$9,508,737 or 6% in the 19-20 budget. as i understand it, the department does concur with our reductions shown on pages 37 and 38 of our report. >> supervisor cohen: so the savings include capital expenditures and savings? >> that's right. >> supervisor cohen: and savings from retirement and lower freight delivery and licensing fees. >> correct. >> supervisor cohen: last week we talked about rfid. it was a spirited conversation, if you will. do you want to make a presentation about it? >> i can certainly offer some additional remarks. let me first state that the only risk or way a patron's borrowing habits could be compromised is through unauthorized access to a secure staff database. rfid has no bearing on that risk.

that risk appears today. we do have safeguards in place that would mitigate that from happening. with regards to rfid, our intended use is from direction of american libraries association office of intellectual freedom and national information standards organization. our privacy policy governs our use of rfid technology. we have a plan to use a passive rfid tag. this will entail not placing an rfid tag on a library card. there would be no patron information stored on an rfid tag or any bibliographic information. the author or subject of a given book would not be stored on an rfid tag. all that would be on that tag is a series of numbers that is plainly visible on every item in our collection on the bar code sticker. i stand by my earlier statement that there is no risk whatsoever

to patron privacy. >> supervisor cohen: okay. supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: i wanted to mention that after last week's conversation with rfid, i met with mr. lantern and i feel very comfortable in approving the recommendation for that expediture. and i also just wanted to say that we had a conversation about if we should be building some affordable housing above our libraries that are to be renovated in a short period of time. we think it with probably be good use of public land. thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen: any other questions for this gentleman? thank you. we appreciate your presentation and clarity. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen: however, i still think the conversation will rage on about rfid. >> okay. [laughter] >> supervisor cohen: m.t.a. >> madam chair, i was wondering if you want to do that based on what you did at the airport and

also at the port. i don't think the committee -- >> supervisor cohen: took office. >> as to whether or not you accept our recommendations. >> supervisor coou ahen: y right. i realized that and was going to come back to it. let's go ahead and complete item 4 and then take action on -- >> madam chair, i'm sorry to interrupt. should we also speak to the accept and expend for the friends and foundation? >> supervisor cohen: sure. the $813,000. >> thank you. the resolution before you today would authorize the library to accept and extend up to $813,350 of cash and in-kind contributions from the friends and foundation of the san francisco public library. this amounts to an 8% increase over last year's gift and we're extremely fortunate to have such robust support from our friends at the library. these funds allow us to enhance the level of service we're able to provide to the community and it funds popular programs like our open house events the a at

neighborhood branches, summer stride, our one city-one book program, and innovative initiatives like science bio blitzes. we appreciate the partnership with the friends and we appreciate your consideration of this grant award and i'm available to answer any questions you have about that as well. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i don't think there's any questions about the grant. it's pretty straightforward. donations are cash and in-kind gifts. colleagues, am i wrong in my assumption? okay. looks like we're okay. just so there is clarity for the men and women in the chamber, items 1-3 will remain open. we'll take the b.l.a. recommendations as each department comes before us, but item 4 we're going to take action and take public comment on. since there are no other questions, why don't we take public comment on item 4. please come on up. >> excuse me, i'm not clear. are we doing 1, 2 and 3?

>> supervisor cohen: no, we're not. 1, 2, and 3 are remaining open. and we're taking action on item 4. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. i believe the committee opened public comment on items 1, 2, and 3 after the airport presentation but before taking any action. so now you are taking public comment on item 4 and the additional items on the agenda as you go through the day, bun, -- but 1, 2, and 3 have received public comment. >> supervisor cohen: it's open. maybe i should make a motion to reopen it. >> if there are people that missed the public comment call, committee could reopen public comment and take public comment on 1, 2, and 3 as well as number 4 now. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> i understood that you did public comment on that department and then went on to the next department and that the action on items 1, 2, and 3

related to the first department that you heard. i certainly would like to make public comment on 1, 2, and 3 and the acting city librarian has just given you an extensive description of what his thoughts are on items 1, 2, and 3. i think that merits public comment, separate from item 4. >> supervisor cohen: back up. so for items 1, 2 and 3, we haven't heard the full -- i'm going to keep it open. there will be an opportunity for you to take -- for us to take comment on items 1, 2, and 3. >> today? >> supervisor cohen: yes, of course. what i would like to do is complete item 4 and take public comment on item 4 at this time. if you would like to speak on item 4 -- >> i think that the committee should take a very close look at what the library is not only taking supposedly from the friends but in particular what

is being provided to the friends in a whole range of benefits that are not mentioned and invisible. so the first thing is, we've repeatedly found that the friends are keeping some 90% of what they take in and giving the library 10% or less. that certainly was true in the past and there's a whole range of things that the friends are giving -- supposedly giving. for example, at the library, it's shown as a $9,000 donation, but it's a gigantic advertising piece for the friends that they get exclusive use of and extensive use of in that publication. they get to have a bookstore for $1 a year in the main entrance of the main library as the first things that you see. and it contradicts the library slogan of "free and equal

access." the friends get to essentially sell library assets for selected donors at various levels. so the naming of rooms, and the naming of bookshelves, the placement of bricks on a revamped library. there's a whole range in essentially they're selling off the public good. and i would certainly be concerned with the friends -- some other ways in which they use funding and it's not visible. we know that the fppc in sacramento found the library in violation of open government law with respect to the prior reporting and luis herrera did not follow the law and had to sign a stipulation that he had violated the law for three years in a row by claiming that he had gotten nothing in the way of donations from the friends. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for sharing your perspective. next speaker, please. >> members of the board of

supervisors, ray hart, director of san francisco open government. and can i get this to work? >> supervisor cohen: sfgov tv, overhead, please. >> and could i get my time back while we're waiting for -- can i get the 30 seconds i've lost waiting for that? politics author frank hubbard says that politics is the art of appearing candid and completely open while concealing as much as possible. you have seen something similar

to this, the friends and family grant. and they will come in and say, we want to get $820,000. this is what they do. they put other people's money, the designated donors, as an inclusion as if it's from the friends. what the friends in this particular year gave was $410,000. this from the website charity navigator, the numbers were provided by the friends to this website and they tout its wonderful thing. if you look at what they spent during the same year, $4 million. so when you were a citizen of san francisco and you go to the library's website and there's a link directly from the city department website to the friends, you think your money is going to the library and only 10% or less is actually going to support the library. 90% of it doesn't go anywhere. i've gone to the library commission meetings and said, this is a fraud, this is a scam,

and they don't bother -- and i said, if you can prove i'm wrong, i would think you would want to shut me up by proving him wrong and they never do. and the bottom line is, mr. warfield previously stated, we took the former city librarian to the fbbc in sacramento because for three consecutive years, he filed his statement of economic interest saying he got nothing from the friends and the fbbc after investigation ruled he was getting $5,000 a year of stuff he was supposed to be reporting and failed to report. so basically, this whole thing is a scam the citizens give the money thinking that it's going to the library and 90% of it. >> supervisor cohen: next speaker for item 4. >> good morning. my name is carol simmons and i'm a san francisco resident and a

former library director in the bay area. i'm speaking to congratulate the friends and the library on their wonderful partnership. i have to tell you that as a former director in daly city that the san francisco friends and foundation has been a model for us in how to create a successful partnership between the library and the city. and so when we were forming our foundation in daly city, we turned to san francisco friends and foundation for advice and for mentorship. and they were extremely gracious in giving both to us and have helped us as we've come along and really raised some money for the daly city library. so i did want to congratulations the friends and family for this wonderful donation to the library and celebrate the partnership. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> good morning.

i'm maria sapella, executive director for friends foundation of the library. we're happy to be here. we've been a backbone and partner that allows the community to support its library. we do more than this gifrt -- gift to the library. the interpretation that you just heard is not correct. all of our audits and annual reports are on our website. half of our budget is in our book program. and so it's pretty much a neutral, sometimes profitable program of our book selling, which is a community organization of our own and we have our philanthropic piece and we're a very big advocate for the community. much of what we do is make sure that the library preservation fund is maintained, that can be renewed and that the library has a very strong public base. i will just invite you to

continue to look at the numbers. they mean different things to different people and can be interpreted in many ways. when you look at the breakdown of restricted and unrestricted funds, the restricted funds that are being referred to are funds that we -- we manage five endowments on top of the restricted amount. there is management of these assets that are managed and released in a way that's strategic to the library. once again, we're happy to give this money and continue to be the community's advocate for probably the best library system in the country. thank you so much. >> supervisor cohen: any other member of the public that would like to share their ideas or comments? seeing none, item 4 is closed. colleagues, can we take action on this item? may we move with a positive recommendation? >> yes. >> supervisor cohen: all right. we'll move with a positive recommendation. mr. clerk, i want to -- i'd like

to clarify to the public that item -- and would i like to take public comment on items 1, 2, and 3. public comment for items 1, 2, and 3 are open. yes, we're reopening it. >> again, ray hart, director san francisco open government and i'm talking about the budget of the library. i have 36 orders of determination finding violations of the sunshine ordinance, which are violations of either the brown act or california public records act. a dozen of those are the library either trying to keep me from getting public records to substantiate the phrases. the previous speakers -- i presented statistics and documents and they say, it's a wonderful relationship. i will tell you what's happened in the library. i've been going for 10 years now and the friends never show up at that meeting anymore. they used to show up and show of those false numbers saying,

we're giving $700,000, $800,000, hiding that the money was coming from other people and they're taking credit for it. the never sw numbers and they have access to all the numbers. one of the things that is hard to to try to get the library to take any responsibility for the financial arrangement. they're supposed to look out for the benefit of the library and yet they know absolutely nothing about where this money goes and how it's spent and they've stopped talking about the friends at the public library commission meetings because they can't prove me wrong. bottom line is, in all the people over here in the controller's department, etc., you know that if somebody walks up with numbers and statistics that are actually from a public source and they're confronted -- and the only response they get is, oh, we do wonderful things. and we have all this. we have all that. if they could have proved me wrong, they would have done it to shut me up years ago.

and they can't because i'm right. 10% of the money they raise goes to the library. 90% of it is questionable where it goes. and by now, the friends or the library, if they could, would have shown that i'm wrong and instead what they do is actively scam the public. >> supervisor cohen: next speaker. again, this is for items 1-3. if you would like to comment on any of the budgets for the -- regarding the airport, the port, the library, m.t.a., environment, building inspections or public utilities commission, now is the time. >> thank you, chairman, and supervisors. i'm carol simmons, san francisco resident and former library director in the bay area. and i would like to speak in support of the library's budget request and in particular in

support of the implementation of rfid technology. having read the article in the paper last week, i think there's an unfounded fear of privacy violations. and so i wanted to speak to a little bit of our experience down on the peninsula in implementing rfid beginning in 2009. so i have touched base with my colleagues down there to see if there has been any concerns or any reports of privacy violations and there have not. and as acting city librarian michael lambert said, it's because of the way that libraries implement rfid technology. they only use -- there are many types of rfid chips and labels and they're used in many industries, including retail and shipping. but the tags that are used by libraries are for inventory control only and they're used in order to increase efficiency of operations. they've only two elements on them.

the bar code is through a reader and interfaces with the system. when you check an item out, the security toggle is set to off, so you can walk out of the item with what you have checked out. when it's checked back in, the reverse takes place. the security toggle is on and libraries use that to prevent theft. but i just wanted to say that rfid in libraries is industry standard and it also really increases the efficiency of the automated handling system, which is -- allows you to check out and check in large amounts of items and have them fed more quickly through the redistribution process either into patron hands or on the shelves. one of the other things that's really important about rfid is it prevents repetitive motion injuries to staff. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please.

>> madam chair cohen, supervisors fewer, stefani, yee, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you. i'm joseph bryant. i'm the regional vice president of sciu 10-1. we're here to speak on a particular issue that we're facing and it pertains to some of our employees within the sfmta. i think we've made all of you aware of this issue in regards to the school crossing guards, you know, school crossing guards provide essential services to ensure that kids can get to school safely and on time and so forth. with this position, a number of these folks just faced challenges in terms of the way that their employment is structures, essentially short hours that don't allow them to reach the levels where they can

benefit from pension, healthcare and so forth. so we're asking with this budget, the $1.2 billion budget within the sfmta, to consider correcting this problem of our school crossing guards to allow them to live and prosper in the city and county of san francisco. sfmta is a department we've worked mutually with on many issues and been able to resolve many of these. we also feel this is of mutual benefit to resolve the sfmta has referenced challenges in terms of retention of employees and so forth. from our perspective in regards to the workers that are dealing with it and struggling to stay on with that, but we ask through this process is we try to correct this issue. again, we feel it's mutually beneficial for the department, for the workers, that we give those an opportunity to prosper

in the city and county of san francisco. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, chair and supervisors on the budget committee. i'm michael weinberg, political organizer sciu 10-1, and i'm speaking to you about the crossing guards as well. we've been to you before. we've been attempting to raise the issue with the mta and they've been unable to address any of the issues. so we're asking you to address the issues so that not only these workers can be treated appropriately, but that the service is provided in a safe and fair manner. we know that crossing guards provide a valuable service that is very popular service in the city. the way the program is management now, it's not fair to either the taxpayers or the

employees who are being mistreated and given poor opportunities to provide services and the department spends an inordinant amount of money doing constant recruitments because of the low wages and compensation and hours. and those are things that need to be addressed. got copies of the m.t.a. presentation on the crossing guard program, where they identify all of these issues and challenges with the program and yet are refusing to address. so i have these issues here for you to take a look at. so we're asking for your assistance in giving guidance and direction to the m.t.a. to meet with us to work on addressing these issues this year, right now. thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker, please. mr. clerk, could you grab the --

>> clerk: yes. please leave it in the box and we'll pick it up. >> hello. i'm mary midonord. i'm working as a crossing guard and i'm speaking up for them. i've been there for -- since 2014 to now. let me tell you something, it's really, really dangerous to work in that place. i work and cesar chavez and harrison and sometimes the cars don't pay attention and the kids have to run away the other way on the street and it's very, very scary because sometimes we can get hit and nobody looks like anybody cares about us. and also they don't appreciate us. they just don't appreciate us. so, i don't know. >> supervisor cohen: is that it? >> yes.

>> supervisor cohen: thank you. you are appreciated. >> thank you. >> hello, good morning, members of the board. i'm hector cardenos, union representative for sfmta and paramedics. the sfmta presented the difficulties for recruitment and retention for school crossing guard program, illustrating the high turnover rate of employees performing this important work of getting children, disabled, elderly and general public across the streets of san francisco safely before and after school. we believe this is because the school crossing guard job is hardly treated as a real job by the city. currently, it's a temporary exempt job without grievance procedure. it is the lowest paid and no benefits for a job requiring

putting one's self in harm on the streets of san francisco. the sfmta has refused to meet twice to adequately address the issues along with the request to review the equipment provided for the job. when asked for a review on proper care resistant rain gear, the sfmta provided the following response. "sfmta has issued 90% of the protected rain gear and access listed in your draft proposal to the sustainable streets division. unfortunately, we cannot entertain any new proposals at this time. you are encouraged to address this during contract negotiations in 2019." please put that money in the budget, so we can negotiate to make it a proper position for the city and county. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. good morning. my name is reese isbel, regular

library user. and would i like to speak to the rfid issue. and i regularly check out graphic novels. i check out a lot, actually. and along with other books that i check out. and, as you can see, you can check out a lot when you go to the library with your library card, which is great. part of what our rfid does is allows -- as you know, when you check out a book, you have your library card. you put it under the scanner. and then you scan each one. this is for librarians as well as the public, like me. and it takes several seconds and several amounts of time. the difference with rfid is, you just put them in the block and it goes ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. you don't have to go through the separate scannings.

that's very important for large amounts of borrowing. and it sounds small but it actually adds up to 12,000 to 15,000 hours or the work of six to seven full time employees annually. so that's quite a big deal. it also assists them and our community members using the self-serve with issues with the continual use of this, as well as when you check out an audio visual or a cd, the rfid will tell you if it's already in the case or not. you don't have to open it and then close it to check. so there's a number of benefits with rfid. and i would encourage you to support it. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you.

next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm karen strauss. i'm the past chief of the main library at san francisco public library and i'm here in support of the proposal for implementing rfid at the library from the perspective of protecting our investment and our collections over the more than 125 years of the existence of the san francisco public library tens and hundreds of millions of dollars has been provided to build up a glorious collection of materials and books and video and other formats and one of the things that rfid does in addition to the benefits you've heard about, it provides much better access to the collection for staff and patrons alike in terms of being able to find things. and one of the difficulties of a system as ours is so large and

spread around so many locations in our city is that things -- things are not always exactly where we think they are at any given time for a host of very legitimate reasons. and so rfid, in addition to all these other benefits you've heard about, is inventory control, which is no small issue when we talk about the $10 million every year that the library devotes to enhancing and improving the collection for all of san franciscans. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> madam chair and members. my name is bob finebaum. i'm chair of save muni. and i suspect, madam chair, that you will hold a comment period after the m.t.a. budget as well, is that correct? >> supervisor cohen: no, that's not correct. now is your time to talk about the m.t.a. budget. thank you. >> thank you. two things. first of all, we've submitted a

statement. i will submit a written copy for you today, which should be in your packet, where we're asking you to reject the m.t.a. budget and send it back for further work. today you will hear a report from the budget analyst on every department other than the m.t.a. i understand the m.t.a. decision you have to make is to vote for it or to reject it. but that does not excuse the fact that you need information that can appropriate i will be given by a budget analysis. we call upon you to not take action on the m.t.a. budget today but to ask the budget analyst to do a thorough analysis, focusing specifically on the additional personnel, additional budget, that is being asked for by the m.t.a. and

whether those services cannot be provided within the existing budget as it is few constituted. so we think that the m.t.a. budget should be rejected. we think it needs more work. and we think that the process by which it was adopted at the m.t.a. board is very flawed and we would commend to you to use your extraordinary powers to reject the budget and i would like to give the clerk a copy of our statement. >> supervisor cohen: please. you can put it in the box here and we'll collect it and make sure it's reflected in the file. is there another speaker? >> good morning. i'm gregory williams. i came in here yesterday. and i indicated your

unprofessionalism as councilmembers and you will be terminated. now i have a question. it is in regards to the indications that are being discussed now. is it in general or is it one specific category we're discussing at this time? >> supervisor cohen: it's public comment at this time. >> okay. again, what i identify on your paperwork, which is proposed that it must be reviewed because there is so much excessive financial means that is being futilely spent and it goes to the question where we don't see any change, where the actual financial stability to the specific category doesn't provide any change. so where is the funding going? and whom, one of you, are allowing this excessive funding? i'm the beneficiary. i own this wealth. what are you doing with the financial means -- education,

libraries, law enforcement? what else? where is the funding going? because we shouldn't be continuing over and over talking about the same concept in the proposals. and when we got to overreview the proposals because some of them don't make sense. you are utilizing futile spending form things that we don't see betterment or advancements. so it's important that we understand what we intend to do. i will be sitting in that chair i am the chair. so hopefully before the day is over, constituents will rise and escort you out of this building. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm peter warfield, executive director of library users

association and we strongly oppose and join with others in opposing if i funding whatsoever for rfid. when the library says there's no risk to patron privacy, that's them saying it. and conditionally, they're basically saying no risk to access to the database because without that, you can't tell what the title is. the first issue is, there's authorized access very much available from one of the prime people that people are concerned about with privacy and that is the government. the government with subpoenas or through the patriot act can get at that library database with no problem whatsoever. but it isn't even required to have access to the database to provide privacy threats. who said it's perfectly safe? the library. the aclu and electronic frontier

foundation have centers will to luis herrera. i've provided copies of those in which they say, oppose and continue to oppose rfid use in libraries because of its privacy and free speech concerns. also an early study, which i've also provided the supervisors said, current conventional wisdom suggests that privacy risks negligible unless there is access to library databases. we show that's not the case. there are books about this problem. spy chips, how major corporations and government plan to track your every move with rfid. it's a serious privacy threat. it has many other functional problems, expenses. you can get fines and fees for

years with the cost of this. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is bill calledman, first floor manager at the main library and sciu 10-21, having worked in two other libraries that utilize rfid, i can tell that you it covers greatly increased efficiency. it frees staff from the routine process of checking in and out materials, affording them to do what they're there for -- serve the public. despite what other commenters continue to report there, is no increas increased privacy exposure. of i've talked to berkeley public library and contra costa library who are in position to

know about privacy concerns and they state there has been no concerns of patron privacy in regards to rfid. we're in a position to replace the technology we have in the library that we already have regardless if we implement rfid. the example i would give you. if you had an 8 track player in your car and it broke down, you probably with not replace it with an 8 track player. you would upgrade your technology, which is exactly what we're doing with this project. i appreciate your time. >> supervisor cohen: any other members of the public that would like to comment on 1-3 or the department budgets, airport, library, mta, inspections or puc. seeing none -- no, no. you have made your public comment. public comment is closed.

all right. public comment is closed for items 1-3, however these items will remain open. now i would like to call items 5 and 6 together, so we can hear that. we're going to hear from m.t.a. >> item 5 is a transfer up to $4 million to the general fund for overpayment and duplicate payments to the city for parking and transit violations between january 1, 1994, june 30, 2016. item 6 is a resolution authorizing substitution of a letter of credit offered by sumitomo mitsui acting through its new york branch not to exceed $100 million to support 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