mr. gibner, do you think the language i'm proposing to address that particular issue? because the point is -- iffage emergency happens you don't know at the time of the emergency what it might cost but in some instances for example, with the firehouse we know that is definitely know that is over $250,000 i don't know if it's appropriate to suggest how would you you immediately know? i don't know. what do you think the appropriate language is in order to address this issue when it is that particular threshold? and how would you even though when it will be? some cases you know right awap, some cases you don't as director nuru indicated. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. as to what the best policy answer is i don't think i'm in a position to say the proposal you are making to amendment ordinance would -- actually, the ordinance that is before you you would require to notify the board when the emergency happens, however much the amount is the department heads, and the board members can work together to figure out a way to talk through the likelihood something is going t

mr. gibner can you clarify that because it is my understanding once we aproov this list it needs to wrurn to the board to be removed so i want to make sure we are all only the same page >> deputy city tern i should probably confer with the department. the board has to authorize and any properties where we are imposing the lean or collecting. i should confer qu the department about the discretion they have to remove praurnts once the board adopted the motion >> just for clarity, the board adopts this motion and it will be left you have the discretion to actually remove one of these properties if anything changes? >> yes if the property owner pays or if we can work with the board to make changes if the board agree >> for example the 98 year old man he had a hardship waver and if there are other sich waiz like that where there is a hardship waver or language barrier and someone who duds rnt understand we want to make sure that by approving this we don't prevent dpw from removing them entirely. >> thereat is correct >> attorney gibner >> one option you have today is to continue the matter not

mr. gibner, do you think the language i'm proposing to address that particular issue? because the point is -- iffage emergency happens you don't know at the time of the emergency what it might cost but in some instances for example, with the firehouse we know that is definitely know that is over $250,000 i don't know if it's appropriate to suggest how would you you immediately know? i don't know. what do you think the appropriate language is in order to address this issue when it is that particular threshold? and how would you even though when it will be? some cases you know right awap, some cases you don't as director nuru indicated. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. as to what the best policy answer

gibner, deputy city attorney. >> in terms of the mechanics i'll prefer to mr. updyke and the city attorney's office the board on occasion adopts an ordinance including that this property is not subject to the surplus city property ordinance i think mr. updyke was saying that is a step further down the road and that's when the board commits to approving the sale you can sell this prompted for this property with connection of the city offices and for policy reasons this sale will not be subject to the city ordinance. >> thank you, mr. begin in her this property on the market do people know we haven't clarified a surplus i assume it is possible that the city can site it isn't. >> the offering and rip from our brokers in representing the city and county of san francisco is clear about the ultimate decision lies with the board of supervisors and mayor's office and everyone in the antenna understands the public transaction has that caveat. >> and final question in terms of i mean do you think this is a question for mr. lee do you think before action is taken by the b