thank you for all the effort that you are putting forward and the transparency. key portion, thank you. >> great, no questions. thank you. >> thank you so much for this report. i really appreciate all the detail that you put into it, and all the activity that has gone on to increase our outreach to l.b.e. and the fact that we should be increasing. i think that is phenomenal. can you please give me a breakdown of the l.b.e. for the contracts awarded? >> the contracts awarded during this reporting period, we had six contracts awarded. of the six, three went to l.b.e. firms, 50% of them. two of those want to o.b.e. firms, and one went to the

business enterprise. >> percentages meaning, in dollars? >> i don't have those numbers in front of me. i can tell you that if we take out the outlier. >> no. [laughter]. >> total. >> i can provide that. >> if you can just let me know, i would like to know that. and we always assess question because i really want to know if we are increasing equity in contracting at all. also, for the giants and forth for pier 70, those are both such huge contracts that i would like to see it broken out. i want to know who they are contracting with, what firms are being used, whether percentages are, but not just the numbers, and then mission rock, how much has been spent over ten years

already? what have they been doing over the last ten years? i don't need to know that 40% of the respondents were o.b.e. you know, what have they actually spent, and what have they spent with the l.b.e. that would be great to know for future reports. >> i will include that in future reports. >> thank you, thank you so much for this. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> item hbs informational update on deferred found issuance request and the amount of $45.8 million for the $425 million general obligation bonds to support phase i of the seawall, earthquake safety and disaster prevention program. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the port c.f.o., and i will endeavor to make this quick. i am here this afternoon with an informational presentation regarding the first proposed sale of the 2018 seawall bond.

staff plans to return to commission at your next meeting on march 26th to ask for approval to submit a request to the mayor and the board of supervisors for the sale and appropriation of this first round of geo bond funding. as you know, nearly 80 3% of san francisco voters approved a $425 million general obligation bond to fund improvements to the embarcadero seawall this past november. port staff -- they have been doing our due diligence and are proposing a first bond sale and the amount of $45.8 million plus the additional cost of issuance. the proceeds from this first sale would support planning and preliminary design for phase one of the seawall program.

the bond measure received such strong voter approval because san franciscans recognize the critical role that the seawall plays in protecting tcd assets including transportation and utility infrastructure, emergency response facilities, and billions of dollars in economic activity. throughout the program, the port has articulated six key goals to act quickly, minimize damage, improve resilience, enhance our landscapes, preserve economic resources, and engage the community. this first bond sale will help to support each of these goals. staff propose that proceeds from the first bond sale will fund program management including port staff, program development, project planning including technical engineering work such

as site and geotechnical investigation, risk assessments, and alternatives analysis, and identification of potential pilot projects as well as stakeholder engagement and preliminary design. additionally we are proposing to use -- as you all know, the port was awarded a new start from the army court last fall. since then, port staff and jacob's, which was formally pill , our engineering consultant , have been working very hard with the army court of engineering on the flood study. while our r.f.p. from our contract with jacobs envisions that the port might add flood control work to the contract, the contract that the board and this commission approved did not actually include that scope of work, so port staff expects that

it is possible that we will return to the commission set at some point in the next month with a request to increase our contract scope with jacobs. this would also require approvals from the city charge it civil service commission as well as from the board of supervisors. as you can see, the section highlighted here in green on the schedule slide shows that the port expects that the first bond sale will fund seawall program activities through june of 2021. the port continues to budget $500 million for phase one of the wall program and staff continues to seek sources, including contributions to the state and development of special taxes defines the remaining $54 million gap in phase i.

the first bond sale will reimburse $6 million of the 9 million-dollar realm that the city charge at revolving capital fund made to the seawall program we would anticipate reimbursing the remaining $3 million. at the porch is also proposing to reimburse $3 million in port capital that it has contributed to the seawall program to date, allowing us to reapply those funds to seawall program work that is not bond eligible. today is the first in a series of presentation -- presentations and approvals that are necessary to complete and appropriate the bond sale. staff will appear at the city charge a capital planning committee on monday, march 25th , and as i mentioned, return to the port commission for its approval on the bond sale.

we hope to introduce legislation at the board of supervisors on april seconds. we will then have a hearing at the board touch a budget and finance committee, and are targeting board approval for the bond sale on april the 23rd. if all goes according to plan, we will sell the bonds in the middle of may and then have proceeds in hand by the middle of june. well port staff are deeply appreciative of the passage of this general obligation bond, we continue to seek a wide range of resources to fund both phase one of the program, as well as the next phases of work, which we estimate may cost up to $5 billion over the next 20 or 30 years. we all appreciate the work of the lifetime. we are very proud to be showing the start of their protected waterfront and the city. i am more than happy to answer

questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing him, public comment has closed. >> who does the selling, do we pick the company, or does another agency? >> the office of public finance manages the geo bond sale, so they pick the finance manager and the bond people. >> and do you happen to know, do they have a pool of people? >> yes, they do. >> yes, they do. >> do we have any say and how we direct -- >> they check in, but my response to them, they have a pool, they run through their list in order and they asked me

if we had any objections, and i said to the people who were next in line, i said no. >> i just see this as an opportunity for the programs and beliefs that we had. it is our bonds, and we would be able to give it to a particular contractor that we want to give a san francisco business to. so i would just throw that out, and if we really do have the action and we are just yielding completely to another agency -- >> we do have that action. because this is a general obligation bonds that the voters to repay. the office of public finance has that responsibility. we know there are lb programs, and very also share our goals. >> i hope everyone shares our goals, but delivering them, sometimes a little prodding is more successful.

who is bond council? >> i don't know. we are waiting for the city attorney to find the bond council for the sale and then we have a revenue bond refinancing. they have an r.f.p. out and we are waiting for them to select. >> is there an update? >> i don't know who they selected. but when it comes to the issuance of nec bonds including port bonds, that the city attorney's office selects a prime contractor that would be dedicated towards port property and port bond sales as well as a co- bond council so there would be what they typically referred to as a majority form and an o.b.e. firm, and they will quote me and it. >> who negotiates the fee? and do we have control of that

and can renegotiate it? that is managed by the office of public finance. >> do they charged our fee on the 458 or do they charge the fee based on the cumulative bond sales that they will do for the day. >> it will be on our 45 a. there are cases where you might partner with another agency that is also selling bonds at that time that were -- but -- that were alone in this sale. >> do we fill out the financial statement based on the port? >> it is a city charge a financial statement. >> thank you. >> president adams? >> i appreciate the good question. it is good to see you present, i hope you present more often. >> i'm glad to be here. >> thank you. no, this is good, and i see that on our next meeting, we will vote on this. >> yes, we will bring it as an action item.

>> it seems like things are going pretty good. i will look forward to when you come back. it seems like you have a lot of support for the path, to the bond sale, and clearly it is what we are meant to do. >> katy, thank you so much for this presentation. this is exciting. a lot of good stuff happening. i want to make sure that once we approve this, this is just for the bond setting. if once we decide how we are going to spend the money, then you are going to come back to us , or this goes into the capital budget, or how does that work? >> we'll be taking two pieces of legislation to the board of supervisors. a resolution appointing disapproving the bond sale, any supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating the

proceeds from the sale. so that becomes the budget authority for that $45 million. >> and so the appropriation is in here? [laughter]. >> yeah. >> so the items that we come back to you with at the next commission meeting would be requesting the commission's approval as to forward of a request to the mayor and the board of supervisors both for the sale and as well as for the appropriation of funds. so by the time we come back to you, we should have a draft supplemental appropriation ordinance for you to review. >> we shouldn't have that for the info item? >> i think what katy is going to show is a budget item which is overwhelmingly designed and an engineering contract, but we can break it down into a subcomponent, and then there is

an additional contract. we will do the budget peace, and if you need additional time, let us know if you need to watch

what reads. >> okay. >> i am just here to listen. [laughter] >> are you finished? if i can just loop around. i think we are just bellow -- better off. if we are selling bonds, at the end of the day we will publish something different. because of the cost and everything that is associated. it gets added on. >> it is a 458 plus -- >> i think we are doing basically half a million and we share these moments and we know we are competitive. it just doesn't get lost. we wake up ten years from now or five years from now and say, hey , you approved these bonds, and we spent $25 million on costs. the transparency, i think would be helpful, because we will

continue to go to the public and ask them for money, and we have the whole seawall to fund and following fair cost for all of this, particularly since we are not putting a bid, particularly because we are not in charge, i think we should create transparency for checks and balances of their figures. >> okay. commissioner, specifically, are you talking about the transaction costs for the bond, or are you talking about the overall budget for the 45.8? >> for the cost. the council, selling them -- >> okay. we will work with them to get a fight -- an estimate for what we expect the transaction cost to be, and once a transaction is complete, we can report back on what they actually were. >> i'm not sure if i did not introduce my colleagues, but we will bid up cheaper than what we are going to take. that will give us our own sense of how the market will treat us in the future of our bond.

>> we can do that. >> any other comments? >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> item nine is new business. >> i would like to make a special point of -- i would love to get the commissioner's comments on president brandon about the navigation. i think it ought to be on the records. she was here for most of this discussion, if it is okay, i would like for her to put her comments on record. >> i think that given all the comments that we did here from the public, i think the process was a little bit accelerated and i think that i would have differed that we need to have the mayor's office of homeless work with the community more on some of their issues and concerns. i think we are just the landlord and we are trying to be good and

work well with city hall. i think we do understand the issue of homelessness, and i think the couple things that i thought we heard before all the comments were related to the size, the location, the safety, and the purpose is that on the one hand, we do know that we want to the wall to have the best and highest use and this is always a not the best. if he were to proceed with the interim use and if the community was comfortable with all the issues that they raise -- raised , if the homeless, if the department of homeless can edify their concerns, that i think i would have suggested that we have a very clear transition plan in the lease way before the end of the lease, because this is an interim use, i think from the port commission standpoint, i would say we have to make a very clear it is an interim use. it is not a permanent use. that not -- that may not be

according to what the public has said, but from our perspective, would you want to get the best and highest use in the long term , but there isn't -- we also want to work within the city family, and i don't think that we are in a position to address all of the issues that the public raised within the port commission, and i think it had to be deferred and sent back to city hall and the department of homelessness to address those concerns in more detail, and i think the process has to be a little bit more detailed and probably the speed of this was too fast. the community was not ready, and i don't know if they ever will be ready, and i did not have the benefit of all the comments of my fellow commissioners in terms of what their reactions are. i think we want to be able to work with everybody. i think we want it to be a win-win for everybody. today, we are not in a win-win situation with the community and with city hall and ourselves.

that is still missing in the equation. >> okay. , anymore new business? seeing none, can i have a motion -- >> motion to adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. [laughter]

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 $76,000 a year and as i

said that is the price since its inception. >> thank you for not raising it. chair mar, do you have questions? >> chair mar: thank you. this is very helpful for me inning how this all works as far as our city weighing in on important state legislation and the role that you play. i have a few questions more for my understanding. i want to understand the kind of work that happens conveying our position as the city and county of san francisco on a specific bill. for example, at our board meeting a couple weeks ago, the

board of supervisors adopted a resolution in support of senate bill 233 by senator wiener creating stronger protections for sex workers when reporting a crime what happened after that once you are aware of our position on a bill like that. >> i was actually hoping this morning it would happen. i got the notification from the clerk this morning on 233. i could show you my e-mail to say, hey, the system works. we get that notification. the clerk's office is good enough to not only send it to myself and karen wang and our assistant erica. when the assistant is included things happen.

erica is the one responsible forgetting that resolution to the appropriate committees of the legislature and tracking it in the internal system. that all happens. at some point i want to talk to you both there is a quantity issue every year for the city. i don't want to call it quality issue but highest and best use. if i could briefly. the legislature, the new legislature introduced 2600 new bills. we have flagged based on historical understanding what the city might be interested in, your department, 600 of the 2600. that is a lot. that is probably at least double than for any of our other clients. that is a quantity issue. in terms of highest and best use what the city wants to prioritize in any given year and what should be prioritized legislatively and what should be prioritized through the state budget process, that is very

dynamic and something we try to be at tuned to because of the return on investment we want to produce. so if ab123 is supported we make sure every committee knows you support it but it will go on its own way. payment if the big cities in california are asking for half a billion dollars out of nowhere to address homelessness in california that is a large effort that takes a lot of time and energy. i want to be clear. there are only so many hours in the day. we do have to judge for ourselves because we know we are going to be judged. we have to judge for ourselves how to expend the time and energy on the city's behalf so if that helps. if the board takes a position that isn't just moving along as i described earlier and it needs a push, then that is where the

actual lobbying happens, talking to members, talking to staff, trying to count noses to get the votes for the city's position. in where to put your focus on bills is that something that you are in communication with the mayor's office about? >> yeah, it is pretty clear, and i want to believe that really to almost all of us, maybe all of us, depending on the issue that certain issues have to be prioritized. i haven't mentioned funding for the seawall. that is obviously a budget issue. with the climate and the king

tides and there is senate bill 45 that could be amended to include more money for the seawall. we have $5 million to study and move it further along. that would be an example where i think. i don't know anybody in the city that wouldn't say that shouldn't be a priority of the city and for our firm, but i go back to, mr. chairman the 600 bills. the hierarchy for the 600 bills, i want to be clear just because our firm tracks something doesn't mean the city has a position on it. we want to be aware and not lose site of it. when the slc takes a position that is prioritized because there is a official position on it. that is the way things shake out during the course of the year. >> a few more questions. we received the memo or i

received the memo i think this morning or yesterday the slc adopted a position on it looks like 20 billings. these would be priority bills. >> they would. >> that sounds good. when was the slc created? >> 3 section five point three, five point one how old is that john. >> that pre-dates us representing the city. it was in existence when we came on board. obviously i defer to the city attorney. >> that is something we can change if we want and we can count our own noses.

>> slc plays an important role to bring together the mayor's office and key departments to i'd fithe priority bills and what our position should be. >> yes. >> just getting back to supervisor mar's question. it looks like the committee has been around since at least 1978. there are some sections of this code that were adopted in 1939. maybe it goes as far back as 1939. >> we no, i thinks at the end of the session move quickly when you see a bill that has profound implications for our ability to continue as local legislators do

you sound the alarm? who do you call? >> what happens in our firm technologically we subscribe to a service that lets us see amended bills every morning. we have nine lobbyists and four legislative aids. we wake up every morning and go through the day's amendments. if it is important for san francisco we refer it to the mayors office. i am trying to think of a hypothetical. it might not be the best thing to do, but we certainly know it when we see it, being in the seventh year of representing the city. we make the mayor's office aware of it, frankly, most days before 8:00 a.m. so they get to the desk and might have three, four, 10 e-mails from us. it is the bill. i actually want t to go to the

people working in the city. we don't have to give context like we do in other instances. you might want to look at this because. we refer the bill in the amended form and people here understand why they are looking at it, which is nice. >> i do want to thank you for your help in the last session getting the 1148 passed to allow us to have a transportation network company tax per ride vehicles. >> thank you. i thought today was a commondation for that. >> ab1184 and that was not easy. it was a pleasure working with your staff. >> that was a great team effort. i don't have any more questions for mr. yoder. i thank you from coming down

from sacramento. i am disappointed that the mayor's office are not here. i will get to the bottom of that. i would like to continue this to the call of the chair so mr. m.c.a. ffree can tell us how this works. >> thank you, paul. >> why don't we go to public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to testify on this item? seeing none, public testimony is now closed. any additional comments? >> no. >> can we recommend this item? can we continue this item to the call of the chair without objection. thank you. that completes the agenda for today. we are adjourned. thank you.