to help replicate the free flow speed is what we'd ultimately be looking at. >> commissioner: anything further? director hsu. >> thank you, this is helpful. i think it's great you have the training program because it's important in getting people to switch when jobs change because of technology or mode shifts.

i'm curious of the 57 in the new class, how many came from chariot and do we have a sense how many of that bump may keep us with a positive momentum for a while? if we know that. >> i'll invite our acting h.r. director. >> i'm derek kim the current acting h.r. director for sfmta. approximately 18 came from chariot. we feel that so far the city drive program with the b permit has been extremely helpful. it's been one of the biggest road blocks for people to become transit operators. >> and do we know of the people who come in through the "b" permit program how many do we end up getting? i'm sure some end up choosing different paths after they have the license.

>> we just start the program. we did a first small pilot in january and a ramp up when chariot went down starting in february. i don't think we know yet but the idea generally is that to the extend we are supporting the program it would be supporting for folks who would apply from muni operator jobs. >> commissioner: so we'd expect a high return from the people who participate? >> that's our expectation but the first class just got through in february. it hasn't been there long enough to answer. >> commissioner: mr. torres. >> mr. kim, of the follow-up on the chariot, how many of the drivers that signed up are former taxi cab drivers that lost their medallions or wanted

to change to becoming drivers? >> i apologize but that i do not know. i don't know who were former cab drivers. >> commissioner: i think it's important to find out because a lot of the complaint i've been hearing have come from cab drivers that we've done so much bad things to them, which i don't think so, but here's an opportunity to recruit them that may need a job and i can't think of anybody better than a cab driver who knows the city. just a thought. >> we'll follow-up. >> thank you. secondly, when you say you're going to minneapolis -- >> our busses our manufactured in st. cloud, minnesota. >> commissioner: why is that? >> to meet with new flyer our bus manufacturer and going specifically to celebrate the last hybrid being leaving the plant as well as to work through some ongoing warrant issues.

>> commissioner: so when you're there, how many staff people are going? >> i believe we're bringing four staff people. >> commissioner: and their responsibility will be to inspect the busses? >> yes. >> commissioner: so they'll look at issues like seating and things we've had problems with? >> on the busses? >> commissioner: yes. >> they'll be looking to make sure the vehicles are leaving at the high standard we expect. >> commissioner: so if they do not, do you reject the busses at that point? >> we hold them at the plant until the issues are addressed. >> commissioner: thank you. >> commissioner: thank you, ms. kirschbaum. i have a few questions but i appreciate the detail and appreciate the overall metric of the time in subway because i think it's a tangible thing and happy to see the average has gone down on one side. so we've seen a drop in the a.m. peak but not p.m.

an he'd ya -- any idea of the difference? >> i think the p.m. was affected by the west portal bottleneck we've been able to address. i think the a.m. peak problems tend to be related to other issues like non-communicating trains or trains in manual slowing down the trains behind them as well as the turnaround at embarcadero. so we have not had as much as success in the a.m. peak issues we're having in the p.m. peak issues. >> commissioner: that suggest to me that maybe the issue is west portal both sides is different things. in the a.m. it's acquisition of the train control system and related things where you come in and p.m. it's coming out and you solved the outflow issue but we still have an in-flow issue. is that fair? >> yes. but specifically where we're

seeing that materialize is not at the west portal end of the line in the morning. it's at the downtown stations where we're seeing trains backed up one on top of the other. >> commissioner: right. that's how it manifests out but still the acquisition issue has occurred at west portal. so one of the things that's interesting to me and i'm channelling my inner m mr. peterson is how it plays a role. at an earlier meeting i raised the question of just closing that intersection to traffic during peak period or altogether. it's not a thoroughfare you could force right and left turns there and still have good flow to the business corridor and folks trying to get across have alternatives up the street at

dewy and 14th. has there been further consideration to close traffic that cross the train tracks. >> my apology for not addressing it in the presentation. we have pulled together a rapid team of engineers and planners to look at the type of solutions you're recommending and start testing some things to see how they help at that intersection. we should within the next few weeks have some progress on that item. >> commissioner: that's my neighborhood. i know the folks affected but i think if we can create the ripple effect in the system it could be a compelling case why we would close an intersection. it might potentially lead to

greater pedestrian safety near the library, playground and elementary school. next question, the new radio systems come into play. within the new radio systems, will the command center have the ability to communicate to all passengers in the trains? >> yes. >> commissioner: that's a more efficient way of communicating with our customers then to the driver and having the driver say what's going on. if there's a system wide problem affecting everyone on the system, let's please have system-wide announcement. if you have a question you can ask your driver or station agent but leaving it to each independent driver is not an effecti effective in my view to deal with those sorts of situations. the congestion issue, i was

thinking back to my bus rides it's an issue. we're moving to three dedicated bus lines or streets. we have two b.r.t.s coming on through some dirt around with you to start one and hopefully market street will be soon no private vehicles. are there other streets, major corridors. i'm thinking east west, north, south in my head where we should be seeking to achieve this even if it's not dedicated. what i see is we have a red carpet lane on geary and cars are coming into it. there's congestion, there's other issues. are there other streets we should be considering where we just make them red carpet only and really make the entire street no private vehicles other than perhaps taxi and

deliveries. i realize that's a grand thing but we were challenging earlier to be policy makers and if congestion is the problem slowing the busses down, not a lack of bus or coaches just too many cars in the way, we are disincentivizing people to take the bus. in dissatisfaction to the robust plans we have about b.r.t. and market street we could look at what corridors that aren't that great for car flow in the first place and make them entirely red c carpet. could be during peak hours or all-time service. there's many streets that flow that are narrow but nevertheless flow really well, east and west and north and south. turk street comes to mind for me. i would suggest the highest priority let's consider how

we'll address this congestion issue more boldly and reward people for riding the bus and give them the above ground subway on more than the three routes and final in switching to h.r. i'm thrilled about the acquisition of the new drivers. this is a new group of drivers recruited at a large segment at once. it's not just about hiring them but retake -- retaining them. let's please make sure to follow the hiring program and retention program to make sure and see if these people are encountering specific issues or whatever and make sure we're retaining them as well. okay. we'll have another report next month. >> yes.

>> commissioner: we haven't scared you away? invigorated you and challenged you. >> that's what i'm about. >> before we let her go, can i say i love the idea of creating some streets that are red carpet lanes for bus where's maybe we don't have a lot of cars and can make a lot of impact. keep in mind we can keep those streets that function for bicycles, busses an pedestrians and just deprioritize private car traffic. i'm sure we have a lot of streets like that in the city that can make a huge impact and let's be transit first and bicycle first and pedestrian first and deprioritize some cars on streets in the city. you'll get around just fine, director torres. >> commissioner: a little

insight to our board of directors. all items 13 and 14 together, please, ms. boomer. >> clerk: 13 proven contract modification 14 to radio system replacement project designed with harris corporation do add design work and repair fiber optic cable in the twin peaks tunnel and start a warrant amount to increase the contract amount for a total amount of not to seed $92,641,000. number 14 is approving contract 2018-49 as needed professional services with conduent transport

solutions to provide as-needed services to support the computer aid dispatch system and an automated vehicle location system functions of the muni radio system for a contract amount not to exceed $7,000 for a term of five years. >> i'm the technology officer for the sfmta for the project and i'm excited to be able to present this to you today because we just did our final cut over for the radio system within the rail and it was done a year and a half ago and we're now moving into the more clean up and operationalizing the overall system within the vehicles and the back end. so within that along with conduent the acquisition of new tools to better enable the team to manage the fleet are from

co conduent part of the overall radio implementation but a subcontractor to the harris organization. we wanted to make sure we had a stand-alone contact with the conduent team to allow us to increase functionality as needed to allow us to make certain tweaks to the system as needed because harris not the software vendor of the system. we'll also move from the harris 1240 contract and defining our substantial completion with the turn over and cut over of the rail system substantial completion will move us directly into warranty of that system and you'll see a stand alone contract coming your way to move the warranty to a stand-alone to close off the contract. this is enabling us since we have substantial use of the

system to clean up the project contact and moving to closure once other things are done. twin peaks repair was in the west portal tunnel when the contractors cut one of our fiber cables that was serving our backup because we have redundancy in the backup and needed that repaired expeditiously and wanted to facilitate that payment they'll work that contract item through the other. >> commissioner: directors any questions ob this exciting contract? >> i have a couple questions. we originally thought this could be done by 2015 when we awarded it at 2012 and we're at 90% and there was a two-year lapse. i'm confused on what happened i guess. >> i can try since this predated lisa's time with the agency in assuming the management of the contract.

this was a complex project with harris doing some of the work and i've been meeting with the team every woo two-weeks for the -- two weeks for the life of the contract which suggests hasn't the level of management of oversight it's needed as we hit many problems along the way. with the design build prath project we didn't hand it over. we created a spec and worked with them with harris and conduent to try to get to the final design requirements and ultimately the system that met our performance specs. we've had a lot of challenges along the way.

some software. some hardware. we spent time on the cables that attached to the unit in the cab of the l.r.v. the cable they provided we found was not functioning adequately. we moved around and then it wouldn't function. so this is one small example of months and month to go twulg -- between the hardware provider and we've had numerous issues and there's lessons learned in how we'd do a large systems proj like this. every one of the systems projects we've done and we've down quite a few recently have had various challenges and largely in terms of the schedules not being realistic up front and the iterative nature of the design taking too long.

it's been in some ways frustrating but the but cut-over happened a year and a half ago. we were able to cut the busses over and that's been up and running and functioning very well. the trains though there's fewer of them than busses has dragged out in the last year and a half. and initially the trains were going to follow immediately after the busses and it's been hard to get all the configuration done for the trains and new trains and so this is taken longer than we had hoped. the cut-over that happened march 9 has gotten all that functionality in place. we can move the folks out of our old 1950s control system to our new modern control center and have the service management benefits julie talked about. >> i guess how do we get to a place where the contract

technically expired and the first contract is a retroactive contract? >> until we had schedule certainty, we didn't think it made sense. i was personal meeting with them every two weeks to know where we were in the process. we weren't able to resolve such as the cable issues. we weren't able to project a final date or even a reasonable expectation for when system completion would be. rather than come and continue to update the contract, we also had outstanding commercial issues in terms of what was in this outside of the spec it seems to make the most sense to get two substantial completions to resolve the commercial issues and bring a full close-out mod in the end.

we were working with eyes wide open and chose to modify the contract. >> and in the contact with the next five years are we confident in the scope of this we'll able to do the project within $7 million and five years? >> the next is a support contract. now that we have the system in the software part there's maintenance we will need we would have needed anyway and during the process we found there's functionality we could have but don't have. we'll able to do discreet

software enhancements. it's a not to exceed amount. we may not use the $7 million. if we find greater use than we anticipated for it, we may want to come back for an extension. it's a different animal. this is just maintaining the software and providing a contract vehicle for enhancements we may want to make. >> what's the obligation for harris working with the new contractor. they're work is ending and then we hand it over to the new contractor. >> we'll be bringing a contract for the radio portion. they interact but there's two systems. and we'll bring contact for the service of the radio. we'll need ongoing service support from both the organizations and vendors.

>> and the final question is you mentioned we had a fiber optic wire cut. how can away void or what can we do to ensure this doesn't happen again? i'm sure the contractor paid for that but i'm sure it set us back in time. >> we're work the construction side to make sure we have the right containment around. there's extensive work in the twin peaks project and we had instruction from the contractor and we've taken that on since and will make sure it happens. >> do we identify our various wires? i know with the work happening and they asked about the p.u.c. and the water project there's

been wires and utility things are we labelling it and making it clear so we know what's there and in the future we can find it? >> we have that now and today as well as the drawings and everything that lay everything out and know exactly what. that's how we knew what the cable was and what it was for and back up and not primary. >> this is an action item. >> clerk: motion to approve. >> commissioner: is there public comment? >> clerk: no. >> commissioner: public comment is closed. i'll entertain a motion on both contracts at the same time. director torres moved that. >> a second to approve.

>> commissioner: all in favor please say aye. anyone opposed? that's as radio clear as it gets. >> clerk: thank you, directors. >> clerk: concludes the business before you today. >> commissioner: let's remember we are adjourning in memory of ms. rothstein and double down or our mission to make fellow citizens safe on the streets of san francisco. thank you, everybody.

>> they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victim's vehicle, i would say from 10-15 seconds is all it takes to break into a car and they're gone. yeah, we get a lot of break-ins in the area. we try to -- >> i just want to say goodbye. thank you. >> sometimes that's all it takes. >> i never leave anything in my car. >> we let them know there's been a lot of vehicle break-ins in this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. >> this is just warning about vehicle break-ins.

take a look at it. >> if we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps.

the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday, march 14th meeting of government audit and oversight committee. i am supervisor gordon mar, chairman. i am joined by supervisor peskin. supervisor brown is unable to join us today due t to illness. i would like to thank samuel williams and james smith for staffing this meeting. do we have a motion to excuse

supervisor brown? >> so moved. >> mr. clerk. mr. clerk that motion is adopted without objection. >> please make sure to silence cell phones. documents should be submitted to the clerk. items will appear on the april 2 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you, mr. clerk. please call item one. >> resolution affirming the board of supervisors per visor commitment to addvensment of racial equity and in the city and county programs policies and veryises in the city programs and policies and services. >> due to supervisor brown's absence i make a motion to continue to the call of the chair. we will take public comment. are there any members of the

public who wish to testify? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we continue this item to the call of the chair without objection? thank you. please call item two. >> item two a hearing to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the retroactive nature of the board of supervisors' approval of the grant agreement between the city and county of san francisco and tenderloin housing clinic and of the first amendment to that grant agreement. >> i would like to pass this off to supervisor peskin. >> commissioner peskin: because trent roar from the human services agency is in san francisco i would like to continue to the call of the chair so we can schedule a time when the head of hsa can contribute. >> i would like to continue to the call of the chair. >> any members of the public who

wish to testify? >> public testimony is now closed. >> can we recommend this item -- can we continue this to the call of the chair without objection? thank you. >> mr. clerk can you call item three. >> heres on the proceed you will mechanics and process under taken by the city's state legislation committee on the city lobbyist when transmitting the city official policy commissions to external bodies and agencies. >> i would like to pass this to supervisor peskin. >> commissioner peskin: this is a subject of great interest to the public. there are no members of the public here today. by way of background, we had a similar hearing to this in 2016 after we found out that an internal committee to the government here, the state

legislation committee had been meeting without public notice or documenting their meetings, and that the member lay i son from the board of supervisors at that time was not representing the views of the entire board of supervisors. interestingly enough at around the same time, the board actually adopted a formal policy position on a budget trailer, the buy right bill, which the mayor, mayor lee at that time ultimately vetoed. it sparked my curiosity on how the city takes positions on state legislation. it reminded me we have a state lobbyist in the state capitol, paul yoder, who is here today. it started an interesting conversation at the board around

how we as the policy body participate in lobbying the state, particularly in a period of time where there are all sorts of state bills that preempt local authority that are of interest to us, and so given that, we have a new mayor and almost entirely new board of supervisors and new state legislation committee which present yee serves on, he asked that i bring this hearing back to committee for refresher for all of us. he wanted to be here in person but he had a conflict but could not be here. what i want to do is start with deputy city attorney john givner to present be what the charter holds, what role the mayor plays, what role the board plays, what is in the administrative code as it relates to the state legislative

committee. with that, mr. givner. >> thank you, deputy city attorney john givner. the charter provides the mayor coordinates all inter governmental affairs for the city. generally, when the city is lobbying the legislature or the federal government or the governor or regulatory agencies, the mayor must coordinate those communications. typically, with the state, she coordinates those communications by directing our state lobbyist. with federal matters, she coordinates those communicates with the federal lobbyist. that is why the contract with those lobbyists is a contract with the mayor's office. the board of supervisors has the authority to set policy for the

city. that is one of the reserve powers of the board because the charter doesn't actually speak to whether the board of supervisors can set the city's position on state legislation, but because of the reserve authority of the policymaking of the city the board has that power. the board adopts that with resolution without reference calendar at board meetings. because and possibly because it was difficult for the board over the years to take positions on -- by resolution on every piece of state legislation, a number of years ago, the board adopted an ordinance creating the state legislation commit d committee d delegated the power to take positions on behalf of the city on matters pending before the legislature. the state legislation committee

which as supervisor peskin says is subject to the brown act and sunshine ordinance holds public meetings to discuss and take positions on behalf of the city on pending bills. if the state legislation committee takes a position on a bill or doesn't, the board can always adopt an ordinance. i am sorry, a resolution taking a position on a piece of legislation, and the board's say is the final say for the city. any resolution the board adopts sets the policy for the city. >> unless the resolution is vetoed. >> any resolution the city enacts following the mayor's consideration. on matters of federal law or state regulation, the state legislation committee does not have authority so the board of supervisors sets the policy for the city. the board could expand the

powers of the state legislation by ordinance or set a separate committee for federal legislation but hasn't done that over years. the mayor coordinates all communications with other government entities. the mayor must conform those activities to the city's official policy, whether the policy adopted by state legislation committee or by the board. what that means is if the board adopts a resolution supporting ab1, the mayor cannot direct the state lobbyist to oppose ab1. if the board says we support ab1 but there are issues that the city could seek amendments on this definition within ab1, then

the mayor can direct the state lobbyist to support and seek amendments. if the board and state legislation committee do not take a position on a matter, the mayor can direct the state or federal lobbyist to advocate for a position that is in her discretion. she must follow the board's policy direction when the board acts. she must follow the state legislation committee's direction when they act. if neither have spoken to set position the mayor has discretion to coordinate communications and say what she will. one final point. because the mayor has the power to coordinate all city communications with the state and federal governments, and other government entities, other officers do not -- cannot lobby the state legislature without coordinating with the mayor.

for instance, the fire department might have a position on a pending state bill relating to fire safety. the fire commission and the fire chief should not be lobbying the state legislature unless they are coordinating with the mayor and the mayor gives the o care. >> how does that relate to department one? >> same is true for department number one. of course, individual supervisors in personal capacities may communicate with state or federal legislatures but should not be using city resources t to engage in that activity and including staff time. they should not speak on behalf

of the city. only the mayor can speak on behalf of the city. >> the state legislation committee consists of who? >> there are representatives from the mayor, the board, the mayor's office chairs the committee. i believe the board has two appointments. the city attorney has a position and beyond that i am totally blank. >> treasure assess or and controller. who is the city attorney on there? >> maryjan-- mary jane winslow. >> what does that seat do? >> that is not held by an attorney in our office although she coordinates with the

executive team of our office in terms of what position our office will take on the state legislative committee. she is a voting member. >> got it. is there somebody there who advices the committee as to what the implications of state preemption or everybody comes with a policy position. >> everybody comes with a policy position. of course, our office, if the committee wanted, could provide more kind of here are the legal repercussions for the city analysis of any bill. >> i have a bunch of questions for edward mic caffeine from the mayor's office. he is not here so we will bounce right to the city lobbyist, mr. paul yoder. i want to thank you for coming

down from sacramento. >> we will go to mr. yoder if you want to tell us a little bit about your firm and your practice, that would be a good refresher. >> absolutely. thank you for the opportunity, mr. chairman and supervisor peskin. our firm has been around since 1978 as a firm still represents the very original first client california transit authorization. 1978 i started lobbying at the age of 14. that is not true. the firm is around since 1978. joshua shaw and i took it over in the early 1990s. we are the founding partners of the firm. we have five partners. there are only three in the name but happy to announce that two

other partners karen and jason will be on the masthead. we are open to suggestions as far as a new name in the future. i have been lobbying for almost 30 years. i lobbied for counties the entire time in my career. first county i lobbied for was san diego county. since then i represented rural, suburban and urban counties. it is about representing cloth local governments. we represent close to 50 local governments in california. i want to make sure you two memberses the board i want to be clear to you that representing the city and county is one of my personal joys in my career and certainly one of my professional accomplishments that i am very

proud of. we do believe for the city and county we have attained an incredible return on investment. everything from the mission rock development, redevelopment unwind facility and movement of warriors arena. 10s of millions of dollars to address homelessness in the city. we take that return on investment for the citizens of the city and county very, very seriously. we wear it like a badge of honor so i am happy to be here today. thank you for inviting me. i will answer any questions you might have. >> i guess one of the questions is how you balance the various city priorities. i mean i assume that when we pass a resolution of support or opposition to a piece, ab or sb, i assume our checker transmits

-- clerk transmits that to you and that is the official policy of the city. how is that with the various clients and the things the city wants, how do you balance that? >> can we tokologiestics first? i want to know the clerk's office is phenomenal about transmitting the position taken by the board like that. we make sure with respect to generally it is on a bill ab123. it could be another issue. wildfire liability earlier this year. we transmit the resolution to the relevant committees. the first committees that bill is going through. may be getting in the weeds too much. technologically things are changinchanging in san francisc.

all of the things i am saying i wish the legislature could synchronize the system to make it universal across committees. it is a hopscotch approach right now. the water parks and water life committee might allow you to upload the city resolution. the insurance committee may request you fax it or hand deliver it or what have you. that is something we are dealing with. you want to make the finer point so the board members understand we are tracking how the committee's need to get positions taken by your board. in terms of balancing, we are constantly aware. we track every position taken by your board. i can produce that matrix at any point in time for you or your staff to demonstrate we are

doing that. we are constantly aware of every position made by your board. >> do you make recommendations to the city or the mayor as to bills that we might want to support or oppose? the example when i it is on the california coastal commission at every meeting sarah christy, who i'm sure you know, comes before the 12 members and says here are 10 pages of bills, we recommend you support this, watch that, oppose this, support if amended, which because of our creation of the state legislation committee rarely happens at the board of supervisors unless one particular bill catches our attention. we don't have that kind of comprehensive up or down or maybe. do you bring those things to the committee and say here are 20 bills you should take a peak at.

>> we are on the seventh year of representing the city and county. during that entire time, this is sort of manifestation what makes san francisco unique. what i mean you have so many department heads who are plugged in and creative and so they know what they know, and they are also constantly trying to think of ways to make life better in san francisco. that is a from fasto me say -- a preface to me saying there is no shortage of bills. you have so many people who are paying attention to what is going on in sacramento the average slc agenda as up get to the busy months of the legislative cycle i see nodding heads. it is dozens of bills.

i can't think of an instance where your staff collectively missed one. i can't think of where somebody at some point didn't go this is kind of a big deal for the city. we have never been asked to make that recommendation, supervisor. >> representing numerous different counties, do you see patterns? what are other counties saying about our senator, senator's bill 58 or 50 late night hours and state preemption of certain land use decisions? >> on senate bill 50 it is like sba27, folks didn't have to because they had the educational process. last year there wasn't a lot of educational process. it has to occur this year. the new twist with 50 is there

is also a senate bill 4 authored by bill and mcguire and the suburban parts of the nine county bay air region. i think what most folks are doing are really kind of waiting to see since both of those are senate gills, -- senate bills, what will the senate do on those bills? there is an interesting situation where the senate transportation committee they may have to go to one and another committee what is senate leadership will do is interesting. to try to answer the question specifically as i can, there are a lot of people kind of hanging back knowing that that dynamic committee process is going to happen, and i think a lot of people want to wait and see what senate leadership and the other

senators have decided to do with either of those bills or both of those bills through the policy committee deadline. that is what a lot of our clients are doing is waiting and watching to see how things emerge. i hope that answers your question. >> that is helpful. sb58? >> again that is a bill that we are on our second or third iteration. >> governor brown vetoed that last year. >> you have the broader dynamic where bills vetoed by jerry brown they don't know what governor newsome would do. i will give it another shot. it is not just sb58.

that is a couple hundred bills i could list for you. what governor newsome might do that might be different than governor brown-waite -- governor brown will wait to be seen in terms of patterns. it is interesting seeing who thinks that might be good for the city. ththe bill is optional. it is up to any city that wants to make the best case for being in. for cities that don't like the policy, it is not like the bill would impose anything on their city. if it got to governor newsome and governor newsome signed it. >> these are questions for

mr. mic caffe, he is not here. the contract between the mayor's office and your company is that an annual contract, is there an r.f.p., is it bid out? >> it was rp originally. we emerged as the chosen firm. it was rped again, i believe. give me a second. i want to say 2017. i don't want to answer incorrectly. 2017. >> it is for a term of years, annual renewal. >> initial term and options to extend. >> who is that worth on an annual basis. we have never changed the price in seven years. i owe it to my partners to note that. maybe i shouldn't have. moving on. it is 2