♪ >> welcome to hamilton recreation and aquatics center. it is the only facility that has an integrated swimming pool and recreation center combined. we have to pools, the city's water slide, for little kids and those of you that are more daring and want to try the

rockslide, we have a drop slide. >> exercises for everybody. hi have a great time. the ladies and guys that come it is for the community and we really make it fun. people think it is only for those that play basketball or swim. >> i have been coming to the pool for a long time now. it is nice they are sweet. >> in the aquatics center they are very committed to combining for people in san francisco. and also ensuring that they have public safety. >> there are a lot of different personalities that come through here and it makes it very exciting all the time.

they, their family or teach their kids have a swim. >> of the gem is fantastic, there is an incredible program going on there, both of my girls have learned to swim there. it is a fantastic place, check it out. it is an incredible indication of what bonn dollars can do with our hearts and facilities. it is as good as anything you will find out why mca. parents come from all over. >> there are not too many pools that are still around, and this is one-stop shopping for kids. you can bring your kid here and have a cool summer.

>> if you want to see some of the youth and young men throughout san francisco play some great pickup games, come wednesday night for midnight basketball. on saturdays, we have a senior lyons dance that has a great time getting exercise and a movement. we have all the music going, the generally have a good time. whether it is awkward camp or junior guard. >> from more information visit

>> thank you everybody. colleagues. thank you for your patience. we're back in session. welcome to the members of the public and we got as far as the pledge of allegiance and now bee will move on to communications. madam clerk

are there any communications? >> i have no communications madam president. >> okay. colleagues at this time are there any changes to the minutes of march 10? seeing no changes i do have a motion to approve the minutes? moved by supervisor tang. seconded by supervisor campos. without objection these meeting minutes will be approved after public comment. [gavel] madam clerk can you please read consent. >> items 1-4 are considered routine unless a member objects and considered separately. >> are there any members of the board to remove any items? seeing none. erk madam clerk can you call the read. >> supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor campos. >> aye. >> supervisor christensen on

items 1-4 supervisor christensen. >> julie, -- >> on items one through four. supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> there are 11 aye's. >> these items are passed unanimously. madam clerk can you call the next item. >> number 5 is a cypress security armed and unarmed security services agreement for the amount of $38,314,208. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you madam president. this item appeared before us in the past and we continued this item so we could hear about the city attorney whether there was

wrong doing or potential wrong doing in how the contract was assigned to cypress and i would like to ask the city attorney if there are any results to that investigation? i also want to add what we were not to do anything, not act at all on this resolution approving a contract with cypress what would happen? >> thank you supervisor avalos. through the chair deputy city attorney ed drew shed. after the consequences of not approving the contract today i will leave it to mta who is behind me but i can provide an update to the city attorney's allegations made a couple weeks ago. we were asked to investigate two set of allegations against an employee in the negotiation process and we found since last meetings that the allegations have no

merit. the first claim was that the mta employee involved in the negotiations was improper involved because of the work with cypress and we investigated this claim and it didn't violate any laws with the negotiations. when he joined the mta in 2012 the employee had no ongoing financial ties to cypress. the second claim was that the same person received kick backs to influence the contract award. we also found this without merit. the sources of the allegation didn't provide any evidence to support their claim that the employee received any payment from cypress to influence the decision making on the contract. >> thank you. just a follow up question. is a kick back -- is that an official term or the language used by the opponent

of the -- cypress? >> yes, i believe how the allegation was framed but like a bribe or something of that sort. >> okay. just to go deeper and this employee was hired in 2012 but was a cypress employee in the past. how long before employed with the mta were they a cypress employee? [inaudible] is that correct? >> right. he was a employee before joining the mta. i don't have that information in front of me but maybe they can answer it. >> is it 10 years ago when he was an employee or do we have a sense when? >> i believe he came from cypress to the mta and cut off ties when he joined the city. [gavel] you're out of order. we're having a public meeting. if

you want to speak there will be public comment. thank you. can you please continue. >> so if he left cypress in september of 2012 and then joined the mta in october because he has no financial interests with cypress he is able to actually conduct the decisions around contracting with cypress? that actually doesn't really pass -- maybe legally it doesn't quite get there but it doesn't quite pass a smell test. >> i will leave some of the questions for the mta staff as well but as to the legal standards if someone leaves the private sector and immediately cuts all ties to the private sector employer before joining a public agency that sort of activity is okay under conflict of interest laws. >> okay. it's very interesting. the mta staff --

who is speaking on behalf of mta ? thank you. if you could just kind of walk us through what the process was for this contract and why wasn't this employee who had worked with cypress in the past actually not -- wasn't assigned to some other place that wouldn't have any decision making power over this contract? this contract has one that has multiple disputes over the years and i think would make sense to put up a fire wall at some point so there isn't added controversy to the approval of the contract. it doesn't seem it was considered by mta and the contract was controversial before and why how you would explain that wasn't done? >> the contract managed by this individual when he came over by

cypress he was managing the contract. the contract has been awarded already and the pricing was set, the hourly wages and different hours for service were set so he was managing that contract. once the contract was approaching the expieration time my office took the effort to solicit a new contract. the first time around when we did the low bid contract andy interviews international was selected. >> >> and we came to the board and requested approval of that contract. at that time they decided to withdraw the bid. there was no negotiating in that process and this individual did not participate in any award process or decision making on the award. when we did conduct the rfp our office does allow

the project managers to handle the negotiations because they're the subject matter experts in their field and best for negotiating the scope of work as well as the pricing because it's their budget they're managing. i as the manager of contracts and procurement at the mta did participate in the negotiations with this individual on an oversight basis. >> [inaudible] >> did you please continue? ? r. >> >> so i participated inlet negotiation and advised him what was allowed in the negotiations and price reductions and change of scope and hourly rate and different areas and i advised

him of that. i'm sorry. did that answer the question. >> the answer last comments you made i didn't get. >> i was saying that i did participate in the negotiations. he did not do so exclusively. i provided advice based on what was allowed, what kind of discussions. we talked whether pricing could be negotiated up or down and it is allowed and the scope work in the rfp can we change it or modify it, which is also allowed and i attended a couple of meetings with andrews during it is the negotiation. >> when the second rfp did andrews apply? >> i'm sorry. i was referring to that, yes. >> and they had a lower bid

and not [inaudible] the contract. can you explain how that decision was made? >> that's the opposite. in the rfp process an independent panel evaluated the written proposals from both party and the presentation. the pricing was one of the factors in there. andrews scored higher by two and a half points during that process, but their price was higher than cypress' price. andrews -- we asked for an overhead and profit rate which would be added to the hourly wage rate for billing purposes. andrew's proposal was 45% -- excuse me, they were at 47 and a half percent and is a press was at 45%. >> so andrews did score the higher scoring. >> that's correct. >> but wasn't awarded the contract? >> they scored higher

therefore we started negotiating with them hoping they would come down during the price. during the negotiations there was discrepancies on the pricing and asked for additional positions at approximately $600,000 more. we were already at a higher rate than we budgeted for the project. when we couldn't come to terms with them we ceased negotiations and went to the next higher ranked proposer. that was a decision made on our part, not this individual we're talking about. that was a process that allowed by the city rules, so we entered into negotiations with cypress and they did adhere to the original price and actually lowered it a little bit, yes. >> thank you. my colleagues have questions as well. i have others, but i actually would like to have my name taken off as a sponsor of this resolution if that is possible. i was asked to do it. i thought

things were really clear and not very controversial but i don't think that despite the work that you have done that i trust was following protocol that the controversy was something that still exists and i don't want to be part of so i want to take my name off as a sponsor. >> okay. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i appreciate the line of questioning by supervisor avalos. i think even if it's clear we don't have laws in place about those that come from the private sector into the government negotiating contracts with the former employee i do think it's an issue that we should be careful about and i question the judgment of the department in allowing this individual knowing their resume to negotiate this contract, but that's not actually where my line of questions are. my questions are around the armed services. i -- a number of

times when different security entities have come to our office -- for example, you see hastings asking how they felt about using guns with security service? i have been uniformally opposed to arming our security officers. i think in general we need to limit and reduce the number of guns on our streets and i have a lot of questions about the training that the security guards get and why we think we need armed officers at the sfmta and i know officers are used for high traffic areas where there is a lot of cash handling. let me pull that up. a fair collection of pass sale location but you mentioned they're used for subway escort, ballpark detail and customer service and armed supervisors so i am wondering if you could

explain what the last four items are? what do those need it and why do they need the guns to serve the function? >> the ballpark detail and when giants game are out there staff is at that location selling transit passes and handling cash at that time. the armed security guards are there to protect the employees at that location. similarly at the subway stations they're also during events and games and selling revenue tickets and collecting cash and they're doing the same thing at that time. the customer service location is at 111 south van ness next to the main building and they're there essentially for the same reason. there is cash being collected at that location selling tickets to our

customers. >> and what is armed supervisors? >> those supervisors are there to essentially to do oversight for the actual armed guards as well as provide relief to those guards for breaks or lunches. >> are they guards themselves? >> they are guards to the same extent that the others are. >> so many of the small business handle flow of cash in their businesses and yet don't feel the need to have armed security detail or even have guns on site. [applause] so why is it that the sfmta needs it? have we had incidences of armed robberies and violence towards the individuals collected cash on behalf of city? >> i'm not aware of any incidents. >> so why are we included in the services if there is no historical need for this? [applause]

>> i'm afraid i can't really answer that. the prior contract had the same requirements. >> i understand we have been doing it all along. i am troubled that we have the armed guards. what type of training do they give to the security guards around guns and gun usage? >> to my knowledge -- i think i wrote some numbers down. they're given about 16 hours of firearm training as well as ongoing psychological training annually or semi annually and conflict type resolution type of training. >> do you know how much the police officers get? >> i do not. >> have you considered other measures and batons and not guns to kind of serve as a deterrent for people to rob our fare collectors? >> the officers do carry them

as well as pepper spray with them. >> in the case there was an armed robbery at one of the fare collection sales and if someone approached an officer with a gun what would you tell the officers to do? >> well, if there's a security guard there -- >> if there's a security guard there. >> yeah. >> what would the security officer and the collection officer do? >> i assume they look at the armed security guard that is protecting them and ask for guidance. >> i see you do some training with this with your mta staff members that collect cash. my guess is that -- well, i am assuming there is training if there is a armed robbery of folks handling cash, right, with the security guard s and the people handling cash. what do you tell them in these situations?

>> unfortunately it's not my field and we don't have anybody here from the security enforcement group. >> i ask that question only because i would hope that the city would advise that we give the cash to the armed robber so we don't have guns shooting in these high traffic areas. it would seem dangerous to me if a security guard took out the arms in the face of a robber and if the incident happened i'm not sure if the security officer should use the gun -- do you see where the questioning is going? >> yes. >> and doesn't seem that we need armed staff on site and even if we have them i'm not sure we would ask the security guards to utilize it in the high traffic area. is that correct? >> i agree. if someone comes to me i would give them my wallet. >> i would too. we did some

calculation and i want to recognize the controller's office but over the contract if we converted all of the armed hours to unarmed hours we would save close to a million dollars, so i really -- i won't be able to support this contract today. i did ask the city attorney if i could sever the two items and support the unarmed services which i can support moving forward. i understand to an extent why we have that need in sfmta but i can't support having more guns on the strietds than we need to. there isn't any historical evidence to support that and if we did i don't know if it would help the situation you're talking about and we could save a million dollars and go into public transit and other needs that we have. if this moves out of the board today i encourage you to think to eliminate or reduce all of the hours and think about