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 the

protocol behind this and the reasoning and i have to add again i understand the passage of exchange of a lot of cash but we ask the small business owners to do this everyday without guns in the stores and et cetera and i think the city should do as well. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you madam president. and i want to thank supervisor avalos and supervisor kim for their questions and i have two sets of issues about this contract and let me begin by first addressing the ethics question that was raised and if i may through the chair ask the city attorney there are in place regulations that govern how contracting happens and one of the questions that i had as i was looking at this contract was whether or not the involvement of its individual where you have a contract that the price is

being negotiated on behalf of the city by someone who just previously worked for the company getting this contract. are there any issues under section 1090 of the government code which has very broad limitations and has been interpreted so for instance i would imagine there could be 1090 issue if the individual is receiving financial benefit including a pension so i am wondering if the city attorney can address that. >> sure. supervisor campos through the chair. as i mentioned when we examined that issue of any financial ties or ongoing ties to cypress we didn't find any evidence that the person in question was receiving additional retirement benefits or pension benefits or financial contributions of any sortie s -- so that would eliminate those

issues or section 1090. >> okay thank you. i think what we have here is a situation based on everything we know it seems that the existing rules are not being violated but the question is does that still make sense in terms of moving forward with this contract? and i thought what the executive director of the ethics commission said i thought was very telling, and this is what he said "there's nothing currently in law that addresses this situation" and he specifically pointed out how the law right now protects against city employees leaving city government and then going to work for companies that would benefit from contracts from the city, but he is saying that nothing addresses the reverse situation which is what we have here where you have someone who used to work at a private company and then goes to work for the city, and then is

assigned to actually negotiate the contract between their immediate prior employer and this is what mr. st. croix said and asked whether or not it made sense to look at this and he said it would be worth looking at. i hesitate to say yes. in my tenure we come across situations we never seen before. how often does it happen? if it's a once in a lifetime occurrence legislation and not necessarily an answer, so this is a very unique situation and the fact that there is no violation of existing law to me doesn't mean that that it makes sense to proceed. i think that's a separate analysis and i personally have a problem -- i think the appearance and i don't question the motives of the individual. i give people the benefit of the doubt but i think it looks bad especially when you had a competitive process that actually selected a different company. you did not follow

that selection and instead proceeded to negotiate with another company that was not originally selected by you, and the negotiation is being lead by someone who just recently worked for that company. this is taxpayers money. i don't feel comfortable allowing something like that to happen. it might be legal. doesn't mean that it's the best ethics. the second point is this: i worry about what it is we're getting in this contract. can you explain to me the difference between what the security services are versus what the police department is supposed to do for the mta? what are the differences? >> i believe the differences are that the -- this security contract is for sfmta property

and employee's protection and sfpd is more public related. i can only say what the contractor is doing for us. they're protecting our property, the city's property as well as the employees. >> do they go on the buses? >> they do not go on the buses, no. >> okay. >> they do protect the buses in the sense when they're in the yards over night they're watching over them for graffiti and those vandalism issues. >> see i have -- i might be open to understanding a little better what the need for this contract is, but i think that when you have -- when you privatize a function like security you have to be very careful because we have heard issues that have been raised with police departments, right,

and whenever you think about -- take our police department. whatever issues you have with our police department at least you have a office of citizen complaints that is supposed to investigate complaints. when you have a private entity the level of accountability is not at the level it should be, and so i am not comfortable not only because of the ethics issue that was raised but also because of the point that i think supervisor kim rightly noted. do we really want to go down the path of spending 15 million -- actually no, $38 million for this contract and by the way just something that's interesting is that as was noted in the budget and legislative analyst report we're actually spending 3% more than projected

when this process began and we're actually seeing in terms of the service provided a 20% reduction in terms of the hours that the company is providing when it comes to a 19.8 percent for armed services and 15.1 for unarmed serviceses so we're paying more for less and again the fact that the person who negotiated this agreement used to work for this company i think we have to did better than this so i will respectfully be voting against this. i appreciate the work that has been done but i think we have to have more accountability here. [applause] >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i have a quick question. i wanted to know more about the internal changes that have happened within the mta to ensure there is clear transparency when

negotiating contracts so we don't have the same ethical violations? >> supervisors, so going forward my office will be involved in all of the negotiation along with the project managers. like i said they do need to be involved because they're subject matter experts but we will make sure we're in those meetings just to do an oversight, make sure things are addressed properly during the negotiations. we will also look at the background if any and ask those individuals to provide their non disclosure agreements and whether they have any relationships. >> which department are you with? >> i am with the mta's financial and information technologies and procurement . >> is there a policy in place and make sure once you transition on and the executive director transitions on and there is transparency in the negotiations? >> we will do so after we go

through this process here. we will have something as a policy. >> as of now no? >> that's correct. >> it's being drafted? >> yes. >> okay. out of the $38 million contract can you tell me how much is going towards the unarmed security services? >> yes. the unarmed security services is approximately 950,000 hours and over the course of six years it's $31 million and the armed is about 180,000 hours and the cost is about $7 million over the course of six years. >> through the chair to the city attorney is there a way to break up this contract and be able to move forward the portion of where there is unarmed security? services? >> to supervisor cohen through the chair no the board can't

break up the contract in terms of approval today. it's an up or down vote and continue it for another week or so and to address the issues. >> can we tweak the contract so we're able to tease out the unarmed services? >> i would defer to the mta on that. obviously they involved in negotiating and addressing the terms of the agreement. >> yes. we can look at that. we can communicate back with cypress and see how that would work out. we would have to draft a new contract and bring it back to this board. >> and drafting a new contract does that leave us with any kind of liability? are we exposed to any kind of uncertainty? >> that would be a consideration we would need to look at because there would be no armed guards at that time. >> what? >> there would be no armed guards under the new contract. >> correct me if i am wrong

the armed guards -- where exactly do they patrol? >> they patrol the cash handling fmentds and the ub -- facilities and the subways and the ballparks and the customer centers. >> okay. i am prepared to vote against the contract to get a better understanding of the armed versus unarmed services and the resources are allocated and the time and training and commitment behind them. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i actually -- hearing some of the discussion today i think we have enough votes to continue this item and what i would just like to express i think there are a number of members concerned about the armed portion of the services and would like to see a contract before us without guns utilized by security guards with the sfmta and that would be the motion i would make to continue this and do you think one week

is enough time to come back with a contract with that? >> one week is enough. the current contract expires at midnight at the end of the month and we do our best to get the contract to you next week. >> i realized i have one more question and not related to the armed services but a conversation we have and cost of doing adjustments and i noticed in the billing rates you include annual adjustment to billing rates and the higher of 2.5% or a cumulative wages in the collective bargaining agreement and we want to make sure that the guards are getting prevailing wage and a reason for the increase in cost and reduction in hours. mta negotiates this. we don't do it with the nonprofit organizationses and they don't

that automatic adjustment but we routinely do it for profit contractors and is it a policy by mta for every contract or is it something that you separately negotiate? >> this particular contract will have seiu guards, so they do have an mou with cypress that requires an annual increase in hourly wage ratingses so we looked at that and that's where that came in. the initial strategy for negotiating was look at our budget what we had annually allocated for this work, and we worked with that budget as well the wage increases we foresee in the future. >> and negotiated contract by contract? it's not a set escalator. >> no. it's contract by

contract and depends on the industry too and depends on other union members if that is what the contract employees. >> thank you. >> supervisor kim you made a motion to continue this item for one week. is there a second? seconded by supervisor cohen. now i will recognize supervisor wiener. >> madam president i am fine to continue this for one week to get answers to questions. one thing i don't know if it's the case that there are six votes to oppose the armed security and maybe there are and if that is the case that's the result but i am interested in knowing whether we went down that road what other transit agencies and/or similar agencies with similar fare collection of cash, people carrying cash on them that are potentially sitting ducks what the practice is, and if it's the case there are transit agencies or similar agencies doing this

in a way without armed guards then it would be good to know that, but i suspect that there are reasons why there are armed guards, and it's great there hasn't been a history of robberies, but part of the reason might be that we have good protection of these fare collectors. these people are carrying large amounts of money and they -- >> [gavel] excuse me if you're going be in the board chambers we don't deal . >> >> with hissing, booing and clapping and please respect our process. >> and the folks are carrying large amounts of money and apart from this issue of money it's about the security of these individuals and if it's known they're carrying large amount of money and they don't have any real protection i suspect we could start seeing some

robberies -- >> [inaudible] >> [gavel] sir, you're out of order. you're out of order. >> [inaudible] >> there will be an opportunity to comment during public comment. [applause] >> if you. an opportunity to be heard there will be an opportunity during public comment. otherwise we won't continue to tolerate disruptions of our meeting. we are here to conduct business and if you want someone to hear and you listen to you then during public comment that will be your opportunity to express yourself by any way you want to express yourself. right now we have business to conduct. supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam president and so what i would say i think it's good to take the extra week and i would actually like to get that information so whatever decision the board makes whether it's ah nan mouse one way or the other or not at least we have that full information so that is my request to the agency in the interim and i think it's a good

idea to take another week on this. >> supervisor christensen. >> i just wanted to reiterate what supervisor wiener brought up. i think -- thanks to supervisor kim for bringing this to our attention. i think we were all presented with what we presumed to be a thoroughly vetted budget and finding out some of the questions asked if perhaps there is some rational at least to date we haven't heard it so i think -- i suspend any decision as to what is the correct eventual direction but i clear supporting the additional information in order for this to move forward. >> thank you. supervisor avalos. >> thank you madam president. i just wanted to see if a week's time -- i know we're punching up to a deadline at the end of this month 12 midnight but is a week enough time to come back with a version of a contract that doesn't include armed services and doesn't that have to go

back to the mta board of directors to approve before coming to us? >> supervisor i believe it does need to go to the mta board. i'm not sure if it needs afterwards to go to the budget and finance committee again and then to this board. we will have to look at it and get back to you. >> so a week doesn't seem realistic? >> probably not. not with a separate contract. >> okay. i just lost my train of thought. i am turning old. a week is enough time? >> a week is probably not enough if we have to come back with a new contract for only unarmed services. it will need to go to the mta board. >> okay. i remembered what i wanted to ask here -- back at age 51. if we don't approve this contract and bump up against the deadline and pass

the deadline what happens to security services with the mta? you continue with existing relationship until we have another contract. is that correct? >> that's correct. we have to consult with the city attorney's office to realize what the dollar thresholds are because i believe we exhausted the change order ability without coming back to the board so there maybe other ways to either enter into a separate agreement for a smaller dollar amount without coming to any mta board or this board but it's based on the ad min code and the threshold limits we're allowed but i have to consult with the city attorney's office. >> seems like there is some kind of unstated acceptance that would be okay by continuing this item. essentially it's saying that the board is -- by making that decision we would go ahead

with the existing contract. we're not just approving a contract extension or a larger not to exceed amount and we get very many contracts that come before us that we approve retroactively and extended as well so i am willing to accept that. i don't think it's the best process but at this point if it eliminates armed services i am willing to accept it. >> is that all supervisor? supervisor campos. >> thank you i have a clarifying question and a question for the budget analyst. who is providing the services right now. >> cypress security. >> so cypress is providing that right now? >> that's correct. >> and you extended that contract before? >> we have extended before through this board, yes. >> okay. so the question i have and this is why i appreciate the time that the

additional time but i don't know that additional time necessarily cures the problem i have with the process because if you are taking armed services out of the contract which i think makes a great deal of sense then it's not clear to me that the competitive process that you followed necessarily gets you to the best result. the reason why you go through a competitive process is because you want the taxpayer's money to go to the better than giving you the best deal but you're talking about a different service. if all you're talking about is unarmed services so my question to our budget and legislative analyst is there a way to know that if we're going to take the armed services piece of this contract that in fact this is the company that would have given us the best deal? >> madam president, madam president, members of the board,

supervisor campos, i am not certain of that. i think your question is a valid one -- >> mr. rosen would you identify yourself? >> i'm sorry. i am budget analyst harvey rose. i don't know if there was a competitive service for unarmed services whether this is the best deal for the city. >> i think that's the problem i have with this approach. i think -- and so i will be supporting the continuous but i will continue to vote against this contract. i think what we should do is we should send the mta and ask them to go back to a drawing board and have a contract and go through a competitive process that reflects the services that are consistent with the values that we have, and then based on that process let the company that is going to give us the best deal win the bid, but i don't believe that we know for sure if we go

down this path that in fact si press is that company. it may very well be, so i appreciate what folks are trying to. do i will support the continuous but i will vote against the contract. i think they need to go back and redo it and do it right. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you president breed. there's a lot of discussion right now in terms of the terms and so forth, and for myself the issue of armed guards is a question for me, and i'm not really ready to vote yes or no on that. if the rational that i have heard, which is not much so far, historically we have done this, i probably wouldn't support it, but i am willing to listen to any other rational if you have any, so it seems to me

that what i would like to support is the notion of extending the current contract that you have for a few months and work out all of the details we need to work out and come up with a clean proposal that we all can get behind. that's what i would support. >> thank you supervisor yee. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just want to reask my question and the question that supervisor cohen asked because i think that maybe wasn't clearly understood. the question that i understood supervisor cohen asked that i wanted to ask as well is a one week continuous enough to come back to the board with an alternative contract without armed services? and what i heard before was yes from you and then what i heard to supervisor avalos was no. >> supervisor when i first -- when i initially said one week was enough i was corrected by my colleague behind me that we need to go to the mta board therefore

the answer one week is probably not enough, so because we would have to go to the mta board prior to that. >> so from my understanding also from the lining of questioning from supervisor avalos it may not be possible to amend the contract and there might be another process initiated. if we do a motion to continue i want to know that we can come back with an alternative. if not i can't support it and i would rather vote it down today and start the process all over again. that's i didn't am asking the question. >> supervisor we could come back in a week and answer whether we would need to go to a new contract or whether we will need -- we will extend the current contract and continue with this contract with just unarmed services or both so if we can wait until next meeting

we can address what our clients are going to be going forward with this particular contract. >> okay. i withdraw my motion to continue. i imagine another colleague will. i don't feel we have the answers that we need and my worry is that we continue it for a week and you come back with the same contract again with the armed services and with the same explanations that you provided today. i mean i'm not sure what other answers we can get. a 16 hour training on how to use guns no previous incidences of robberies on the collectors using cash and no real evidence that guns prevent this type of crime and i'm not sure we can find that to be honest. i agree it's possible it's conjecture we have been safe thus far because of armed services from robbery but it's also possible in an event of a

violent situation with two people with guns including the city and untrained security guard that only has 16 hours of training and someone out on the street you're going to endanger people in the high traffic areas. [applause] i just don't see a scenario where one of the security guards draw a gun in an event that someone else did and in the best situation we hand over the money and have folks trained with this and pursue the criminal ends. i will say one thing i talk about mom and pop businesses. my mom own said a store and held at gun point three times and the scariest thing she experienced but i don't think my mom having 16 hours of gun training would have provided her more protection on site and i question if we don't know the answers to these and this is a program currently going. we currently have armed services

and we don't understand what the training needs are or what it does to detour crime and i think we need to look at this more so i withdraw my motion. >> thank you supervisor kim. supervisor wiener. >> thank you madam president. it seems to me i don't see the harm would be to continue this one week so we can give the agency an opportunity to provide us with answers about the rational and as i requested a few minutes ago to see what other transit agencies and similar agencies where employees are handling large amounts of cash how they approach it and to have that information and then the board can vote up or down. i agree it's going to be challenging to formulate a new contract within one week and it would surprise me if it didn't necessitate a broader process but the threshold question are

there enough votes to adopt or not adopt the contract and given the questions it seems like another week would be useful and if it's withdrawn and i don't know if the seconder -- >> without objection supervisor kim decided to remove her motion so we will take that without objection. [gavel] >> okay so i move to continue the item 1 week. >> okay. supervisor wiener has moved to continue the item 1 week. is there a second? seconded by supervisor farrell. supervisor christensen. >> thank you madam president. so it seems to me we've gone into a deeper discussion so we have an immediate question which is the validity of existing budget and the services proposed so those are questions. sounds to me we're opening a broader question and what kind of services philosophically do we want as a board and a city which is a bigger question so we all share concern about immediate security nee