>> they were respondents to the last rfp that was ultimately unsuccessful. we got a response from a firm called noble america's. we got a response from consolation and a response from show energy -- shell energy. commissioner mirkarimi: these are not small companies, to say the least. >> three of them for sure. commissioner mirkarimi: interesting change from the first effort until mal. >> we are excited to sit down with the firm's on monday. commissioner campos: just a quick question about the larger strategy before we go forward. i think it is great that we have made progress, but i wonder that going through this process, are we not thinking of another option that would be exploring the possibility of the city simply doing this on its own? it might very well be that we get to the right result in terms of the rfp process. but i think it may be other advantages. >> the city policy is to try to work with other vendors and achieve all the goals. that is what we are pursuing. we have already begun internally to try to figure out what would be another option. we

they are part of the requirements in the rfp. that is another reason why -- at the very end, i want to get back with them to make sure we are all comfortable and all on solid grounds with everyone. >> thank you. thank you. >> any of our questions? >> i always like to be reassured on the account. how much money do we have for this? >> between us and planning for the total, we are around $7 million. >> $7 million. >> yeah. we have given information to the mayor's office and the mayor's office's people so they are aware of what the request planning needs to make next year and what we need to make so that we are making sure we have enough money set aside for this project. >> there $7 million set aside. >> yes, between the two departments. >> we are paying our part and they are paying their parcht. are we paying for planning as well? >> we are not paying for planning. we are going to pay for the enterprise license -- at this point. any planning specific types of applications, they will pay for those. >> ok. >> we always pay for planni

in march, we issued an rfp. in 2009, we conducted a trial. the trial operator followed eight route which was clever plea -- which was -- followed a route which was collectively developed. there was no known opposition or complaint. the selection process for this rfp require the operator have experience, the ability to finance the operation, and a robust marketing and business plan. we received responses from three entities. we had a three-member selection panel consisting of a member of the mayor's office of neighborhood service, a member of the streets division, and a capital division employees. proposals were scored on experience, qualifications, financial capacity, and proposed financial term. in addition, the panel chose to interview all three who submitted proposals. those took place in august. the selection panel unanimously ranked san francisco electric tour company as the highest of the three proposals. it is quite qualified. they are san francisco-based, currently operating in san francisco and sausalito. they are the first segway co

whenever someone has to write an rfp for something, they need to be using the correct language. i, i've seen rfps that have been written and i can see by the language that's being used, that they are not, they're not moved to this whole framework of recovery, but they're still being awarded. so we need to help people to begin to use, and if we do that, they're going to pick it up immediately because people need, organizations need funding. i believe samhsa has done a great job in, in laying the framework for, if you will, for the type of discussion that i think needs to happen. and i think it's around recovery in a system of care model that's person-centered and it's based more on the holistic approach. that it's, it's person-driven if you will. and i, i think we just to build upon that. i think that's the way we begin to have the kind of conversations where all of a sudden, instead of 200,000 recovery advocates, you're making greater head roads into the 20 million people in recovery that miss hyde talks about. so instead of reaching less then 3 million and providing services, w

>> that would be in the rfp itself. the previous boat house when it operated, the previous operator when it operator, it did not have a restaurant. have you done an analysis that there will be any impact at all in terms of having two restaurants in close proximity to each other. >> it is strong and the market will support this. >> they did stock the lake for fishing. will that be part of this as well? >> i believe that they still do stock the lake. >> do people go there and fish? >> yes. >> it is possible as someone could propose and incorporate that. >> this is catch and release out there. >> yes. i did not have an opportunity to read all of the information but my question is in terms of the recommendation of the winning bid, is there a panel? who will be your review committee and how will that process -- all have a selection committee includes stakeholders. >> are you taylor making this? >> they are different for each and we have the appropriate individuals involved in reading the proposals and to making recommendatio

part in terms of what is next hot how we are going to move forward, we made some modifications to the rfp following the september meeting. on nobemb - -november -- on november 3, we received 04 responses. there were various elements of those responses and wanted to make sure that we could have the broadest number of firms to be considered and scored. we are holding meetings with all four respondents on monday. we will sit down and be able to have a dialogue to have a frank dialogue and to make clear what needs to be included in the responses. and give them a bit more time to let them explain to us whether her or not that is what they want to do. and putting together their packages, it just wasn't included in what we saw. and give them some time to provide the follow up material

that is one of the things with our rfp and our data system. we have to make sure the people who need the information from our data system get this. yes, if the rent board has access. if -- they don't >> it is not just dbi's online system. is everybody else in the city. i can see public works addresseing it. they need to have an accurate list of apartments and addresses. >> it is a statement regarding the responsibility of the building officials. the building officials also provide the property owner with the permit. that is in the implementation process, which is being introduced. that is something to work on, to provide the necessary notification process. >> it also applies in the temporary retention of old numbers where we retain it and essentially dropped it after 60 days. i just want to make sure that the history, if there is a change of address, is brought forward and not just dropped. i think that's one of the situations that happened here. there was a history of occupancy. there was an address change. the old history was gone. that make

that rfp is in draft now. it will be going one more round, sitting down in detail with the engineers and the unions, trying to get that to you in february so you can get that out. we did have one contract awarded. the technical detail will be put into place, so we are of little hoff -- off-sync. there is possibly up to 18 separate contracts that will be happening into the future. probably 2012 through 2033. on the design side, we got a channel tunnel out that what from mission creek -- went from mission creek. it is undersized. it is replacing the 1940's design to reduce odors. those are highly critical projects. with the city work being $71,000,000.140000000 dollars. those would problem -- a $71 million, and 14$140 million. it would support analysis and design during construction so we would have a long-term contract to get these done and to build. the city was included in the numbers -- [unintelligible] i also have some cost engineering. we have process engineers through waste water, but we will have to have

the rfp process under another superintendent, -- these are not district positions for these services, and they are essential services to our innovative way of providing support to students, and they essentially pay for part of it themselves, so they are doing part of it now. to answer your question specifically, they are being employed by the nonprofits to pay that portion, so we would respectfully request the while we will definitely do all evaluations, we not pull the item around the consultants. >> madam chair, if the board is so inclined, the job and do the job description, that is another option that you of available to you, as well. >> and also wanted to suggest that we could call this item for the december curriculum committee, because i think that we have also had another, so we would also like to hear from them, too, and is there another? it would be great to have those schools for the curriculum meeting. vice president mendoza: deputy superintendent? >> we can work together to provide a more comprehensive report for the board, but since it does have your attention right now,

but we will get that rfp ready to go1a out.we want to do something moreu'ñ comprehense to deal with traffic management. nee with puc to secure the use of twoz adjacent vacant propertis oní& putnam street. they severed from -- suffer from similarqsu issues, illegal dump, and we would like to take control of them and% additional parking for the market, and in exchange,q maintain them and include them in the market site that we would manage. weñm would welcome your assiste with that. qtÑwe already are working on an update of policies and procedures with the new market éqmanager. we have already reached out to uc-@uÑdavis and uc-berkeley. there are some relevant classes refresh the training program for our staff. ÷p÷we have done best practicesq, research, if you will, through the california association ofç>Ñ farmers' markets, through discussions with other markets. that. we also had a productive relationship with the is here today. if you want to hear from him will be here to answeruó questions. this showsy these time periods,

own commission, the priority -- i can tell you that during the time of issue in the r -- issuing the rfp, what is the process and what should we be doing to answer the question and provide the services internally? what might be the limitations that we take into consideration to up to buy as benefits for san francisco. commissioner mirkarimi: one of the challenges ahead to be the question of liability. it is a pretty stiff bar. at least we are able to minimize that particular concern, at least to some extent in the consideration of why the sfpuc should step up and compete, for lack of a better phrase. >> one item to recall, we discussed this a bit when talking about the credit rating. one of the benefits of going with a party supplier is that it is a third party for providing credit to engage in the energy marketplace. with these types of contracts, whether it be us or a third- party with power suppliers, you have to be able to demonstrate that they will be able to buy the power. going with the third party supplier, the benefits is that it is putting up the collateral. we would need to be