just did the r.f.p. to see what was out there. and i agree, we were premising that we wanted to select some of our managers. you can close down an r.f.p. there's a process, but -- >> our goal was to replace 'cause we thought we could and should replacing, adding more value -- it wasn't just we want today do a search for the heck of doing a search. >> no, i think we were concerned that we did not know necessarily, you know, whether the strategies were out there. i mean, not that we didn't know them, but we wanted to see how many people would be interested to bid. i don't know that it is necessarily to replace our existing managers. we wanted to look at them relative to our existing managers. i need to look at the premise in the first three pages of the r.f.p., which is, you know, the purpose of issuing that, but i don't have that in front of me. >> but i think we have to be careful of turning this into a full-fledged discussion about processing, as opposed to- >> can i chime in? >> there was a reason for d

way through. >> can we improve the r.f.p. process? >> no. >> well, we have a difference of opinion. i believe we can. we'll come back and talk about this because the need to improve every piece of the portfolio to include the international, the global and the emerging, that need does not go away. the opportunity is not going to go away. can we do better? >> well, under perfect circumstances if we would have been fully staffed, we could have brought the information earlier, if that's what you mean by improving the process, but once you issue an r.f.p., you know, you have to follow the very specific rules so set out by the city. [inaudible] >> -- joe, and you, jay, are correct. i think there's always room for improving the outcomes in the r.f.p., and that has to do with the predevelopment of what that r.f.p. looks like, different metrics and so forth of different people that are going to be bidding. but like jay is saying, once you get into that, then you have certain restrictions around bidding and certain things that you canno

r.f.p. will be coming out of the end of the year and we have another r.f.p. coming out to provide community assessment and referral services for our young people who are in the high-risk system. >> what about anything on families? >> yes. so the family engagement category we've allocated in our allocation plan, we do hope to issue that r.f.p. we are in lots of conversations with our other city departments to make sure that what we do for families will be aligned with what the department of public-health is doing to support families or first five san francisco is doing to support families so we can actually have a coordinated system to support families. we have several conversations with our school directs partners as well because we're all serving the same families and the same children and we need to make sure our dollars leverage each other and we're not going against each other and we need to make sure that the biggest thing for our buck. >> when is that coming out? >> i don't know, it takes time. we hope sometime next year. >> this sort of -- i don't want

while the r.f.p. was going on, it was a little hard for them to keep their business up and running because it just felt like the next shoe was going to drop. we intended to bring that to you in august, but i'm still waiting for jim lazarus to get back to me with comments. i don't think it'll be coming to you until september. basic details. and there's more of the curtains, just to give you that pretty view. then, there's what we call the main atrium, which has a typo in there, and broadway, which holds up to 5,000 people. so we had the exploratorium in there from 1969 to 2013. we had a first interim tentant, which was town school for boys. they ran it as a school and ran events on the weekends and at night. after that, we had innovation hangar which came in to help us celebrate the ppie in 2014 and continued on under an agreement we brought to you, a longer term agreement to run it, you doing expos and events. we had, starting in late 2016, some major issues with ihangar. we had -- they were not -- the

r.f.p. follow the traditional pathway or was it a sole source contract? >> this was -- it was r.f.p. hat followed the conventional pathway and it was a pretty large r.f.p. and we have large providers of mental health services and we have all kinds of services like the adult mode is different than the children. and so the r.f.p.s are pretty complicated and so the reason why this contract was delayed is the award of the contract, you know, the actual r.f.p. process. and then there's the lengthy contract negotiation with the provider. >> chair cohen: thank you. we are going to hear from the spots on item 5. thank you. >> so the proposed resolution as stated would approve a contract between the department of public health and university of california san francisco to provide behavioral health services for adults and older adults for a term of four years from july 1, 2018 to june 30, 2022. and in the amount not to exceed $22,811,510. and as the department stated they had issued requests for proposals for new behavioral health service providers in 2016 and 2017 and awarded the contract to -

manage and complete the r.f.p. process for lafco legal services. and a commission staff and development. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i want to appreciate mr. goebel for taking the initiative to have an extensive and comprehensive work time to discuss this today and i'm thrilled in a very short period of time that you're demonstrating the leadership to move forward with lafco. with that i turn it over to mr. goebel for his presentation. >> thank you very much, madam chair and commissioners. i'm super excited to present the proposed executive office work plan today. i have had an opportunity to meet with a lot of folks and have received a lot of feedback about what the priorities for s.f. lafco should be in the coming years. and my work plan was drafted after reviewing a number of issues that the commission has expressed interest in. and i have also included for the viewing public an outline of the work plan and the objective -- my first objective is, of course, to advance cleanpowersf. san francisco's community choice aggregation progra

. >> i just want to give you an update of the proposal for lafco public services. i have a draft r.f.pthat will be sent out in the next week or so. since the contract language for legal services hasn't been updated in many years, i've just needed a little time so review the duty so that i can be thorough in the r.f.p. i should have a significant update at our next meeting on sept 21 as the r.f.p. would probably have been issued by then and we probably would have received submissions, and i expect the whole process to be completed by november . >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. gobel. commissioner pollock? >> commissioner pollock: thank you so much for working on this. i know we have been long overdue to take a look at our legal services. in the last meeting that we had, i had made some comments that in past years that our legal services specifically with ms. miller, that it was hard to know if there was a conflict of interest, and i just wanted to clarify my comments from the last time, which was this was in regard to the last time when there was a stall at the sfpuc in terms of the

we disagree with their inclusion of bay cruises and the alcatraz rsp -- r.f.p. ey will compete unfairly against our legacy of private employers. a compromise was reached that we can support that allows the court to realize improvements for the peer. after the 2,000 bid was awarded to hornblower, they lost a federal lawsuit requiring payment of the prevailing wage of the workers. we spent half a million dollars in that fight. twelve years later, we have the same issue. it has taken over a year to once again compare the mpf to include local prevailing wage in the r.f.p. thank you for all the commission has done. if they had worked with us from the beginning we could have avoided that delay. the m.p.s. has always required as alcatraz ferry concessionaire to provide three boats can hold at least 300 passengers. multiple ferry boat operators in san francisco have qualifying fleets that can meet this requirement. however, that includes us maintaining the existing limits on passenger loads to alcatraz. the result is only one bid or hornblower has been complying with the

we went for recompete in 2014 and there was a selected team that submitted at the time. >> so the r.f.p. that is coming, the extent is to embrace the contracting requirement? >> i'm sorry let me ask sarah. let me ask the experts on the procurement. >> commissioner sesay: what is that process? >> we include all of the city requirements that are included by our federal requirement. for instance, local hiring, we can't include that -- those clauses in our contract because of federal prohibitions against geographic preferences. but we do include all of the other clauses an and yes. some are very easy for us to monitor compliance and minimum compensation ordinance, for example. we see timesheets and hours. i can tell you that minimal compensation ordinance is not usually an issue on this proje project. since compensation is lower than you will see on consultant charges. we also keep track of city changes. so 12 acts, no travel. that became law after this contract was entered into. it is not part of this contract, but would be included in the contract entered into for the next team. thank you

spent down yet, and that's just really a function of the fact that it takes a lot of time to get the r.f.p.'s out the door. we had to have two commission meetings this month just to get all of our items out the door. we had our final one yesterday, so that shouldn't be an issue. >> supervisor cohen: well, the issue is that you have money that you haven't spent down, and you said that you would like to -- you want this money so that you can spend it immediately, so i'm having a hard time with that. >> so the month notty that we haven't spent it allocated. it's still allocated to various things. it was a $6 million in the first year that we allocated to very specific items, and it just took a long time to get the money out the door. this new money for 18-19 is being allocated for different things, so we're ready to get this out the door if we can. last year, we tried as much as we can to modify contracts when we could, we tried hard to get modifies to contracts done, but it's a very long process, so it took a while to get that out the door. but the new 3 million is

civic edge distinguished itself from the four terms that responded to the r.f.p. with understanding the objectives, capabilities, and experience. civic edge has shown a breath of capabilities that will help us to engage communities of concern, people with low incomes and other vulnerable populations and other organizations that support these communities. civic edge has recent experience coordinating across agencies. they have experience working on long-term planning. team members have experienced looking for the seawall project, the mta's muni strategy, planning department and others. we established a d.b.e. goal of 14%. civic edge includes 17% for two sub-consultants. we have budgeted $150,000 for this contract with a federal surface planning grant. with me today, representatives from civic edge and r.d.j. and we're happy to take questions. that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor peskin: any public comment on this item? thank you, mr. young. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. commissioner tang, do you have any comments about spending $150,00

and then also, this year they will be issuing the r.f.p. for toll system integrators to actually do the system development, as well as the equipment installation on the islands. so that -- i will take any questions that you have. >> thank you very much. that was very detailed. let me open it up for questions from the commissioners. >> yes, this is very exciting for the different transportation policies and programs that we have, and i would like to note that the pilot program for the autonomous vehicle, starting on treasure island, it is wonderful to have that funded, and have it be a pilot. especially on treasure island, which is an island. we can test that while it settles. and see how it works. i also would like to note that the revenue is that we get from tolling, in fact support the public transit options, including the shuttles and varies. as we consider the tolling programs and the revenues that they generate, i think we have to be cognizant that part of the subsidy of the transit, the public transit options comes from the revenues th

as the r.f.p. will not be issued as originally anticipated in 18-19. so that is $1.8 million. and then there was about $37,000 and increase attrition to reflect the hiring timeline for a vacant i.s. programmer analyst position. and that has been vacant for about a year. and then the third is for about $64,000 again to increase attrition to reflect the hiring timeline for vacant fire alarm dispatcher position which has been vacant since march of 2016. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee, does that complete your questions? >> supervisor yee: yes. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer. >> superviser fewer: since we have had our presentation last week and i have been speaking to colleagues on the board with concerns about fiber f.s. in general and maybe this isn't what we should be doing. and that by the time we do it, it will be antiquated somewhat. so i am requesting that if we don't make a decision today, that we would bring this back on monday for reconsideration. >> can i share with you one interesting way to look at this? >> supervisor cohen: ple

their best to identify the needs within these specific policy areas and they will do that through the r.f.p. process. we will bring expanding funding back on committee reserve to understand how the r.f.p.s that will be spent. they will be rolled out from department head. it's a lot of information. i hope we'll be able to have a robust discussion. gao the spreadsheet in front of you. we can start with supervisor fewer >> supervisor fewer: thank you. what i see -- thank you supervisor cohen for taking a stab at this. who i see missing here, we heard lot about this in public testimony. workforce development for homeless people. i actually think that getting them a job is a step out of homelessness and actually into the san francisco workforce is also an entrance san francisco general society. i think it's a good thing. i think that wasn't mentioned here in these priorities but i think it's pretty important. i also think that the housing subsidies for seniors and people with disability, in my district i'm seeing seniors displaced as a rapid rate and it's because they can't keep up with the hous

request the funding be allocated to family engagement to support current programs at risk because of the r.f.p. for family engagement that got released. there is still no timeline for its release. specifically i am asking for $112,000 in year one $4,300,000 total. i want to be sure the board of supervisors understands the diversity of work we do across sam's princess -- san francisco. not only in enrolment by family engagement in low income communities. many of the families you've heard from previously. thank you so much for your time. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, everyone. i'm from the san francisco latino inequity coalition. i am here to support the ask that we have made as a coalition and more specifically, to talk about funds for bayview families. we have worked, in the last six months to provide family supportive services for this community. it is a growing population in our neighbourhood. supporting them and creating resiliency and helping them navigate through different barriers as well as continue to support their children and their lifelong success.

and seven, manage and complete the r.f.p. process for lafco legal services. and also identify funding opportunities. while there's no specific pool of money available on the state oor the federal level for lafco we can apply for grants when we partner with city agencies. this is something that might happen in our labor study on emerging mobility services with the transportation authority. and also over the next year i'd like to spend some time identifying other special studies that we could take on in our next fiscal year. and objective 10, commission staff and development. i'll work closely with cal lafco to share best practices, strengthen and support cal lafco and lafcos across california. and i'd like to expand my knowledge skills when it comes to the city and climate change planning and attend classes on equity and intersectionallity so that i can deepen my knowledge skills around those areas. and that, commissioners, is my proposed executive officer work plan. >> supervisor fewer: okay. any more comments for mr. goebel or questions. commissioner pollock.

the first r.f.p. process was discarded and this is a new process. >> president cohen: she used a lot of pretty words. she said discarded. it was thrown out because it was deemed to be unfair. so this whole entire process has left a bad taste in my mouth. and the other part that makes me uncomfortable is that there are small businesses located in the bay area, specifically in san francisco, that should be in a stronger position and i think are competitive and should be unfairly excluded in the process. the notification of the contract of document, i don't have any information in front of me, but i have my aide bringing to you to support what i'm claiming is true and factual, showing that this business also, it's called new south, new south parking, which went through a name change so they can contribute and participate in this r.f.p. process. it is not based in the state of california. so let's do this. let's continue item 11 until later on in the meeting so i can show for the record the arguments i'm