the municipal transportation agency commercial paper program. >> supervisor cohen: last week the issue of crossing guards was raised by supervisor sheehy, who is out today. i don't know if there's an appetite on this body to hear your update. so maybe you can make it brief. the other thing i want to remind you is that the issue of taxi medallion strategies was also raised and perhaps you can weave some information into your presentation. but the rest i give the floor to you. thank you. >> thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. ed briskin, director of transportation. with regard to the budget items, i appreciate the feedback that we got from you last week. i think it was four of the five of you, including supervisor sheehy, that had indicated some interest in us doing more with regard to crossing guards. to remind you of the context,

large part of our capital budget is directed towards investing in physical changes in our streets to make them safer. a lot of them are targeted on the high injury network on the city and a lot of those school locations and other areas where we have vulnerable populations. we, moreover, do extra work at some of the areas in the yellow crosswalks that we do at schools, lower speed limits. we have an engineering program where we have an engineer dedicated to working with schools to put further improvements in play and we recently assumed management of the safe routes to school program. so we are, as you, very focused on assuring performance and safe passage to and from schools and other such facilities. the crossing guards are really one part of that. and certainly an important part of that. as i indicated to you last week,

we are proposing to increase from 195 to 215 crossing guards. and that would allow us to fulfill all of the outstanding requests that we have for crossing guards. and changes that we have made recently to how we recruit crossing guards means it has brought us to the point where we're at the highest staffing levels, i believe, that we've ever had. nevertheless, i did hear from many of you last week that you would like to see us go beyond that. so what i sent to you yesterday is a proposal for the further increase at the level of $150,000 that would allow us to do a menu of things. it could be up to 10 additional crossing guards. it could be for other services that support our safe routes to school and safe routes to seniors program. and that was really -- it was the spirit of some of what i heard from you last week,

particularly supervisor sheehy's comments, in that he would like us to have funds available to fulfill any additional requests for crossing guards, if needed, but not to lock up those funds such that they could not otherwise be used. so this proposal, which i have confirmed support for from my board chair and vice chair, would give us the flexibility to either add more crossing guards, if there are more requests than we currently have, that it would make sense for us to fulfill, or to flex those funds for other school-supported activities. that's what the add -- additional proposal with crossing guards. with the taxes and tncs, we would have an opportunity to get into that in detail at the hearing, supervisor cohen, that you called for in july. we have released a study that

was commissioned last year by us to take a look at the issues that you've raised in the past and that you raised somewhat with the airport in terms of the situation with taxis relative to tncs and we're taking comment and feedback from the taxi industry. it's certainly available for public comment as well. from that, we will be making our recommendations for steps to take moving forward and we will use the hearing that out all have proposed holding as one of the essentially public hearings for that process and a way to vet community feedback as well as to vet any recommendations that we come forward with. so those are the budget items on items 5 and 6. item 5 is the result of a state law requirement that we -- for any overpayments that we have

for parking citations, that we make known those overpayments and try to seek return of those funds to those who have overpaid for whatever reason. people do apparently overpay citations. we went through the state-mandated process to do that and this is for citations from the years 2005 to 2015. and at the end of that process, there remain $4 million that state law, fortunately for the general fund, says accrues to general city revenues. with this item, you would be accepting that and i believe the budget office has and fit -- anticipated these revenues with regard to the budget they're preparing. and item 6 is an item -- somewhat of a technical change, but the board of supervisors authorized the sfmta to establish a commercial paper

program for funding, just as you have with the transportation authority. there was a line of credit associated with that commercial paper program that was set to expire. through a competitive process, we got a better deal on that line of credit. but because that line of credit was part of the approval that you provided, changing the letter of credit requires your approval and that's what's under item 6. so we would respectfully recommend your approval of items 5 and 6. i would be happy to answer any questions about those or the budget. >> supervisor cohen: colleagues, any questions? seeing none. i have a few questions. >> supervisor fewer: i want to comment on the $150,000 flexible funds for crossing guards. i'm in disagreement with supervisor sheehy that the funds should be flexible.

i think the fact is that our children go to school every day, monday through friday, and even though i understand that you are making capital improvements, i don't think it's adequate enough. in my district, we have -- we have requests for crossing guards on corridors that actually, i think, require a human being to stop the traffic. my husband was a traffic cop for nine years, a police officer for 35, but all he did was strict enforcement on a solo motorcyclist. people do not stop at stop signs people do not yield for pedestrians. he said he is able to give tickets one after another not yielding to pedestrians. when we think about our children going to school themselves, this is crucial. and i actually think that the proposal of having crossing guards on a 20-hour workweek with benefits, makes it an opportunity also for some of our seniors to gain employment that

is not only worthwhile and socially fulfilling, but also meet some of the basic requirements of them to be able to live here in san francisco. i feel like this is a small opportunity that m.t.a. can accommodate in their $1.1 billion budget. we're talking about a cost of about $2 million. and i believe that you cannot put a pricetag on the cost of a child being injured going to school and so i am pushing m.t.a. to sink into their budget an additional $2 million to actually have those crossing guard jobs be something that is permanent. i'm hearing from crossing guards that if they call in sick, there is no one to take their place. i don't believe that upping the amount from 195 to 215 solves the problem of recruitment. i think that it's going to take something that is much more

foundational to make this -- to make recruitment not so difficult and attract a more stable and realible work force without turnover and also, as i said before, supervisor yee and i are really looking at employment opportunities for seniors. a part-time job like this, i believe, is actually, could be a absolute to some homelessness, but also to food insecurity for our seniors. i urge you and the board to really look closely at this and see if you can fit that into your budget. i realize you are going into negotiations next year with seiu, but i think that this at this time, especially when we start school in august, that we -- i want to see our crossing guards in all of our schools be fully staffed with crossing guards. we hear constant complaints also from parents about crossing streets even with their children as adults. i think because these crossing

guards are very visible. they carry some authority with them and they don't cross just children. they cross everyone. they cross me when i'm crossing the street. so i'm looking to m.t.a. to actually see to it that this is in the budget. and i want to address the taxi issue. the taxi issue in your report gives some recommendations, but there is no -- there is no relief for any sort of -- the financial responsibility on the medallions. to make the medallions have more value is not even addressing the issue that these people have taken out loans of $250,000. they come to our board meetings every tuesday. some of them have four and five children. they have lost their homes. they can't even feed their children. people are now -- they are working seven days a week. they're working all day and all night. this is the working class of san francisco. and i agree that m.t.a. had no

say in the takeover of the tncs, but this has had an adverse effect on their lives and i feel like it is also very inhumane and heartless to not have a plan to address this financially. this burden, if they default on their loans, it affects their ability to ever get another loan, to get them out of another financial crisis. and so i'm asking the m.t.a. to come up with more than just a -- what was suggested in the report. i think i need something much more foundational. and until these issues are addressed, i personally cannot approve an m.t.a. budget. i know that our ability at the board and the way the charter is written gives me no option but to vote up or down the m.t.a. budget and knowing how the city depends on m.t.a. and people in my district are some of them

wholly dependent on m.t.a. to get them to and from work, it pains me. but i think the two issues -- and i believe because i came before the m.t.a. board, before they even adopted a budget, to bring up these concerns, gave enough headway time and also leeway time to come up with some solid suggestions that actually attack the problem that we're dealing with. and so i also wanted to mention that i would like to see an expansion of language access, meaning that expansion of language is available and including more languages for outreach and for surveys. and i think that when i held a hearing on language access ordinance, m.t.a., you spent very little of your budget, your $1.1 billion budget, on language access. for example, i have a russian population in my neighborhood that is dependent on public

transportation and no one has asked them what their needs are in their native language. i just think that -- i understand that the m.t.a. has a huge budget and it's a huge job, but these main issues brought before the commission, i actually feel like i am not getting a remedy or solution or anything that fully addresses the foundational issues. personally, i'm unable to approve a budget that doesn't show me some real solutions to these problems. and because i think they're really important to the livelihood of people in san francisco, it aligns with a vision zero goal. it affects every neighborhood. and it affects really the economy of people who are just trying to make a living here in san francisco. i see that we have other people on our list. supervisor stefani.

>> supervisor stefani: thank you. i have a quick question about some of the fees that i noticed that were increasing as part of the budget. and some of those pertain to the on-street car share permit fee. how were the increases determined? >> thank you for the question, through the chair, supervisor s thank you , all of our cost fees that we add up, labor costs and also labor costs, for the on-streetcar share program, for example, there's signage, there's paint for the curb, but largely, it's labor costs. so we add up all the costs and divide by the number of units that we anticipate. so for the car share program, the number of cars on the street. what we found in the last few years, is that the number of cars that were authorized under

the program, the car share companies are not putting out as many as we had anticipated and some it's because of neighborhood concerns, parking loss, any other reasons. the demnominator is essentially the same. that's why in part the costs go up and generally the costs of the increases and labor costs from the citywide and m.t.a. labor agreements bring the costs up. i have met with, both, my staff and one of the companies and found that there are some opportunities that we may have to reduce costs. there are a lot of staff time dealing with tows of car share vehicles that shouldn't have happened. so one of the things that we're looking at is how to fix the

process so if that doesn't happen, we can reduce the amount of staff we need to have to manage the program, we would be able to reduce the fees, but we are committed as a principal of our budget that fees for programs like this do cover the cost of administering the program, so we're not subsidizing essentially the programs. we don't want to have to reduce muni service to enable to private car share operators to have street access. we want the program to be successful, but we want it to cover its costs. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. >> supervisor yee: thank you, director. in regards to the $150,000 that you were talking about for the crossing guards to be flexible, just curious -- i heard that you say that it could be used for additional sites or some other

usage. i guess -- i'm not too sure if the flexibility includes increasing hours to people so that they can go elsewhere -- as we sort of discussed last -- was it last week, is it an idea that's completely off the books for your commission at this point? >> so the issue of expanding hours is not what's contemplated. what is contemplated here was creating slots for more schools or more intersections to have crossing guards. and then the flexibility is what i thought i had heard from the committee last week or at least maybe it was just from one member, such that if those weren't needed, because we have, with the additional 20, we will have filled all the known, outstanding needs that we have, that we would be able to flex

those funds to other purposes consistent with getting kids to school safely. in terms of the change in hours or the structure of the crossing guard program, the city does have collective bargaining agreement in place with 10-1. the crossing guards are covered under the city's labor contract, not the m.t.a.'s. they've raised this issue outside of the bargaining process. there is language in the collective bargaining agreement that establishes the process by which any such matter that comes up outside of the bargaining process is to be handled and we're fully committed to working through that process and engaging with seiu on a discussion about this. this didn't come up to me until fairly recently and i -- when it did, i wrote back, you know, responded in writing, saying that we're committed to exploring this with you.

[please stand by] per -- last night i was at the transportation authority community advisory committee, and one of your appointees was telling me even with the service we added is so crowded often she cannot get on, why can't we add more service. so, we have a lot of demands on

the resources of agency from a lot of different areas that we serve and the budget is a reflection of our best attempt to balance the different interests and meet the most critical needs and i believe that the additional, now two increases to the proposal for crossing guards and conjunction with all of the other work we do in terms of education and engineering and enforcement around the schools is a reasonable step forward and we remain as committed as you do to making sure that our kids and everybody can get to and from the school safely. >> supervisor yee: i appreciate you have to balance all these demands. i would like to make a suggestion and maybe outside of the bargaining activities. can we actually do a pilot project of some sort to test out

whether it's feasible to move some of these crossing guards after they finished their hours at the public school and may or may not be services for seniors two blocks away, whether or not we could try that and see what happens on a smaller scale? part of the reason why i keep on bringing it up with the seniors is that we are, i think we are going to have a hearing on this to look at why there are so many of the collisions that are happening to seniors and fatalities, and since we know that's happening, seems like one of the potential assistance to reducing that would be crossing guards for the seniors. i don't know if that's true, i don't have any data about that, i'm just going on intuition. so, for me this, i'm motivated

for not just one reason, but a couple reasons to try this out. >> yes, thank you. and through the chair, i appreciate that and that may well be a very good way for us to test that. i think we would want to first evaluate to see if your intuition matches the data and the knowledge that we are able to glean. and it's something that we can certainly explore with sciu consistent with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement process. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> thank you very much. again, mr. reskin, wondering on item 5, up to 4 million, could we not take that and fund the crossing guards at 20 hours a week? >> in terms of the disposition of those funds, that's fully in the hands of the board of supervisors. in terms of how we are scheduling or making changes in

the collective bargaining process, that's something that there is a process that the city and sciu have agreed to go through when there are issues such as a request for this kind of change and that process would need to be honored. that's a contract that was also approved by the board of supervisors. >> is it possible for this board to say we would take 2 million out and put it into a fund that you are going to put $150,000 in to decide to ensure that there would be funds to hire these crossing guards at 20 hours a week? >> so, again, the disposition of these funds is wholly in the board of supervisors. if you approve the item, the dollars fall to the general fund and falls in your jurisdiction how you see fit. >> i see the controller standing up. >> good morning, supervisors. he is correct. this really is a choice before the board in june. to the extent that you reduce

this transfer to the general fund and leave these funds with the m.t.a., it would provide additional resources with the m.t.a. create another challenge on the other side of that in your deliberations regarding the june 1st budget in the general fund. simply needs to balance as part of your kind of final determinations about how you want to spend general fund money. >> and a one-time source of funds, going forward, we could expect the numbers to be probably a fifth of what these are, so, if we were to use these funds for this agency or any other agency, we would we creating a shortfall in the out years as well. >> only other option then for you to find the money in your $1.1 billion budget, is that

correct? >> that is correct? >> right. so, we -- we could cut muni service, for example, to fund, to pay should we renegotiate with sciu, the crossing guards to provide school service, we would have to do that from within our budget, if not from excess general fund one-time revenues, that's correct. >> i think mr. reskin, the proper wording is allocate funds to adequately staff the current demand for crossing guards to serve school students on a daily basis of when schools are operating. >> yes, i understand that. i believe what we have proposed does that, but i -- >> you have answered the question. >> supervisor cohen: so, i have

a quick question, i want to direct to probably ben. ben, what would be the general fund cost if we were to kick in to absorb the operational costs of m.t.a.? if m.t.a., their budget was not funded. i'm hesitant to go down this line of questioning, but on the record, a considerable chunk of money coming from the general fund. if we do not approve m.t.a. budget, that means the general fund would have to kick in. because life does need to keep going, the wheels need to keep going on the bus, so how much would that actually cost us? >> it's a good question, supervisor, and i don't have the answer to it. >> supervisor cohen: must cost a lot if you don't have the answer. at your fingertips right here, right now. >> i don't know if that's the case. but the way the charter provisions work, if the board of

supervisors reject the m.t.a. budget, charter provides the controllers office is to make continuing provisions from the general fund for services. >> thank you very much. i want to be clear and on the record, not only for you, director, but also to the commissioners and the folks listening and watching. i am not interested in moving in that direction. i am interested in making sure that we are asking thoughtful questions as it relates to the m.t.a. budget. particularly paying close and careful attention to particularly the revenue arm of the m.s.a. and the contributions that it makes to the city. so, i want to talk a little about item six now. item 6 authorizes five-year, $100 million a year credit for capital financing. b.l.a. report, 12% increase, 12% interest rate on this commercial paper. is that -- is that standard, or is that high? oh, hello, is that standard, or

high, and what's driving this interest rate? >> good morning, supervisors, thank you for asking the question. 12% is the standard rate in all the city and all the commercial payment programs, p.u.c., a max rate that all the agreements use as a standard max rate. we have never been close to that, but we, all city departments include that. >> who sets that standard max rate? >> the office of public finance is the one that helped us determine that rate, and i think it's based on, and maybe ben can answer that question. >> we'll defer to the controller. who sets that rate? >> just to be clear, this rate, memory serves correctly, actual borrowing rate on the actual commercial program paper we have in place for the city and the m.t.a. is much, much lower than that. hovering at or below 1% interest in recent years. >> considerably lower. >> creating a legal ceiling.

>> i understand. >> i think it's a state, the state legislation that it's a 12% rate that's the maximum rate that local governments can charge, and the city basically used that for all the commercial programs. >> all right. thank you. next question is actually related to item five. what kind of outreach for people who have overpaid parking tickets? kind of a simple question but one that my office gets all the time. >> so, if you have overpaid, we send you a letter initially saying you haveover paid, please let us know you want the money back, so we send you initial notice, 60 days after you have overpaid. if we don't hear back from you, we try to contact you one more time. of that, two years during the budget process, we do a public outreach process, list all the people on the website who are

potential refunders, once again, third time you can get your money back. >> where can we get it -- >> m.t.a. website. we do do outreach group, we do it on the tv, we do it on the radio. and then we post it also. >> to be fair, i've never heard it on the radio, or on the television. >> i just wanted to make sure that people -- it's a fair question. people overpay unknowingly, they have done a good thing by paying the ticket, and we have the responsibility -- >> we would rather refund the money to the individual. after multiple tries we see that the state requires us to put the funds back to general fund. >> my follow-up question, what types of violations are -- are most frequently overpaid?

>> the biggest citation is a parking meter and street sweeping as a result of that. and sometimes they are multiple citations so people think they have paid for one, and it's, it could be a variety. but the parking meter violations are probably the biggest overpayment. >> thank you very much. to the b.l.a. team. do you have a report on items 5 and 6? >> we have a report on the commercial paper. >> supervisor cohen: i would love to hear your thoughts. >> so, as you noted, the commercial paper program is $100 million and then the maximum 12% interest rate would add another $9 million, so what the board is up to 109 million. pointed out that 12% interest rate maximum, you see that in all this type of legislation, and it's not the actual interest rate that would be paid. on page, sorry, get to the page

of the report. there are annual fees that go with the commercial paper program. somehow i lost that page. yes, page six of the report, i'm sorry. close to $500,000 per year for the program, and then also the cost of authorizing, about 171,000, but the commercial paper also is low interest loan pending issuance of bond and other debt and we recommend approval. >> supervisor cohen: recommend approval. thank you four that recommendation. seeing that there are no further questions for item six and -- 5 and 6, i think we should go to public comment, any member of the public like to comment on 5 and 6, please come up to the podium. 5 and 6. all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. b.l.a. has made a recommendation. >> supervisor yee: for item 5,

in terms of the transfer to general funds, is that already accounted for in the mayor's budget? >> you don't mind me answering, kelly kirkpatrick. committing the mayor's budget on june 1st and we are considering it as a source to help balance the general fund for that budget and more details will be provided on june 1st, but we are considering that a general fund balancing source. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: don't worry, june 1st, all living for june 1st. some for june 5th, too, i might add. certainly in this committee, this world is living for june 1st. ok. so, the b.l.a. made a recommendation as it relates to item 6. can we take that recommendation without objection? >> i don't believe it's a recommendation to amend, just to approve. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much, appreciate that.

let's take items 5 and 6 together and i'll make a motion to approve with the positive recommendation. may i take that without objection? and supervisor yee second that motion. without objection, thank you. >> items 5 and 6 adopted without objection with supervisor sheehy being absent. >> supervisor cohen: that's right. >> clerk: excused. >> supervisor cohen: he's excused. next up will be the environment. department of the environment. are you guys ready? >> supervisor yee: madam chair? i wanted to ask you, did you accept the recommendations on both the port and the library? i know you did on the airport. >> supervisor cohen: the port and the library? >> the departments both agreed with those recommendations, and i'm not sure if the committee -- budget recommendations concerning the port budget and the budget recommendations concerning the library budget. >> item 4 is the library --

>> this is items 1, 2, and -- >> supervisor cohen: i see what you are saying. we have, i don't think we took action on that, correct me if i'm wrong. >> that's my understanding that you did accept the recommendations regarding the airport budget. >> supervisor cohen: but did not take a vote. >> you did on the airport. >> clerk: the vote was rescinded. no actions at this time. >> my question was, the same thing on the library and the -- >> supervisor cohen: no, that was not done for the library and the port. that's incorrect. ok. all right. department of the environment, welcome. >> thank you, good afternoon. supervisors and madam chair. thank you harvey rose and kerry tam from the board budget legislative analyst office, kelly and chris from the mayor's budget analyst, and pleased to say we accept the recommendation

and have no challenges. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much for being here. colleagues, do you have any other questions for the department of the environment? all right. thank you. we can take public comment -- actually, no. we'll move on, already taken public comment. >> clerk: public comment has been taken on these items already. >> supervisor cohen: mr. rose. >> you want to hear our report on the environment? >> supervisor cohen: yep, waiting to hear it. >> on page 25, our recommended reductions to the budget total 194754, and 18-19. of that amount, 94,300 ongoing savings, 100,454, 1-time savings, and for 19-20, recommended reductions total 94300, and all of those are ongoing savings. and as i understand it, the department does concur with the recommended reductions. >> supervisor cohen: thank you.

i have a question for the director. it has to do with the solid waste contract. specific, what does the solid waste contract recommended for reduction do? >> specifically, illegal? dumping-related? >> i'm just trying to find that particular item in here. i apologize for that. the solid waste contract, i do not -- what is the dollar amount on that, and then i can find it. >> sure, hold on a minute. i can look for that. mr. rose, do you have that information? >> yes. >> page -- you are correct, madam chair. page 26. other professional services. and the reduction is going from 94,940, to 38156, and based on

historical expenditure and the projection for the new year. >> that's professional. professional service contract for that item is used to assist on analysis of the performance of the department and to look at the solid waste functioning, the contract is not going to be happening this year. that item is not up for renewal. >> supervisor cohen: are there any campaigns or any kind of outreach or -- >> oh, yes. >> supervisor cohen: things maybe in the pipeline when it comes to heightening people's awareness of illegal dumping? >> in terms of the illegal dumping, that's in our budget, our program areas for environmental justice and impound account for the 0 waste program, where we work very close with the housing authority. we also work with the bayview hunters point neighborhood through a particular task force. ivan task force, to set up cameras and to work with neighborhoods and public works

and the public health department to attack illegal dumping in that neighborhood in particular. >> supervisor cohen: in what way do you partner with recology? >> partnership with recology, identifying, using the public works hot spots information to find out where are the areas of particular challenges and then to decide who can respond most quickly. recology, the public works staff so we can take care of it. >> ok. and so i am very sensitive to the large items like dressers, couches, mattresses, that you see when people basically are moving, moving out, generally. you see it on the corner, and it's very innoculous, people think they are doing a wonderful thing, i don't know who would want to take someone else's mattress, that's my bias. >> when you were thinking