tv [untitled] January 26, 2013 11:00am-11:30am PST
to apply again. thank you for being here and appreciate your patience as we make difficult decisions. item number five. >> appointment to the reentry council. one seat, 10 applicants. >> thank you. >> so at this time -- it would can ask members of the public to exit the committee room. we have other items on the agenda. thank you. we did get a request from the reentry council to continue this;
(gavel) before we enter a emotion to convene in closed sessions, is there any member that wants to make a comment? seeing none. at this time we asked members of the public to please exit the room >> during the close session the committee voted to forward item 6-11 the full board with recommendations. >> thank you cannot entertain the motion to close to close session. we can do that without opposition. anything else on the agenda?
>> clerk calonsag: turn off all electronic devices; submit cards for any speakers. each member will be allotted the same number of minutes to speak in each item. items will appear on the february 5 supervisor meeting. >> would you call item 1. >> clerk calonsag: ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code by adding sections 6.22 q and 6.42 f to require a public works contractors to pay subcontractors. >> chair: this is an item that we have been working on for quite some time. catie chang in my office among other folks and contractors have been working on ways to improve the
way that we do business. one of the areas is reducing withholdings to make sure we are not the bottleneck for many of the local businesses and many small businesses and also what we can do to improve the issue of prompt payment. especially during the past few years the idea of how it is the city processes payment and get them back out to contractors is an important issue for us. if you think about the prompt an issue, you can think about it in three parts: when it is that contractors submit invoices, we hear a lot about this; how long it takes for the city to process an invoice and finally the issue of when it is that contractors pass on
payment to subcontractors after the receipt payment from the city. many recognize there is much to do in the first two phases of prop favorite, with has to do with how we get contractors to submit invoices in a quicker way. we have created an online system. the second portion with regard to processing in time the city already has a certain requirements around how quickly we are required to process payments for both construction contracts as well as professional services contract. there is a lot work to be done to track how well the city does to standardize; we count that time. and be able to report on that and see how we do. there are opportunities in those two faces.finally in the third area,
with regards to how fast primary contractor space of contractors, there are rules, a three-day requirement already in place. this legislation does not change that. once upon contractor is paid by the city, that they pass and pay contractors within seven days, it is a reasonable piece of legislation. in the sense that if there is a dispute those items can be - there is a separate process for that. as long as they are not disputed items, the payment should happen. there is an enforcement component, a 2% enforcement are fine if the prime contractor does not pay.
also private enforceable action between contractors. part of the incentive of doing this third portion is really to help to get us consistent with some of the state laws already in place that helps some of our contractors. that is what this legislation generally does, applicable to construction and professional services. there is a lot of work that we can do and we will continue to do with the task force. i know that mindy -- is here. making sure that we look at every piece of the process. i know that the city will continue to work for the mayors office as well with some of the executive directors. and colleagues i hope for your support for this legislation. it is a fairly straightforward one and it helps improve one part of the process. there is an amendment that i would request that we make
after public comment. i will read that into the record. this really seeks to clarify the enforcement component. all that we would be doing is adding on page 1, line 22 i believe -- and on page 2, line 9. they should read that this subsection -- this is a part of his new -- enforceable and is not, and it goes back. with that, if there are any questions i will be happy to answer them. we do have our city attorney here to help us if there are any questions. -- who has been working with us on this legislation. other than that we will open for public comment. other members of the public who wish to speak in item number one?
something years way before you all can hear. i don't know what you were doing 20 years ago, but i am doing the same thing i was doing 20 years ago, trying to find out what is going on at city hall. every department here needs to go over their contracts. for instance ttys signed contract that you don't know nothing about. there's a lot of things going on, i'm going to be here to let you know. i have been here starting city hall for over 20 years. specifically the last five years and the new administration. things -- and dwayne jones. because of the african-american outmigration. every department of the city affects us, african-americans. i know you don't want to hear that but somebody
has to be up here and i will be here at every opportunity i can until city hall opens up their eyes to realize that the african-american black negroes are in a state of emergency in san francisco. >> thank you. next speaker. >> can you hear me? good afternoon supervisors my name is george shank (sounds like) - speaking as vice president of the asian-american contractors associations. we brought this legislation and discussed that among our membership and the board. this is a straightforward piece of legislation a supervisor chu mentioned. it will have in our view a very positive impact on the contracting community, providing certainty and predictability with regards to cash flow, with the seven-day
component. there is also a mechanism for self enforcement which is positive, namely the 2% prompt payment penalty. for existing or upcoming sf projects, don't think that there will be an adverse transition to these requirements. these requirements have been going on since january 1 of last year. when jerry brown passes into law as of january 1 last year, for about a year prime contractors and subcontractors have been dealing with these requirements and successfully adhering to these requirements outside the city.transition to this legislation should be smooth. >> good afternoon my name is lloyd -- small business consultant. also an lbe and serve on the lbe committee.
we have been talking a lot about your legislation. everybody i talk to agrees that it is a wonderful first step in this will alleviate a lot of suffering are some of the smaller outfits that have not been paid in literally years from their contracts. so having said that, congratulations. very good. we still have a lot of nagging problems with our lbe program. what i am hoping that you would understand and if you need more clarification we are available at the committee 87% of the lbes other micro-lbes, the smallest. since we are tweaking some of these ordinances it looks like we might have the mindset to realize some of the advantages to having work go to our local business enterprises especially our
smallest ones which by the way comprise only micro, 87%, but most of the micros are minority and women owned businesses. you can go further than that and say that historically because of some institutional setbacks in our society, women and minorities have a harder time getting credit. it goes on and on. they remain small. i urge you to take this opportunity of this mindset and try to figure out a way to bring more work to the smallest, the micros, more set-asides and possibly some changing of the thresholds. >> chair: thank you very much. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on item number one.
seeing none public comment is closed. (gavel) though i have a motion to amend the legislation as read in the record? >> so moved. >> seconded and we can do that without objection. this helps to address from component of the prompt payment process; other areas where we do think that we have room to move, we have room to look at what we require prime contractors to do with regards to submission, once they receive an invoice from a subcontractor. we have a lot more work to do around transparency and how the city can make sure all parties involved have transparency with where we are in terms of processing payments. finally i think the city has room to move in terms of figuring out how to standardized reporting and tracking payments and how it is
that we do reporting. these are some of the areas of that forward to continuing to work on with the contractor community and with the city departments. do we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations as amended? >> yes, madam chair. it is good to be back on government audits and oversight, and looking forward to working with this committee. i want to say that this is a very sound piece of legislation. it makes a great deal of sense. i like the fact that we are among the things conforming with state laws; it makes a great deal of sense to also provide certainty and clarity for the subcontractors that are impacted by this issue. and i would like to ask that my name be added as a cosponsor. >> chair: thank you very much supervisor. i would like to say that the small business commission has also acted to support this legislation as well. >> i make a motion to move this forward, the process of recommendation.
>> chair: we can do that without objection. item 2. gvl(gavel) clk>> clerk calonsag: performance audit housing authority. >> chair: this is brought by a number of supervisors. supervisor campos, do you have opening comments? >> supervisor campos: i will be brief in my comments. since i was elected supervisor four years ago, we have heard from time to time from a number of residents from the public housing developments about issues involving living conditions and the housing authority developments. it is something that we have been hearing more about in the last few weeks. i actually have three housing authority developments in my district, -- dwellings, holly
courth an alameny (sounds like). there are other supervisors, and other members of his body that also have housing authority developments in their districts. i know that all of us on this board are committed to making sure that the needs of these residents are addressed. it is in that spirit that i wanted to bring us item forward simply to provide the city and county of san francisco that clear picture of how the needs of these residents are being met and we are mindful of the fact
that we are talking about an agency subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government. we know that the department of housing and urban development, hud, is conducting a nodded to see if the housing authority is comply with housing standards among other things. we know that a city we invest resources in redevelopment for instance housing authority property. one of the objectives of this review is simply to ensure that our partner, the housing authority, is in a strong financial position. and that the investments that the city is making a properly managed. the kind of review that i have in mind is a review that is consistent with how we as a board deal with the management and operations of various agencies. we as a board under our rules actually have a point of calling for different types of audits from time to time,
including a management audit which under our rules as opposed to happen every eight years or so. and when we look at the issue of when the last time the housing authority has been audited by the city, we discovered that the last time was in 1993, about 10 years ago. the item that you have before you % i want to thank my colleagues who have sponsored this item, supervisors avalos, kim and mar, basically it's an item asking the budget and legislative analyst to conduct a performance review of this agency, and the kinds of things that performance review would include would be compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, including different practices and procedures
that the city has in place. the effectiveness of the agency's governance as well as financial controls, recommendations made by hud and other entities that have audited this agency. the audit would also look at the management of public housing resources including housing provided by section 8 vouchers, as well as looking at housing authority mass public housing and housing managed by third parties including nonprofit corporations. the audit would also as a matter of practice look at the management of the agency including looking at the management staff and other resources; and other jurisdictions. one thing that we want to be very careful about is we are mindful of the fact
that the federal government, through hud, is auditing the agency and in thinking about the scope of this audit, we have asked the budget and legislative analysts to focus on those areas where there is intersection between what the housing authority is doing in terms of fulfilling its mandate and the city, county of san francisco. we want to make sure there is no duplication of the review being conducted by hud. at some point, once we hear from other colleagues on the committee, i will ask our budget and legislative analyst to come up and speak in greater detail about this process, and about the potential items that would be included in the scope. the last thing that i would say is that, and management audit and a performance audit is
essentially about simply providing a picture for what is happening in terms of the way which an agency is serving the needs of its constituents, its residents. it is an opportunity to see the positive, to see the negative, to see the areas where there has been improvement, areas where improvement could be made if that is the case. i look forward to my colleagues on the committee supporting this item, and any input that you have in terms of what the scope of this should be. thank you very much. >> chair: thank you supervisor campos. i look forward to hearing for the budget analyst, flushing out how they would see this audit unfolding. did you want to bring the budget analyst up? >> supervisor campos: if we can ask ms. campbell? i just wanted to give my
colleagues the opportunity to say anything. >> good afternoon chair chur and members of the committee. supervisor campos did actually go over the scope that we have introduced in the motion. it's a very broad scope. at the scope that would be like any initiative of any audit. we conduct a risk assessment, where we would carefully define the scope and narrow it to what we consider the most critical areas. a couple of points about this audit. this is a hud-funded agency, not funded by the city. we have met with the government relations officer from the housing authority and discuss our working relationship. he did provide us with a copy
of the information request provided by hud. we talked about what the hud scope would be so we would be able to work cooperatively and make sure we are making the best use of resources in terms of conducting the audit. we have already begun that discussion, although abortion is not the best. >> supervisor campos: ms. campbell forgot to brought this, and glad that you brought it up. housing authority staff has been very helpful and willing to work with the budget and legislative analyst. i want to thank them for their willingness to do that. >> they have been very helpful up until now even though emotions not been adopted yet. in terms of defining the audit, how differs from the hud audit, hud has their criteria,
rules, compliance procedures that they will look at. they will be looking at financial and governance of the agency. nonetheless we would go in and look at where the city has interest. this is part of the cities stock, city residents and housing. we hope that sf, with future plans of development of public housing, -- we believe that because of the departments of public health and human resources provide a lot of services to residents of this housing, the city has an interest. we also have a prior audit. we did an audit last year in response to complaints of there were problems, referral to city properties etc.
there is a relationship. we focus on -- we know that hud would look at things within a certain level of criteria. i believe that there will still be areas in terms of the financial performance, financial policies, strategic planning, procurement -- there are many areas where we believe that there are benefits of looking more strategically at some of these areas. financial policies, we do have experience of conducting a similar audit of the last couple of months of the los angeles city housing authority, looking at their financial condition. that was looking beyond what hud would look at. we have that as a model. if there are other questions? or requests or comments? >> chair: supervisor cohen?