meeting. but again, i -- the wording of prop j passed in 1976 was in emergency circumstances, and it seems as though you are not in an emergency circumstance. so i know these positions have been contracted out for many, many years now. do you have any plans on incorporating them into permanent positions that are not subcontracted out by third party companies. >> if i may, we have two prop j contracts. one you just approved was for our janitorial services. >> supervisor fewer: and one for security. >> i want to speak about the janitorial, because we're going out for that contract now, and we're going to be using microlbe's. because of the size of this contract, we can specify we want microlbe's, so i think we may be achieving a very good result with this prop j for

janitorial services because we'll be using microlbe's in town. we can look at what it would be to bring staffing in for security -- or we had savings and that was quantified when you approved the prop j's, but i do think because of the micro-lbe set aside program, we're getting a very good result in this work. >> supervisor fewer: if you could send me that data and the impact that it's having on the lbe categories. it's just when we're looking at secure employment, that always through the city, and we can incorporate themselves ourselves, i always think it's better than to contract out. i understand in emergency circumstances, but for people's livelihoods, i think it is much better to have a secured position within our city and county of san francisco. >> we're happy to look at it and get you some data.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> thank you. supervisor. >> supervisor cohen: i don't see any other questions, we will see you next time. >> thank you so much. >> supervisor cohen: no problem. thank you. next, we will hear from the library. officially want to welcome mr. michael lambert. >> good morning. thank you, chair cohen, supervisors. i'm joined by our acting chief operating officer, marine singleton this morning, and other members of our executive leadership team. we appreciate this opportunity to present the library's fyi 19-20 budget. current fiscal year has been a banner year for the organization. we have realized the vision of every library every day. all 28 library locations are now open seven days a week. library utilization remains robust. more and more our residents are visiting to take more part in all the vibrant programming we're offering. we had over.5 million patrons

take part in library programs this past year alone. this coming summer, the libraries summer program, summer stride kicks off, and we have partnered with the national park service with free shuttles from our neighborhood branchs taking our residents to national parks, including alcatraz and muir woods. we had over 26,000 participants last summer, and we're confident we will exceed that number this year. we've also just concluded our second annual digital inclusion week last saturday. san francisco public library aspires to be the premier urban library in the country and service residents to the city and county of san francisco. in building the budget, we have an organizational commitment to excellence and our strategic

priorities serve as our guide post. the library fyi 19-20 budget requests includes a number of one time investments in equipment and capital. marine will be providing you with an overview of the library's budget today. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you for this opportunity to run through our budget and give you some information on some key investments for the up coming cycle that covers fiscal years 19 and 20. on the sources side, you can clearly see the largest source fore the library is a library preservation fund, which the voters approved in 1996 as well as 2007. our next largest source for fiscal '19 is our fund balance, and that is because we use our fund balance to take care of some one-time investments. so the up coming year you'll see a large investment in capital. >> supervisor cohen: excuse me for the interruption.

supervisor fewer just asked a question that i thought was very poig nan very -- poignant, this largely is made up from the library budget set aside? >> that's correct. you'll see that we have a large investment, as michael mentioned, in capital for the up coming cycle. high level on the uses side, you can clearly see the largest component of our budget is for labor, and that's no surprise, given that we provide public facing services, and as michael mentioned, we provide 1,460 hours open to the public each week. this cycle, our next largest figure is capital, and i'll talk a little bit more about that as we walk-through our strategic priorities

investments. you can see by the next largest category's collections, and that is so that we maintain a robust collection for the public and evolve to meet their needs in e collections and physical collections. with respect to fte's, we're keeping it the same fte's with slightly justs for atrition savings. for premier urban library it's about creating a connected community, and as you saw, we provided nearly 18,000 programs in fiscal '17. so as we provide more programming for the public, there's more demand for materials and supplies, so the up coming budget provides an allocation of around $75,000 in order to have enough materials and supplies, whether it's a maker space program or use

learning program. for youth engagement, it's about having opportunities for youth to be engaged, empowered, and connected, and the upcoming budget cycle includes the creation of an after school digital clubhouse at the main library, with a target age of eight to 13. there's about a $35,000 allocation for that activity. another key investment is enhancing youth learning and leadership opportunities at $1 $100,000. what that allows us to do is continue the successful scholar card program with the san francisco unified school district as well as provide additional funding for stem programming, our summer stride programming, and then stipends for our youth who participate in our engaged leadership program. the library has partnerships with folks across the city,

both with our fellow city departments as well as community members. our key investment this cycle is with the sheriff's department to enhance safety and partnering with them at the main library. our other investment that we are sustaining is with the civic center commons. that's keeping our funding level at 100,000 for the upcoming year. and again, because we're providing more programming for the public, we need to make sure that we're marketing it and everyone is aware of all the great resources and the programming that is available for them. so you see a small enhancement there of about $25,000. literacy and learning are key investments that have to do with collection. in the last cycle, the board of supervisors approved an enhancement of just over $1 million, and we are sustaining that with this proposal. for '20, we're proposing increasing that by $1.7 million, with the key

focus being in e collections, and that's being responsive to the public's use of our services and our resources. in fact we're seeing about a 25% increase at part of this $1.7 million enhancement. for our digital strategies and our facilities maintenance, strategic priorities, the focus is really on the future. we want to renew, refresh, rhenvate and enhance. so in particular, one of our enhancements is for the tech out program. this allows members of the public to check out mifi devices. this enhancement of around $91,000 would allow us to grow that program by 170 devices. that would bring the total devices available to the public to 300. this would allow the patrons to check them out much like our physical materials and take them up for up to a three week period and provide connect activity and access to those in

need. another key investment in digital strategies is for the modernization of our collections management system, where we would transition to the industry standard of radio frequency identification systems. the goal of this is about improving patron services, so it's allowing them to check out the materials faster but also to help our staff process the materials more quickly, get them back out on the shelves, be responsive to hold requests from our patrons. this was approved by coit in -- earlier this month, and just as a point of clarification or information, about 75% of the bay area libraries already use this technology. our other investments are growing our laptop lending kiosk program that allows patrons to use laptops within the libraries themselves. and then, the next two items are really about refreshing, so

making sure that our servers are replaced as they reach their end of life cycle. and then, the same thing for audio-visual equipment that's used both by the public and our staff. and then, the final strategic priority category for you today is our facilities maintenance and infrastructure. as i mentioned with digital strategies, the focus is really investing in the future. renewing, refreshing, rhenvating and enhancing. the major investment for this cycle is for the capital programs for three branch libraries that were not renovated as part of blip. >> supervisor cohen: and excuse me, which branchs were not renovated? >> right, so that's chinatown, mission, and ocean view. we started off with feasibility study in a partnership with public works, and once we concluded that, the library

commission determined that at this juncture, we would proceed with the renovation of the mission library first based on its most immediate needs. so the proposed budget adds another $14.9 million to prior allocations which would allow us to fully fund the mission branch renovation at $19.8 million. we will also continue to do evaluations of the chinatown and ocean view library locations to further did he ev out some scoping allocations. we are funding them on a pay as you go basis. other investments in the future have to do with creating facilities master planning, so really figuring how where we want to invest and how do be responsive to the community needs. so you see some small investments there and then a pay as you go approach in the second year. we're also looking at

efficiencies by refreshing our automated materials handling system but that also includes an enhancement component. right now we have a machine at the main library that sorts the materials for the main and allows them to get back on the shelves quickly. however, for the branchs, the work is done in a very labor intensive way, so this would add a machine to sort the materials for the branchs and get them back out there and available to the public in a quicker fashion. and then, with respect to renewing and refreshing, over the next couple years, we've built in money to renew our elevators at the main library, have a robust roofing program, taking a look at our heating and ventilation needs, and being responsive to air conditioning handling needs at the main library, again, as these items reach their end-of-life cycle. so with that, this concludes

our overview of investments, and we're happy to answer questions. >> supervisor cohen: if you could go to page four of the nonlibrary uses, i see personnel services. i'm wondering what is that? >> so that includes some of our contracts for building services systems and i.t. a lot of i.t. so software, the maintenance of some of our i.t. systems, so that's the largest component there. we also have -- captured -- actually, i've segregated it there, i believe, our debt service is separate from that, yeah. >> supervisor cohen: separate out? >> yeah. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. my next question, so i'm curious to know what's the concrete benefit of the rfid system? what's the concrete benefit that it provides our library system? >> the concrete benefit is that

it will improve customer service. this is stream line our patrons' and our staff's ability to check out materials in a more efficient manner, but on the other side, it also improves the working conditions of our staff. it provides our workforce with the modern tools to physically hand materials, get them back on the shelf faster. the way the technology works is that you can check in or check out a stack of books simultaneously rather than with the current bar code scanning technology where you have to individually check in or check out each item. there's an added efficiency with rfid for our workforce. currently, when a member of the public has to check out an item, they have to rub the book spine of that item against a magnetic brick. with rfid, our staff will no

longer have to perform that function. >> supervisor cohen: one of the things that occurred to me as a kid growing up in the public library system, i know exactly what you're taking about, the librarians would rub the book. i remember that. are there any cost saving benefits to this technology? i am kerped we are -- concerned we are eliminating jobs. >> we are not eliminating jobs. the you know john -- the value of implementing rfid is we will free up between six and seven fte annually that could be freed up for other strategic priorities, more meaningful public service. there is a significant amount of staffing capacity there that can be redirected for more programming, for example, or even safety and security

because that's a top priority for us, as well. >> supervisor cohen: so is it -- so to be fair, i think that this is kind of like in the nice to have category as opposed to necessary, and i just want -- that's my take on it. how would you categorize it? is this really an investment that is necessary to the core functions of the library? >> i would characterize it as a necessary investment at this time. we had hoped to implement rfid at the outset of the branch library improvement program. we were unable to secure funding at that time. the checkout equipment that started coming on-line in 2005 with the first openings of renovated and new libraries, that equipment is now nearing the end of its useful life. we're needing to upgrade that equipment, and it's becoming more costly to maintain an older standard. the industry -- the majority of the industry has moved to rfid,

and asth marie mentioned, we'r surrounded by bay areas that adopted this technology. we want to offer our residents the very best experience when they use the library, and rfid presents the best opportunity right now for that. >> supervisor cohen: do you know how much -- are you able to quantify how it lessens the wait time? because i do remember long lines in the library. if you had this presentation, i think you said in the presentation it scans a stack of books as opposed to that individually. can you quantify that, do you know how much that reduces? >> yes ma'am. and our chief analytics officer is here. i'm going to attempt to answer that question. we have conducted a time motion study to study the time it takes to check out materials and check in materials and then we have extrapolated the efficiencies that would be

gained with rfid, and we have calculated that to be 15,000 hours peryear. time saving convenience is an important factor for our residents in this day and age. nobody has enough time, so if we can improve the customer experience and improve our operational efficiencies, we feel that this is a good time to implement this project. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: thank you, chair cohen. thank you for your presentation. there's -- i -- the questions are -- they are -- are related to budget, but sort of not. the -- one of the renovation projects you named was the john tom branch. >> yes, sir.

>> supervisor yee: i just wanted to point out there's open space on that premise, which i raised a lot of money to make that happen way back when, and it was always difficult for the library to activate that space, but at least for a few years in the beginning, the programs that had children could bring them up there, and they were pretty well come. through the years, it seems it got less and less welcoming. as you're thinking in terms of rhenvating that space, is there a way to let people know, or you know get them to sense that they're welcome to go up there, because it is a public space that cost at the time about 3 or $400,000, which again, doesn't sound like a heck of a lot of money today, but again, it must have been about 25 years ago. it's kind of sad for me to see that so under utilized.

the second remark is -- so we're talking about, you have a facilities maintenance plan to continue to rhenvate and update the branchs. i guess what we haven't talked about in the city is, is there really a need for an additional branch, and how do we actually do that analysis? i -- i get sensitized to this because when we would walk to the library, we'd walk a couple blocks. my daughter pointed this out to me, there's no library within two miles of her. san francisco is a big city,

but to me, two miles, you're not going to walk there, and you're just encouraging either don't expose the kids to books or encouraging people to just keep driving there. and the area that i'm talking about is the closest one would be vis valley library branch or excelsior library branch. and if you go up and look at the area around -- across from crocker-amazon, and up the hill, that whole area has nothing there, so i'm just curious, are there any discussion whether or not that's a possibility? i know that's not my district, but that's where my daughter lives. >> well, first of all, thank you for the questions, and thank you for your earlier support of the chinatown branch library. i'm very pleased to report that the public works department completed a feasibility study, and they presented that to the library commission on february 1st.

one of the activities that was undertaken as part of that project was the chinatown branch, and they've conducted test fits. we recognize that roof town terrace of the chinatown branch offers some spectacular views and in planning that renovation, we want to active vate that space and make it available for seniors to have tai chi rooftops or have a garden experience for youth or class visits. so we're absolutely keeping that in our considerations for the chinatown branch renovation project. we look forward to engaging that community further and getting a sense of their desire for programming in that space. with regards to the need for new libraries, absolutely. libraries are more important now than ever. we have had conversations with the mayor's office of housing and community development, hope sf, and the planning department. i understand that there's going to be an update to the nexus

study that was commissioned back in 2014. we have worked very closely with the planning department in the past year on a study that looked specifically at the southeast corridor, and that study is projecting the population of san francisco to grow to between 1.1 and 1.2 million residents by the year 2040. with those projections, and our current standards of service, there is a projected need for a minimum of five new library locations just for the southeast corridor, and we are looking at the shipyard, candlestick point, hunters view, dogpatch, so we absolutely recognize that the -- the growth and development in population will occur there. we're also in conversations with the treasure island redevelopment agency, and we recognize that there is anticipated growth in population and development in treasure island, as well, so

we're considering adding a new library location. what we want to do is be intentional and strategic. we want to commission a new branch capital plan and just as we did with the branch library improvement program, we want to be able to systematically prioritize where new library construction should occur with this next wave of construction on the horizon, we're examining opportunities for colocating library facilities with public housing or perhaps even partnering with sfusd for a joint use facility. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> we also have security within the library system itself and we

have someone stationed there all of our open hours. >> it's not great to have you brag about how open you are and how many hours you are open, but it is not safe for people to go there. and i went there and it wasn't safe. there was nobody there. so i would like to see seven days a week, i know that time is money. >> tell me, where? >> and rfid, which i do not support. i rather that the right bury -- the library was safe for people to go there in a neighbourhood where they have small children and spend 3.4 million on rfid would have cost of 194,000 a year. i personally would like to see that money not allocated for this purpose got but to see this money allocated to make sure that our libraries are actually truly accessible. if it's not safe for people to go there, they don't go there. i don't find it a safe library to go too often.

this has been ongoing since i've been in office. at one point, we did have officers there every day. that's been cut back to three days. and, you know, i don't know why everybody thinks that's okay. i don't find it acceptable. you know, we've had assaults of library personnel. i don't understand why you think it's okay that the people who work there aren't safe. we've had assaults on patrons, i don't know why you think it's okay for patrons not go to this library. we are also buying new technology that we frankly don't need, and the checkout think that i don't buy it. i've got a kid, we've gone to the library, we are heavy consumers. you know, she checks out her own books. you have yourself checkout stations, which i guess you are going to throw away? we are going to throw away working equipments that kids can use now. she's very proud of herself when she checks her book out. instead you want to give her

technology whereby people contractor? i don't want my daughter track tracked. the aclu does not support rfid technology. the electronic frontier foundation does not support rfid technology. the american library association does not support rfid technology. i'll be perfectly blunt with you because my kid is a technophile, she corrodes, she's on computer, she doesn't want it. you've got consumers that doesn't that -- they don't want to touch. she does this elaborate internet safety stuff. she uses tour which is some websites where no one can track your movements. these young people are really concerned about their own privacy and you are putting in technology that they don't have a vote in, that will track them when they know that they don't want to be tracked. so i think this is a technology solution in search of a problem

that doesn't exist. and you do have a problem that does exist that you still haven't addressed, and in my year and a half and -- on the board, i know that branch is not safe on seven days a week because you don't deploy officers there seven days a week anymore. i will be making a motion not to include this in this budget. the rfid. >> let's give mr lambert an opportunity. i'm sure he wants to. >> thank you supervisor cohen. first of all, i'd like to apologize that you had a negative experience at the eureka valley library. safety and security is our top priority. we have invested nearly $850,000 and a landscaping redesign project to mitigate some of the safety and security concerns on the perimeter of that building. we are certainly open to re-examining the sfpdm work order and redirecting a greater portion of that for the branches

and increasing the amount of coverage and control for eureka valley. with regards to rfid, ironically, that would allow us to repurpose more staffing capacity and convert some public services position into more buildings and grounds control officers. we currently have about 21.5 fte of buildings and grounds. patrol officers. we are fully cognizant we are operating in and no new fte environment. with respect to rfid, i want to clarify the record, there's absolutely no threat to patron privacy with rfid. the technology simply does not function in a manner where individuals can be tracked. i'd be more than happy to provide more explanation of how that works. our chief of collections and technical services is here today. she's the technical experts. we also provided you with a one-page, double sided handout

that provides an overview of the benefits to users and our staff, as well as addressing privacy, but with regards to privacy, i just want to say that librarians are champions of personal privacy. we do not have an adversarial relationship with the efs or the aclu. we consider them our partners. i would say kindred spirits even in our fierce crisp -- protection of privacy and individual civil liberties. intellectual freedom is a core tenet of librarianship. we will protect our resident's freedom to know and seek information without fear of their identity being compromised in any matter. we would new -- we would never do anything that would jeopardize the privacy of our residents. >> thank you. i have to jump in here because we have a long list of things left to do and you will be coming back to talk a little bit more in-depth. this is just a hearing. we are not voting on anything. there will be opportunities for you too. >> can i just read this?

>> of course you can. >> this is what i have from eff and aclu. both of them have opposed and continued to oppose the use of rfid technology in libraries because there are significant privacy breach concerns. nothing has changed. i think frankly, eff knows what they're talking about so does aclu. >> all right-- >> if i may, chair, it is true that one individual from eff and one individual from the aclu drafted a letter to our city library in over a year ago. the city librarian responded and offered to meet with those two individuals. our staff is engaged with multiple staff technologists and experts from eff over the past two years. at no time did any of those staff members from eff oppose the library's intended use of our rfid in the manner we tended to use it. >> thank you. this is a budget hearing.

we can talk about the merits of technology at another hearing, for the most part, supervisor fewer has a question and i would like you to address a little bit more about your fines and fees structure. supervisor fewer do you still have questions? >> supervisor fewer: yes, i do. do you have any vacancies that you haven't filled? >> yes, we do. the library has between 695 and 700 fte total in our workforce. i'm not sure on the exact number at this time, i would say that we have close to approximately a ten % turnover rate at any given time. i do not know the exact number of vacancies off the top of my head but i do think it is around 86 positions in various stages of recruitment. >> okay. >> supervisor fewer: are you seeing challenges in fulfilling all of your f.t.e.? >> i would say the biggest challenge for us and filling

positions is at the management level where senior leadership position level. i think, with the cost of living in the bay area, it' area, it'sg harder and harder to attract top shelf talent unless that talent is already existing in the bay area. but as far as a line staff, we have no problem with filling eligible positions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i have a question about the rebuilding and remodelling of your libraries. have you ever asked but the mayors housing, building affordable housing above our library? as you know, we don't own a lot of public space left in san francisco, and i love the libraries in my district, but they are low density. i am just wondering if we have ever thought about building housing above libraries. >> we would love to explore that further. we are aware of other municipalities that have

colocated -- co. located library facilities and that matter. we have had preliminary conversations with hope sf with future public housing sights on libraries and having all city and county services available on the same footprints. we are very excited about that prospect for future libraries and we intend to embark on that in a meaningful way in the coming fiscal year with the public works partners. >> supervisor fewer: okay, "thanks. i want to say that rfid, i am also concerned about the privacy issues. and so i look forward to a deeper discussion about it and raising the same concerns that supervisor at sheehy did. >> we can certainly bring that next week if you would like, if it would be helpful. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for your

presentation mr lambert and welcome to the helm of the public library. we will continue this conversation. i will get more information about that fines and fee structures off-line. >> thank you, care. >> next we have sfmta director ed risk in here. welcome. >> thank you madame chair. i am your director of transportation. happy to have the opportunity to present our two year capital and operating budget. i also want to thank you for your service on this committee. it's an intensive process for the next six to eight weeks. so i appreciate the work that you do to deliver a balanced budget to the board of supervisors. >> supervisor fewer: before you begin, i would like to say and acknowledge that this is her last budget process. i want to say hello to you and congratulate her for moving on

and those of you who don't know, she will be retiring and she has done a tremendous job as a cfo for the metropolitan transportation agency. i just want to acknowledge her leadership on that front. thank you. >> i completely echo that and was planning to do the same. she has been a force for good for the city and it is not just the budget by that manifests, but a lot of aspects of the agency. we are very grateful for her leadership and perhaps we will convince her to stay. though given the daily reminders of her impending retirement, i think that's unlikely. i did provide a lot of materials to you. >> supervisor cohen: yes, you did. >> a lot of contextual material as well as material responding to some specific issues that have been raised the members of the board of supervisors in deference to the chair's request for brevity and efficiency, i don't plan on presenting those but will be happy to answer any questions about anything that we do have. so i will try to keep it

brief and hig high-level terms of the presentation itself. but like you've heard from some of the other departments, what guides our budget is our agency's strategic plan which has a vision of excellent transportation choices for san francisco and for those around which we orient the work that we do, not just the budget work, but policy, operations, any decision-making that we are doing in the agency is meant to be aligned with these four goa goals. the agency has a great brats of responsibility. it gives a snapshot of some of the brats of what we are responsible for in terms of people and assets and service. and that manifests or is driven by, what is proposed as a $1.2 billion operating budget and a $2.8 billion five year capital improvement program. in terms of the operating

budget, really both a budgets, the topline story is that these are strong budgets that help us advance the city's goals with respect to transit first safety and division zero, and our climate change goals for the city. specifically with the operating budget, you can see a slight increase proposed for the next two fiscal years, going from 1.18 21. to one and 1.27 in the second fiscal year. and there is a true two-year budget cycle. this shows you some historical revenues and expenditures. the break down here, by category, it shows you that the lion's share of the expenditures side of the budget should be in salaries and benefits for our staff. if yoyou can see modest growth l of those categories from the

current fiscal year looking forward. more specifically with regard to staffing and fte growth, we do show a not insignificant growth and f.t.e. in this upcoming budget. and that is entirely really within the transit division. with offset on what reductions we've made and other divisions, and this is really representing the core of what we are proposing in this budget which is about more you need less crowding, but also to prepare ourselves for future demands. so included in this, are the start up of the central subway operations, halfway through the second fiscal year, more new light rail vehicles in service. the service plan that goes into effect this coming summer adds 22 light rail vehicles to the service plan.

we will have a total of 68 new vehicles in service by the end of 2019. as well as an expansion on the rubber tire side. we will have an increase in the fleet of 80 buses by 2019. not just more buses but larger buses moving from a 40-foot coaches to 60-foot coaches. and support of those things, we are opening a new bus maintenance facility next month in district ten. and are continuing to invest in workforce safety and trading as the acknowledgement of what we serve and operate increases and changes. so our priorities for this budget can be boiled down to a few things. one, is the support of affordability goals. this is something that was championed by mayor lee as a cost-of-living has, as you all know significantly increased in san francisco. after housing transportation --

after housing, transportation is the next hit on the san francisco pocketbook. continuing our free and reduced programs and looking at ways we can lower other fees. one of our priorities, second as i mentioned, funding expanded transit service to me today's and tomorrow's demand. and there is a number of changes we made to our fair structure to incentivize transit ridership and i heard your comments and your concerns, chair, with regard to the taxi industry. some targeted reductions that supervisor sheehy previously recommended. with regard to new service, as you know, we have a policy by which we do equity review at eight -- in eight disadvantaged

neighbourhoods throughout san francisco. we look at quantity and quality and performance in those neighbourhoods as compared to the citywide average. and then by policy fund adjustments that we need to make to make the service provision more equitable. coming out of that process for this budget cycle, you can see highlighted in red on this chart, a number of service increases that we are making to serve those neighbourhoods. also with the additional train service, there is additional service coming in to the service plan to address existing crowding and demand issues. a pretty healthy investment in service. i made reference to fair changes to incentivize ridership. generally, our affairs index with inflation as well as all of our fees and fines, d's at sevet

seven changes are deviations, mostly downward deviations or new products. i won't go into them all, but they reflect a few different themes. one is transit fair projects that we think are overpriced based on declining usage such as the monthly pass and some of our visitor passport products. also, using greater fair differentials to incentivize people to move on to clipper, and union -- and many mobile. they proposed for a new adult a pass and this would be to target more infrequent writers but give them unlimited trips essentially for the cost of two rides. so these are things that we are doing to reconcile our affairs with a where we see demand is but also to incentivize more transit ridership. there is some risk in our

budget, as well as the general funds budget in the form of the potential repeal of senate bill one. the signatures for this measure for november have been submitted through the secretary of state. i think within the next week or so, they are expected to be certified and this would be a measure on the november ballot to repeal the gas tax, diesel tax and a vehicle fee, increase that was passed by the legislature and affiant -- signed by the governor last year. in terms of us in the city, it is about $50 million annually and formula funding. 27 million that goes into our operating budget, 23 million that goes to public works saving budget -- paving budget and another 10 million budget in state repair funds. and other categories of funding that we can compete for. that is a risk that we need to watch. there are other risks that we share with all the other

departments. we have all of our labour contracts, that are in place for the first fiscal year but to be negotiated beyond that. so uncertainty there as well as what ever might happen with the economy, we obviously receive a significant amount of money from the general fund. that the only downturn would directly impact us as well. in terms of the capital budget, at a very high level, it's about a 1.1 billion-dollar budget over the two years. you can see from this chart how it is allocated among the different categories. a lot of the funds that we get are tied to specific categories of expenditure. so we don't have full findability of these funds, but still a pretty robust capital program. you can see it is a fair bit lower from where we were two years ago and that is largely because of some large expenditures that were somewhat over the hump way that such as

central subway and our fleet replacement. the fleet program, for example,, we will have by the end of 2019, replaced just about the entire best fleet and as i mentioned, we will have expanded by about 40 % the light rail fleet. some project highlights in the transit side, you can see here. it is everything from the fleet facilities to what we call a state of good repair which is in the existing infrastructure where it can be safer and more reliable. these are things we really need to do. on the street side, i know an interest to many of you on the board, pretty significant investments in pedestrian safety, bike safety, traffic coning and traffic signals. all steps towards getting to vision zero. the capital investments being one part of our investments to

get to vision zero which is now not so far away. like on the operating side, there is risk to some of the revenue sources. on the capital side, these include the bridge toll increase which will be on the ballot in a few weeks which hundred $40 million will be dedicated and again, there are other competitive categories that we think the city would compete well four, we've also included the anticipation of revenues that were recommended by the transportation 2045 task force in our budget. one thing not noted on the slide is we also assumed cap and trade revenues, and recent route awards from the stage program provided significantly fewer revenues than we were anticipating. we submitted an application for 572 million. we are not anticipating getting

that level of funding, but the award of 27 million, relative to the 572 million-dolla $572 mills significantly less than we anticipated. so there are things that we will need to reshuffle within our capital program to address that change as we will shed -- as shred either of these not happen. that is a high-level summary. lots of slides and i'm happy to answer any questions that any of you may have a. >> chair cohen: great thank you. you are not expecting any revenue from the taxi medallions sales and the next coming two years. could you explain that? >> yeah, so the taxi medallion sales market has not been active in recent years, for some of the reasons that we refer to earlier in the conversation with the airport. we did recently release a report that we had commissioned to help us think about changes we might want to make in the taxi

industry and i think you heard me mention -- i think i heard you mention that we will call for a hearing and i would happy to be going to details about that. part of that will be working -- looking at how do we revise the medallion market, based on the revenues we are seeing currently, we are not counting on revenues coming from the taxi industry. >> chair cohen: all right, good. we will table that part of the discussion for the next maybe 30 or 40 days when the hearing get scheduled. i don't want to dive too much into the budget about the taxi medallions and the licensing program. colleagues, i don't know if there's any other questions for the director? pertaining to the budget? maybe transit capital priorities? supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: thank you director reiskin for your report. i want to thank you for the memos scent to us dated may 15th, 2018 following up some of the questions that i actually presented to the board of

directors about your budget. so thank you very much. i just wanted to respond a little bit to the school crossing guard program, and i think that what i have an issue with, i think is that in order, your quote by your letters to say in order to address remaining qualifying schools, we are proposing to find an additional 20 positions. so i understand that, but from my understanding, is that difficulty is actually to recruit and retain these people into positions. is that correct? >> yes, thank you supervisor fewer. thank you for your feedback to our budget which, much of which we've been able to address the feedback. it was helpful and we heard from others with regard to crossing guards, as well. that's where, in the proposal, for an additional 20 positions, came from which would allow us to close the waiting list or the request list that is outstanding

that we've not been able to fill. has been challenging for us to recruit and hundred -- retain crossing guards, but there have been changes that we've made in recent years, in recent months that's helping us staff up those positions. we are confident working with other city departments and working through community-based organizations that we will be able to staff the additional positions that would bring us from 195 up to 215 funded crossing guard positions. >> supervisor fewer: i think you have heard that supervisor yee is working on employment for seniors who want to get back into the job market. i think you know there has been a proposal by the union that if these workers are working 20 hours a week, that you would probably be able to attract more people and actually retain them for a longer period of time. there are schools on that list that are in my district on the waitlist that i think are very

dangerous intersections. can you please respond to the issue of what slu has brought forward that perhaps, if we spent $2.2 million on this program, that we could actually have a workforce that could be relied upon, and also, we could encourage more people to enter into this -- these positions. in particular, seniors. >> yes, thank you again, through the chair, supervisor fewer, we did receive a request from the organization and we have a collective bargaining agreement and there is a process for managing changes to the contract during of the amendments he of that. our current contract goes through 2019. we are committed and i have commuted -- communicated with them that i will work with them with the process to consider changes to our collective

darkening agreement. the number of hours a crossing guards work as determined by the number of hours they are needed to perform their duties. those hours don't add up to 20 per week. us paying them for more hours than they are actually working, i don't think would be appropriate or responsible. we have been working to address through other means in terms of how we are reaching out to folks and would welcome the opportunity to partner with supervisor yee and his initiative for jobs for seniors to improve recruitment and retention so that we can fill those slots in a cost-effective and appropriate way. [please standby] departments un

the prop j provision, you s un contract out a lot -- a lot of jobs. you contract out to private companies more than o