based on the total costs that we had obtained from the consultant in 2015, so the fee, the utility fee average if it were a public model is about $43 a month and utility fee if using the public/private partnership where more of the costs are shifted to the private partners was about $25 average. that could be tiered as you had mentioned so residents could pay less and commercial could pay more. i would be happy to respond to any question. is acces>>speaker: thank you, . have you had a chance to read the ctc report that came out in 2017 and familiar with what is going on here? >>speaker: i have read exerts of the report. >> fair enough. what are your thoughts around

the cost estimates for this 3p project? >>speaker: i think i have great respect for ctc and work they have done. we had a number of conversations with them when we were doing our work and i know they did much more detailed analysis of factors that i mentioned like the actually state of utility poles and what it takes to access them and put more devices on them. i should add on that, i think it's about 45% of the network would actually be on poles and wired instead of underground wires, so significant piece of the network and if there is a cost differential that they identified associated with the poles, it has substantial impact. >> so what i'm interested in is

precedent, exposure, and risk. what are we dealing with here? >>speaker: i think it's been stated already today there is no city the size of san francisco in the u.s. at least that has constructed anything like this. there are other public/private networks around the country like north kansas city, missouri has but a much smaller city. chattanooga also but their population is about 177,000. >> is there any chance of a lawsuit? >>speaker: i am sure there is many in a project like this, it's a big expensive capital project so those kinds of projects are fraught with risk.

i think the most important thing if the public/private partnership is pursued the protections that are built into the project to ensure that the city doesn't end up with some unforeseen cost. there could be delay. the private partners could go bankrupt and not be able to complete the project and unforeseen expenses can pop up in any capital project. i am sure the attorneys working on the project swel as well as e project team would work through those issues. >>speaker: in your opinion, what other questions should i be asking? what are the details that i should be paying attention to? what have i missed? >>speaker: i think you have asked a lot of good questions and what has come up today are a

lot of important topic. if this network is built, here is a risk, what if no one wanted to lease from it, i think that is highly unlikely personally, but how many would there be and is there a lot of interest from from private sector in getting on this network and paying fees for it and accessing customers that way. >>speaker: are you familiar with the rfq and rfp process process. >> familiar with rfq, our office is not involved with it. i know there are bidder who is have bid and they now have a short list and they are interviewing them but we are not involved in the rfp process process. i thought the rfq was extremely

well constructed and identified many of the issues that were important and digital divide. another point i want to make is that the rfq was explains it abouexplicit aboutthis. there is still going to be a cost and a lot of houses don't have the hardware, so subsidies are going to need to be provided for equipment, computer equipment for low-income households and training and the rfq includes that and asks every responder to identify how they are going to meet the subsidy requirement. >>speaker: i don't have any

other question. any final last words. >> on the unit issue, the broadband utility council, this was a presidential appoint counsel during obama administration. there have been official federal statements and the former fcc director also believes that. i think that is not true with the current one. >> all right, i really appreciate your expertise and advice. thank you very much. i have a capital planning question for you kelly kirkpatrick. oh, she not here. >>speaker: ashley -- i will try my best to answer you question. >> since this process was

approved in capital planning for $3 million would we expect additional ten year capital plan to go with this? ben do you want a stab at it? >>speaker: so the capital planning committee has approved capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year and comes in the mayor's budget to you at the board of supervisors and that included $3.3 million allocation in the coming fiscal year for official work to proceed with rfp process and rfq that linda has talked through today. i think what you are eluding to is the biggest project is not specifically programmed in the

city's 10 year capital plan and that is scheduled to be updated next win der. winter.i would assume if it movs through, it should absolutely be part of the capital plan in front of this board next spring. >> what money for the municipal fiber system is planned for fiscal year '18-'20 budget? >>speaker: there is the 3.3 that's approved as part of capital planning and as i think kelly talked about earlier, there is 1.3 remaining in the project funds allocated in '16-'17 and '17-'18. >> she didn't mention that. thank you for reiterating. do you know to total tol lar dor

figure for a city-wide system? ben says no. >> we have this information from the ctc study, so i think it was 1.2-1.9 billion. >> okay, thank you very much for your presentation. let's go to public comment. i see a couple members of the public still here. thank you for staying here. you have two minutes. >> chris wideman. i have spend 35 years dealing with telecommunications law and policy and half of that time across the street at utilities commission. in 2016 the commission by unanimous vote issued a study on telecommunications competition and to the surprise of very few

people found that high-speed wired broadband was not competitive. most people in california have one provider, strain i san frans lucky we have two, maybe 2.5. sonic can't get into the underground so that is the half. you have your folks out in the district and out in the city and i was riding through the lenor development the other day. from what i understand their requiring for internet. the internet itself is not the utility, it's the access. the wires all terminate to at&t. the genius of a city wholesale

only network is those folks would have the opportunity not just to pick at&t and comcast, but to pick any isp out there and there are a number here in the city that would be able to serve them and we have seen in other places in britain, amsterdam, stok stockholm wherey have separates the whol wholesae from the retail network and that drives prices down and solves the digital divide. i am happy to prorid provide wit decision of the puc. >> tell me what is your name? >>speaker: witteman. >> maybe before you leave city hall you could stop by my office

anand leave your card. >> thank you for holding this hearing to have more transparency to the public. my name is jolie and i'm with the chinatown community. i am sure chinatown community and pe merchants would appreciae this but before we make this a potentially costly and risky decision perhaps we would reconsider the visibility of cost and the impacts that we will have to face when the project the launched. small businesses always want to bear the burden of their construction projects from water and sewer it improvements the street and sewer repairs and the subway sen tral project going

on, the small businesses have been suffering. we are afraid this project would tear up streets all over the city and hurt our small businesses. we ask the supervisors to proceed slowly with input from the community before moving forward on such a large undertaking. >> supervisor cohen, i am going to tell you what you are missing. the calculations all you have to do is listen to them. they are making calculations on year 2015, 2016. the president of the united states issued a tax cut that relates that resulted in billions and trillions of dollars being brought back to the united states from foreign country us and companies that exist here in the quite the economic status of everybody is booming.

two days before mayor -- said all departments are to cut spending because if you keep going you will have $282 million deficit. these are not included in the tax breaks given by the president of the united states. you need to do an audit on every department that's benefited from the tax cuts from the president of the united states and about you asking earlier are you getting salary increase, you probably don't have time but every corporation in the united states has been given $1,000 bonus to their employees that's working full-time and employees working part-time is getting $5,000 bonus. families are paying less taxes to support themselves.

[bell ringing] the tax cuts went in effect on 2017 and expleaseth 2018. these tax effects they are giving you are impeached. economic impact on tax is negative. this is one from earlier demonstration says only one business uber would benefit from tax revenue. [bell ringing] >>speaker: thank you. your time is up. >> good afternoon dee dee workman from the san francisco chamber of commerce. the chamber is interested in this discussion about creating a government-owned network in san francisco.

we don't have a position on it at this time but does strongly support ensuring internet access to all neighborhoods across the city. the question from our standpoint is what is the best way to achieve that. based on the experiences of other municipalities we urge caution in pursuing a government-owned system here. federal and state financing as well as utility and property tax levels on consumers are necessary to cover the cost. there are dozens of examples where the cost of implementing the system was so high and the number of subscribers so low that there were serious financial consequences. in the city of alme ta it was $25 million and that ballooned to $85 million and it was sold to a private provider and the city ultimately lost $60 million

on a project. here in san francisco there is talk of putting a utility tax on the november ballot. we should think carefully aboutathaboutputting consumers k for something that doesn't have a good track record. by the time we build out the system the technology could be obsolete. we think there are other pressing priorities like affordable housing and affordable transportation. >> thank you. >>speaker: thank you for giving this opportunity for all of us to learn about this topic. my name is yuke. i say every day about 30 or 40 people trying to sleep on the street.

i am a granddaughter to someone who worked for the governor of tokyo at the most difficult time in the city of japan. the whole capital liked like ground zero. the first vision is you give -- i think this whole point is great. if i get free wi-fi where i live, great, but what is going to happen to the people living right underneath me. i look at this budget and i think there are priorities of what the city is known for. i think it needs to have a orderly fashion in which we spend our money. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker please.

>>speaker: thank you for the opportunity to speak about this subject. brief note of my background in 1990 co-founded san francisco's first iep. cofounded first commercial anti-spam company. i'm a network consultant for internet service providers as doing public privateer city wide fiber networks as well as as built out internet service for events like burning man. indiscernible. i also do volunteer work for the department of technologies community broadband network providing broadband for low-income resident. in 2005, i submitted a comment outlines how the city should not

be pursuing -- but looking at fiber deployment. many of my concerns then are the same back then but with network neutrality also making fiber more compelling. it greatly increases competition for broadband providers that the city can choose from. rolling out fiber network is expensive and the ria can take decades to discover. [bell ringing] most don't have the deep pockets to do their own network. by having a city provide the last mile back to the data centers any isp can through a couple fiber jumpers to the equipment and provide to the network.

[please stand by]

>> that is that we need to do this right now. because the wolf is at the door, and the wolf at the door is donald trump and his fcc. and donald trump may not get more than one term and office. so they will try to force communities like ours to accept a continued situation where companies like comcast and at&t give us our internet service instead of us having a true public network that those companies, and other companies, to pay to get on too. i think we are focusing on cost, when really what we should focus on is not the cost but who will pay for it. and as a supervisor if you are indicated, facebook, and amazon

and the heads of those companies and microsoft and apple, the ones who deliver us our internet, these companies are run by the richest billionaires on the planet. the idea we can't charge them enough money to pay for a real public internet system like the one and chattanooga, is silly. we can do this and we need to do it soon. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> think you chair cohen. my name is mike mccarthy. for the past years i've worked on project technology and expanding broadband internet -- broadband internet and san francisco. i'd like to talk briefly at s.f. city opening up, and my opinion, turning to a sales pitch with its board members. at&t and comcast. they are great companies and do a lot for the community. that is completely true. but and san francisco, they are

like bud and bud light. those are our choices. it is important for us to be aware of that. for those of us who remember dsl way back when, and the late nineties, you can choose from ten or 12 different dsl providers. a whole long list of providers. that was an open access network. it was an open access network over at&t's copper wires. and 2,004, some telecom combat happened and that was cut off. what we are seeing here is the exact same thing. but instead of at&t's copper wire, the city and our families, we own that fibrin perpetuity. we can choose, as tim talked about, from 10-15 isps through our internet. it is bud and bud light and we are san francisco. there is microbrew. lots of choices. just a quick question about supervisor cohen.

>> overhead, please? >> this right here is a picture of a closet. and that new closet, and all those housing units, there is fiber-optic cable that can provide your constituents with internet access, over five or. >> that is not going to work. >> that is a picture of phase i by west point, middle point. that fibrin goes into every unit at hunter's view. >> your time is up. sorry. >> thank you for your presentation. is there anyone who would like to comment and public comment. public comment is closed at this time. thank you, mike, i appreciate that. certainly that could have been brought up and the department of technology if that were the case about the fiver connectivity.

before we close and go into closing remarks, i want to call up a representative from d.p.w. that i overlooked. i want to call him up. i did not have a chance to ask questions to him. hey,, jeremy, how are you? it is okay. you can talk from there. turn on the mic. >> its okay. my name is jeremy. i'm a public works legislative affairs member. >> supervisor cohen: i am glad they sent you over because some information came to my attention that micro trenching is actually illegal. >> right. there is, we currently do not issue permits for micro trenching -- micro trenching. there is legislation pending. the file would make it legal, but at this point it is not

legal. >> supervisor cohen: who introduce that legislation? >> i believe then supervisor farrell. >> supervisor cohen: do you remember what day? >> i-- >> supervisor cohen: of course you do, you have that legislation. tell us when that legislation was introduced. >> it looks like march 14th, 2017. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. do you know why it has taken so long and white hasn't been hurt or why it hasn't been assigned? usually you introduce something it sits for a three days and and a week you take action on it. >> i'm not sure. i was not into small and legislative affairs when it came up last. i do know that our department has historically had concerns. as patrick mentioned before with the process of retrenching. >> supervisor cohen: i would imagine that the concerns with micro trenching is a little bit like the speaker before you said. prop it -- possibly jeopardizing any of the utility wires,

infrastructure. >> exactly, yeah. existing infrastructure and also the micro trenched fiver utilities would be at risk of being damaged themselves given the density of our utilities. >> supervisor cohen: on the legislation that was introduced, what will it do? it was trying to make it legal? >> right it was trying to give the public works the authority to issue permits for micro trenching i believe and the sidewalk. >> supervisor cohen: i see. all right. i appreciate that. that is actually really interesting. thank you for sharing. colleagues you have any other questions? we should close out. it's been a really long day. for those of you who don't know, we have been doing this for tenant -- since 10:00 this morning. an incredible shout out to the staff. thank you for being here and to the ladies to my right and to my left, you have been with me since 10:00 am. the only thing that is comforting as knowing we are doing good work and asking good thoughtful questions. on behalf of good hard earning taxpayers.

what i see here today is a fairly costly and massive infrastructure project being proposed throughout our city. our public right away and neighbourhoods that i don't know if it is really ready for plant -- prime time. the cost for the endeavour we do not know. the number is swishy but i heard $1.9 billion. it is not going to be finalized until after rfp which will be issued and june and hopefully completed by the end of the year. once we have the rfp results, we will begin to negotiate cost sharing. we would negotiate and begin risksharing rates, connection costs, impact fees for the trenching or it micro trenching and an this case, not to micro tension. because it is illegal unless mayor farrell's legislation can move forward and legalize it, which is unethical if you think about it. figuring out you will pay for the utility poles. these are questions we do not have answers to.

we do not know what the responsibilities of the rfp would be. and that actually generally concerns me. we may have a utility tax measure coming before us. you keep your eyes peeled for that. that deadline is going to be june 19th. if there's going to be a tax measure on the november 2018 ballot, which is, quite frankly, rumoured to be the case. again this is a tax revenue. a tax measure rather than a geo- bond for which we've already missed the deadline on. but that tax, whatever the language is would be determined by the cost estimate and the term, terms of the rfp. there are more questions than answers here and it seems pretty premature to make this capital, or spending, i priority. you heard it reflected and the public comment, is this really a priority? i love the goal of this project, though. and i appreciate mike for pointing out to me the utility

boxes that are predisposed already to fit themselves for a fiber. i would love to see the digital divide close but i don't think it necessarily has to do with access, but also with the costs associated with people logging on and being able to acquire access to internet. but is not clear to me that we've looked at all the options for achieving that. i do like the concept of a subsidy but again that is only half baked, it is not fully discussed. i would like to see us look at a potential revenue or grant sources that citizens and businesses can tap into the access of their internet service provider of their choice. supervisor stefani said she understood that analogy -- the beer analogy. >> supervisor cohen: not just bud light, but bud and what? but we like microbrews, we liked

the finer things. we do like variety. that is an excellent point. when i hear about the enormous cost and risk associated with p3 endeavours, and also acknowledging the fact that it has never been done and a city like ours, that is not something we can turn a blind eye to. this could potentially be abject failure for government's only system, and i think, if i'm not mistaken, only the state of kentucky is considering--is considering bankruptcy from a government fiber system. i'd don't know if it is wise and the direction we should be going and. there has to be a better bang for the buck and i think that is what this whole conversation is about. making sure all of our citizens have access to the internet and we are also an a very cost-effective and thoughtful manner. i want to thank everyone who participated today. i would like to continue this to the chair. maybe when the rfp has been released and we can come back

and revisit this conversation. madame clerk? supervisor fewer, absolutely. >> supervisor fewer: i just wanted to thank supervisor cohen for bringing this hearing forward. we all learned a lot today. i want to commend our city -- commend our city for having the goal of bridging the digital divide, and i also want to let people know that at san francisco unified, we did a survey that shows that, you know, a lot of people don't have internet access and their home, meeting that, or a laptop or computer, but 98 % of our students and parents had cell phones. i just don't know, i mean i think that this is so expensive and i think that it is s.f. city, if they care about the digital divide, then a suggestion would be to have free internet stations all over san francisco where people get access, have computers there,

have devices they are, instead of just at your public library. but have it really, really accessible to a lot of people where people can just go and use it. it doesn't have to be and your home, but you can have access to it everywhere. and i think if they want to be a part of this solution, then that is, considering we have so many billionaires that are living here now, that i think it would be of really generous and great thing to be part of san francisco, and to put that money into actually giving service to neighbourhoods that don't have access to this, and also when supervisor cohen talks about her housing project, they can be putting and computer access rooms as they do at hotels for all the residents there and i think that would be a great suggestion and not on the backs of working folks and san francisco to pay for this. anyway, exciting news, i think

but also daunting. i want to really thank supervisor cohen for bringing this forward. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. is there any other business before us? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor cohen: thank you ladies and gentlemen. we are adjourned. [♪]

all right. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i want to welcome you to the budget and finance committee. we have a late start, hopefully make up as we move forward. apologies, recognize our clerk, mr. victor wong, serving with us today. also recognize adrian starks and michael balthazar. the screens on our desks are not showing the chamber, like a screen saver. never mind. there, we fixed it.

no more technical difficulties. let's get on with the party. adrian starks, michael, thank you for assisting us. recognize my colleagues on the committee, supervisor sandy fewer on my right, my left, supervisor stefani and supervisor yeah. >> silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the june 5th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. i believe supervisor sheehy has noted he is unable to attend today's meeting. >> that's correct. what i would like to do, make a motion to excuse supervisor sheehy. take that motion, seconded by supervisor yee and without objection. thank you very much. supervisor sheehy a speedy recovery. call items 1, 2, and 3 together.

>> clerk: item 1, hering to consider the mayor's proposed budget for selected departments for fiscal years 18-19, and 19-20. item 2 is proposed budget and appropriation ordinance for selected departments as of may 1, 2018, for fiscal years 2018-19, and fiscal years 2019-20. item number 3, the proposed annual salary ordinance for selected departments as of may 1, 2018, fiscal years 18-19, and fiscal years 19-20. >> supervisor cohen: thank you mr. clerk, appreciate that. ladies and gentlemen, i would like to call, i'm going to let you know what the departments, we are going to be calling, first the san francisco international airport, port of -- excuse me, port of san francisco, the s.f. library,

s.f.m.t.a., environment, public building inspection and public utilities commission. so -- we can begin with the international airport. thank you, welcome back. >> good morning. thank you, madam chair. members of the board, thank you for coming back and addressing any follow-up questions you may have. i believe you are in receipt of our written response to a number of the questions raised last week in the budget hearing and if it pleases the committee, i would like to walk you through the analysis we did on the -- >> yes. >> on the police department staffing. you'll see on the first page a lot of the analysis was based, the 0 based analysis based on a number of factors and see the factors relate to the significant growth we have seen since 1997 to 2017, and probably most meaningful is the column on the right that talks about the percent change in the factors,

and it's a function of the growth we have experienced and some of the impacts that it's had. you can also see it, our request as a function of the new facilities that we have opened since this time, and those are also listed on the page. many of the projects related to the airport capital improvement program of the late 1990s and early 2000, and the projects underway related to the $7.2 billion capital program. on page 2 of the analysis, some metrics we looked at. the first being the increase in passenger and plane, and the growth, the line is the budgeted officers that we have experienced since 1997 to

current. and then the bars are the passenger growth we have experienced. so you can see that the officer count has not kept pace with the growth and passengers over time. and then below that, another metric is the amount of terminal space, the amount of coverage required of the officers to patrol and we have experienced significant additional square footage. you can see the numbers there and the number of a metric of square footage per officer, we were at 20,000 square feet per officer in 1997, and today we are at about 36,000 square feet per officer. and the next page we talk about what we are trying to achieve with the increase in staffing. and first of all, it is that visible presence that i spoke of last time, we are also adding five new functions and you can

see the list there. bicycle patrol, to get to some of the outlying areas is an important new initiative. and then also coverage of the new facilities hotel response, as well as homeless, we are seeing an increase in the number of homeless coming to the airport, and also i would point out the perimeter security and additional patrols around our perimeter. if you flip that over to page four, also traffic enforcement is becoming a more important aspect of our business so we are proposing an increase in motorcycle officers. we are also proposing to double the size of the ground transportation unit and you can see what's driving that around, just the increase in commercial, the commercial ground transportation, largely a function of uber, lyft and the t.n.c. operations.

and then if you flip over to the next page, we have some enhanced special services we are looking at to again increase the posture of the airport and be prepared for additional vulnerabilities and be able to respond as the ever changing world of terrorist threats and our ability to respond. it's important we are prepared for any type of event that may happen. and then on the last page, you can see how we -- what the 0 based staffing approach has done, and i'll just point out that with this two-year budget, we are proposing 229 officer staffing, so it does not get us to the full complement of what the 0 based staffing, but it gets us quite a long way towards

what the 0 based staffing numbers would indicate. so 0 based staffing would show a number of 278, we are getting to 229 with this budget. and with that, i would be glad to answer any questions. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much for the presentation. colleagues, as reminder, the airport is one of those unique departments. the budget is entirely based off its revenue and thank you. because you also give a portion of its revenue to the general fund. i believe 12.7% of the budget is increased in year 1 and 10% increase in year two. does that sound right? >> yes. >> supervisor cohen: and then we have a -- increasing the number of full-time employees by 12.75, which will bring you, correct me if i'm wrong, bring you up to almost 1500 employees.

1585.95. i don't know how you account the.95, but that's good. so, are last week we asked questions about why there were so many police officers designated or allocated, and i just want to also acknowledge that you have answered the questions and in the answer to the question is, is that the airport -- the airport has just been understaffed for several years, and that you are proposing 72 full-time police, which is about 42% of the officer pool already in existence. excuse me, 42% are officers, meaning that you are not going to be too top heavy, i think that's important. and recognize that you are paying for two work orders, two academy classes to help fund and pay for the officers that were going to be at allocating to the airport. i do have one final question. also want to recognize the b.l.a. has indicated that their requests are reasonable. but my question for you, what changes would you be able for

the pick-up plan, specifically about uber and lyft at the corner. how will that be reconciled moving forward at the airport? >> try a couple initiatives in an incremental way, both the traffic congestion and the curb side congestion. >> supervisor cohen: are you actively working to solve the congestion problem? >> we are, we are. we are working -- with uber and lyft currently around a premium pricing model for curb side access, and so try to have an incentive to use the garage, a premium fee a dollar, up to $2 if they use the curb. we have more dramatic initiatives as well to make sure we solve the issue, which is at some point we may move all of the pick-ups into the garage. right now we have a project underway that is resurfacing the fifth floor of the garage, that would be the dedicated area for

staging. we will be preds to make that move if need be as we prepare for the summer season to see how much congestion remains after we try the incentive approach to use of the garage. >> supervisor cohen: when do you plan to roll this program out? >> we started now with the working with them on any changes we need to make to their app, to make this happen and help designate where other pick-up opportunities are, so another initiative, can we spread people across the doors, they congregate at certain doors, and so we are doing that right now. premium pricing into effect july 1st, and then by late summer we'll be ready to make that more substantial move of pick-ups into the garage. >> supervisor cohen: thank you.

recognize supervisor yeah. >> supervisor yee: thank you, chair cohen. can you clarify, the numbers, i have different numbers here. on the slide, it talks about 229, and then i'm looking, this slide says 229 showed. and i'm looking at the report on page three, and this is 255. proposed f.t.e.s, 255. can you tell me -- >> on page three of that, let's see -- >> supervisor yee: b.l.a. report.

i'm sorry, one sec, supervisor. apologies, supervisor. >> supervisor yee: even before you get to that, in your mind, you are trying to increase the number of staffing for policing by how many? >> trying to go from 142 officers to 229 over the next two years. those are the key numbers. and then our baseline report says the appropriate number is 278, but we are trying to get to 229 over the next two years. >> supervisor yee: include other positions, would it be more than that? >> those are just the officers,

patrols and traffic management folks. >> supervisor yee: so that's -- and increase of about 70, 60, 70, 80, 80 or so. ok. >> yes, sir. >> supervisor yee: the question i have is in regards to gearing up to increase those numbers, is over a two-year period. >> that's correct. that happens in the second year, essentially happens in the second year. >> supervisor yee: and you are offering to pay for how many training classes? >> a total of four. i believe there are two that are allocated costs where we will get not all of the academy class and then two dedicated airport classes. >> supervisor yee: ok. that's fine. just want to make sure that we are covering what we need to cover so that it does not

deplete the existing police force or in the city of san francisco. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much for answering those questions. i wanted to know, what are the number of motorcycle officers that you hope to have at the airport? >> i'm going to have to ask the deputy chief. >> we have one in six and hoping to go to 2 and 10, a broader coverage across the week and also hours of the day. >> do you also pay for the equipment, motorcycles, the vehicles? >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: airport pays for the vehicles dispatched out there. and if you ever explored whether or not there would be cost

savings if you had the san francisco sheriff's department take over some of the duties. such as the curb management or some of the garage surveillance, i looked on your thing. so, have you ever thought about having, you know, i think that in the city and county of san francisco, in the city of san francisco, is that we would all like to have more police officers at our district stations and out in the streets in san francisco. and so when i see that you are beefing it up to 229 officers, sworn officers, that sheriff's are also peace officers in the state of california. wondering if they could be taking over some of the duties at a lower cost and also relieve some of the uniformed folks out to our district stations. >> one of the issues that we have with that is we actually are in san mateo county and law

enforcement services to see that authority to us. we have to start that conversation with the san mateo county sheriff. >> supervisor fewer: would there be a cost saving? >> it's a math question. >> i'm horrible at math actually, also. ok. that's just a question. and then please explain to me again a little bit more in-depth about starting january 1st, july 1st you are hoping you are going to be introducing premium pricing for just t.n.c.s or also for taxi drivers? >> just the t.n.c.s, and just the low occupancy vehicles of the t. n.c. so, we would not subject the high occupancy vehicles like charter busses and other, those fees. so, just the t.n.c.s with the 1 or 2 riders, typically. >> supervisor fewer: have we ever looked into maybe a partnership with m.t.a. around bart service out to the airport

and some sort of incentive to, for people to take part out there? >> we do offer an employee incentive through the money that we give them every month, if they give up their parking spot. and we have seen great, really uptick in migration of people taking bart, particularly employees. we have not looked at other options with the m.t.a. that i'm aware of. we would be glad to explore that. >> supervisor fewer: i think you said 800,000 trips out to the airport, t.n.c.s. and seems as though we probably should be thinking about some incentives to get people to take public transportation out there. and then i just wanted to know, when you say that we are thinking about putting all the pick-ups in the garage, does that include taxis also, or just the t.n.c.s? >> the taxi operation would stay where it is, at the lower level,

at the median curb. so, we are really talking about uber and lyft. we would also offer that to the passengers as an express pick-up and dropoff and probably will increase the length of free access, so right now it's ten minutes free access for the public. we would probably look at increasing that to 20 minutes or so. to try to move some of that traffic as well. >> supervisor fewer: thanks. and you see in the one, you have 12.7% increase and in your 2, 10% increase. would you ever think about eliminating the pick-up fees for taxis? >> you know, we are unable to do that because of the model of the allocation model and the cost recovery that we need to achieve through our financial analysis. so what we do, we spread it around and make a fair base for everyone to pay their fair share. unable to offer free access. >> supervisor fewer: any other ideas for incentive for people

to take public transportation or taxis versus t.n.c.s out to the airport? >> you know, i think we have a good partnership with bart and there are some avenues to explore there, potentially. and so i'll reach out to the bart folks and what are those opportunities. i can't think of any off the top of my head, but that's something that we could explore. >> yeah, i said -- i meant bart. i think if there was a financial incentive to take bart out to the airport, that maybe more passengers would do that instead of t.n.c.s. those are the majority of them, single occupancy probably going out there, too. ok. thank you very much. >> ok, thank you. >> supervisor cohen: anything else? >> no, thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. the next department we will hear from is the san francisco port.

>> supervisor cohen: i'm sorry, turn on your mic. ok, they are on now. yes, i do want to hear from the b.l.a. i read your mind. yes. >> you did read my mind. madam chair, members of the committee, referring to the airport's physicians as shown on pages 3 and 4 of our report, and supervisor yee's numbers, provided by the airport to our office. we know that the number of sworn officers in the airport would increase from about 39%, from 184 to 255.69, that's full-time

equivalent positions. the largest increases among the police officers specifically, the lieutenants were increased by 1.54, sergeants 10.77, and police officers 59.38 for a 71.69% increase. we also report that in 18-19 and 19-20, the airport proposed budget includes 11.7 million and 12.2 million respectively to fund 120 slots in three police academies and ten lateral officer hires for 133 new police officer positions. page four of the report we note in 19-20, the airport plans for a similar number of slots, academy of classes for new recruits and lateral police officer hires, but the dates of the academy classes are not yet known.

supervisors, i would report that we will do further analysis of this matter in the june budget and that's related to the police department's budget. as you know, these positions are included in the police department's budget. now, regarding the overall budget of the airport, on page five of our report, our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total 3,416,184, in 18-19, of that amount, 2,407,158, ongoing saving, and there are one-time savings, still allow increase of 121,620,000, or 12.3% and the year 18-19 budget. and i've already gone over the police department item, we would say at this time it's a policy matter for the board of

supervisors on that item. and, but i also mentioned that we will do further analysis in june. for fiscal year 19-20, recommended reductions to the total, 2,672,299, of that amount, 2,438,049, ongoing savings. and there are one-time savings, reductions would allow increase of 108,256,596, or 9.7% in the department's 19-20 budget. as i understand it, the department concurs with our recommended reductions which are shown on pages 6-16, and happy to respond to any questions. >> supervisor cohen: one question for you. i was under the impression there were officers already in the academy, two academy classes were already underway, and that these officers would be