presented here, this is where a lot of the frustration begins for me. i' i'll just admit i'm frustrated because of the lack of coordination with this body. you came to us and asked us for a permit for unshared scooters. without an ordinance passed by this body, all of the continuing operators would be allowed to continue to operate in san francisco, is that correct? you needed legislation from the board of supervisors to halt what was, i guess, arguably a loophole in the system in san francisco, right? >> well, supervisor, my interpretation was this board asked how we could get what was deemed a scooter problem under control. >> supervisor safai: right. you would not be able to regulate the sidewalks or the

dumping or putting of these shared power scooters -- i think we established that supervisor peskin put that forward. our body unanimously passed that. and then, we didn't hear from you again. you created a program and a permit. did you come back to this body -- did you work with any members of the board of supervisors to create this program? >> so we had a hearing here on the 24, when this body created the program, and one of the things that we heard was that moving quickly to get an effective pilot program in place was a high priority for this board. >> supervisor safai: i know that myself -- i know that supervisor peskin asked for technology -- what -- what was -- deputy city attorney givner, there was a reference in there to a conversation that you and i had with supervisor peskin before he left. was it -- >> mr. givner: privacy? >> supervisor safai: privacy,

right. is that part of the permit currently? >> yes. all permit -- anybody receiving a permit under this pilot is required to sign onto a privacy policy as part of the terms and conditions of the pilot. >> supervisor safai: okay. so that's good. but this body was not asked to review the -- the proposed permit before it was set out, is that right -- or the proposed application or the criteria, is that right? >> that's right. my understanding was the legislation that you passed unanimously setup the violation but also directed the m.t.a. board to move quickly to create the pilot program. >> supervisor safai: i don't know if it says quickly, but it says that there would be a violation and you should create a permit program. it said no one should operate these without a permit program. yes. >> supervisor safai: okay, so you never came back to this body and asked for our input, i would say. was the scoring criteria, was the structure in which everyone would be able to apply for these, was this published in

advance? did you promulgate how these would be listed? >> yes. it showed up in division two of the transportation code which the m.t.a. made when it created the pilot program in april, so the m.t.a. board's legislation specifically refers to some of the issues around safety and equity. secondly, the application itself includes required responses from any of these criteria. and thirdly, there are the emerging principles which were passed by our board and the transportation authority. >> supervisor safai: did you put the criteria in advance? was it promulgated this is how many categories you're going to be judged on, this is how much weight each one is going to have. was that's put out in advance of the application? >> the criteria we put in the

application, it's a good question about the weight. we did not publish -- this was not a procurement -- like a request for proposal where we were asking vendors to come in and score five points on this, ten points on this. that were certain issues, like accountability and safety, for which a poor rating would not have been acceptable, no matter how they would have scored on the other criteria. for that reason, we didn't publish a specific criteria, where if you get, like, 26 points out of 50, you get a permit. >> supervisor safai: usually, if you've got a permit process, applicants need to know how much weight in each category is going to be given so they understand. i'm -- again, i don't want to get into any specific application. i understand that there's appeals in front of the body. i'm just trying to understand the larger framework on which -- so we've established that we setup the ability for you to -- for there to be a violation for

these to operate without a permit. we said there needed to be a permit. we gave you that authority. you created that application for a permit, but were -- were the criteria published in advance and was there a clear direct on how much weight each category would be given? it sounds like there was not. >> i think we built a pretty good public record of what categories and issues needed to be responded to. we did not give a specific weight or scoring at this time like you asked. >> supervisor safai: okay. another ordinance that we passed was put forward by supervisor yee. it was emerging technology. resolution for guiding principle, and the city administrator was asked to put together a working group. did you ask that working group to weigh in on your permit process? did you ask them to review or weigh in at all on the application for this particular permit? >> we did not share the

applications. >> supervisor safai: not the application, but what you were putting out as part of the actual application process. did you go to that group and ask them to weigh? >> no, we asked the joint committee of the m.t.a. and t.a. >> supervisor safai: but you didn't go to the emerging technology working group that supervisor yee setup specifically to cover all types and forms of emerging technology? >> we did not review the process with them, no. >> supervisor safai: okay. and did you go out to community based organizations or neighborhoods that are currently under served by alternative forms of transportation before you put out your documentation? did you get any input on the actual application for the -- in

terms of under served communities? >> yes, we did. we got that input in this chamber on march 24. we got that input on the our -- at our board on april 27. >> did you go out to the community other than the one meeting with our board. did you go out to underserved communities to solicit feedback? >> so m.t.a. staff had met with some community groups in under served communities. for instance, united save the mission. i do not want to suggest that that group or any group has endorsed the process, but we've done some of that outreach. >> supervisor safai: okay. so it sounds like the answer to that is no. i had a particular interest in the issue -- one of the speakers spoke about this, some of the companies that were operating or some of the practices to some of the companies were to pay to do piece rate in terms of the collection process, and we had asked there to be a labor piece provision. is that included in your permit?

>> yes. we've comm we've committed that no scooter permit will go out until the vendor has signed a labor permit. >> supervisor safai: and i guess my land question, i'll hand it over to any other supervisors that want to ask a question -- so your body, there's been some debate, and this might -- there's been some direction given about past practices of companies. we've gotten differing results, and i'm only refer to what i've read in the paper, but there's been some confusion about this. as part of your criteria, was it past practices of the business as it pertained to the scooter business or was it past practices of the business in general? >> so actually -- would it be okay if i take a second to quote the transportation board?

because the board gave us some specific direction, and i don't want to misstate it. >> supervisor safai: sure. >> so there's a section in the division two changes -- that the division two ordinance that was passed that said in evaluating a permit application, director may consider the extent to which an operator has the capacity to meet the permit terms based on past experience, including compliance with applicable laws and its efforts to ensure compliance with its users with applicable laws. so i -- again, without going too far into the how we evaluated specific applications. >> supervisor safai: so that's an existing section of your transportation code. >> no. our board added that to the transportation code to govern the pilot program. >> supervisor safai: when? when did that add that? >> that was on may 1. >> supervisor safai: so your board added that specific

language on may 1 as it pertained to this specific application permit. >> it's in the section of the transportation code governing powered shared scooter program, so it applies specifically to this program. >> supervisor safai: can you read it one more time? >> in evaluating a permit application, the director may evaluate an extent based on past experience, including compliance with applicable laws and its efforts to ensure compliance by its users with applicable laws. >> supervisor safai: i don't hear anything in there specifically about refining to the scooter. you're saying it's a broad statement of past practices? >> that's -- that's right. >> supervisor safai: and that was authorized by your board. >> that's right. >> supervisor safai: actually, in the beginning of that statement, it says scooter.

>> that text appears in the section entitled power scooter share permit issuance. >> supervisor safai: so i'm assuming you would be talking about past practices of shared scooters, not the overall universe of how a company behaved. i don't know. can -- can i have an interpretation from the city attorney on that? it sounds like if it's under a section of power shared scooters in that section of the code -- >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. i agree with mr. mcguire that this is a law that was adopted by the m.t.a. board governing the powered shared scooters program. i am very reluctant, given the timing here of giving this body interpretations of the code. >> supervisor safai: that's fine.

that's one we'll leave. it sounds like it could be up to debate. i guess my last question is can you talk a little bit about there's this conversation about five permits were authorized by your body, but you chose to only issue two. can you talk about that? >> right. so our board gave us the ability to issue anywhere from zero to five permits with a total cap of up to -- >> supervisor safai: when you say up to five, would might not have issued any permits? >> we met with most of the applicants in the permitting process, and so we were given that latitude by our board and told to make sure that we offered the permitted to the applicants -- permits to the

applicants who scored the highest. >> supervisor safai: so why only two? why didn't you issue all the way up to five? >> maybe i'll just answer that question generally. >> supervisor safai: yeah. >> in the matrix, our scoring sid that there were clearly two that out scored the rest. and as a result, we thought that issues those two permits to the applicants that made the strongest showing would deliver the best service. >> supervisor safai: were there any other agencies that were involved in the evaluation process? who was involved in the evaluation -- was it just completely m.t.a. staff? >> well, obviously, we worked very closely with our city attorney, and as i said, we're building on the principles that

were developed jointly with the transportation authority staff. [inaudible] >> we also got feedback from the department of the environment. we worked with the department of public works to make sure that we were equipped for, you know, the potential confeiscation issues, and we have consulted with the police department, as well. >> supervisor safai: okay. i'll hand it over to supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: so a couple of things that i wanted to say, and it's a little distinct from supervisor safai that i was actually very impressed how quickly you crafted a permit program and how quickly you are now issues them.

getting r.p.'s out that we approved on june 30 sometimes don't get out until april of the following year. i just wanted to congratulate the board and the staff for moving so quickly. i'm very impressed that we are ready to issue permits on october 15. i do want to clarify that while the ordinance that this board unanimously passed gave sfmta the ability to permit these types of scooters, the department of public works already had the authority to remove these unpermitted scooters. and so even though m.t.a. didn't have that ability to permit them -- not permit them, we already had a city agency that was removing them under our current code, and that was the conflict that we were trying to address for. so there was no ability for the

city to legally permit these scooters that city was just picking up because they were clutter on our sidewalk. so i think that's really important to note, that this process had to happen, that we couldn't just have these scooters out there because they would get cleared out by the city, by a different agency. there is a different type of hearing partly because this board of supervisors pursuant to the city charter doesn't have authority to make decisions around contracting. mr. givner, i was hoping you could clarify the roles of the different branchs via contracts. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the board of supervisors does have the authority to review and approve the sfmta's contracts

that exceed $10 million or 10 years or bring in $1 million of revenue. but a permitting program like this is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the m.t.a., so that the m.t.a. board plays the role that the board of supervisors would otherwise play adopting the program. and the m.t.a. staff has authority to implement the program. and the board of supervisors because of its separate role from the m.t.a. under the chatter doesn't have decision making authority on either front. >> supervisor kim: i do just want to say because there are these clear authorizations of power, i don't think it's -- it is just a very awkward hearing because while i'd love to given put to you on what i'd like you to consider, i don't want to provide input on who you finally

select or how many you select. i feel like that's a distinguishing line, and maybe that's just more of what's culturally appropriate versus what is permissible. i just want to say a couple of things. i did look up that article after one of the members of the public talked about kind of what is happening in other cities with this gig economy job through many of these e-scooters, and i read the atlantic article and i was disturbed to see what type

of -- i do think it's our best interest to ensure that all of these workers are city employees versus outside contractors. let's create real jobs with benefits for employees. i've always said when i get these great economic studies on how many jobs we're creating or not creating that i would rather create 100 good paying jobs with benefits than 300 jobs barely paying minimum wage. i appreciate mr. walsh's statements that scoot hires all of its employees in house, ensuring that they get the compensation and benefits that all their employees do. by the way, i know scoot also runs the moped program, and i do think they run a great program. not commenting on who you should award contracts to, but that's

just my comment, to the best of sfmta's ability that we should be encouraging these businesses to be providing about benefits. again, i just want to thank you for moving so quickly. there's clearly -- you heard a lot from members of the public that they'd like to see us pilot this program and see if it works, and if it can be a last mile connector, and see if it gets people out of private vehicles, including uber and lyft. i think the public's out on that still actually. i'm personally open to public biking rather than scoots, but i78 i'm open to see what's happening. but i just wanted to comment thus far. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor. are you going to say something, supervisor tang?

so i just want to come back to an important point, and i always appreciate the conversation and debates that we have and in this chamber. normally, supervisor kim and i are in agreement. but on this one particular point, i am not in agreement because i hail from a part of san francisco and live in a part of san francisco that is dramatically underserved by emerging technologies. the way sometimes speed can help in the way rerowe roll out prog, and yes, there's been a lot of debate on speed and how quickly we can get them out. but in our neighborhood that has not been served by this, it would benefit to have community input in this process, and that is what is frustrating to me. there is a lot of areas in my district that would be greatly served by this. so if we would have been asked to have input in this process, i

would have said let's ensure that one of the criteria for selection would be that there's going to be a robust and well laid out plan to serve and employ -- to your point, supervisor, because i care deeply about it not being piece rate employment, and that's what i care about, when people are paid by the number of items or individual units that they produce for a company. i do think that that is important, and i appreciate the fact that you're saying that there is going to be a labor provision. but in terms of the creation, it is important, because if we had had an opportunity or if the public had had an opportunity to have input in the overall process, there might have been a slightly different criteria, and that rite real estate could have been weighted, people could have weighed in. it might have slowed the process down slightly, but we might have had a different result. ultimately, the selection is

your body's job. but i do want to end on another point, that this body went through the process -- through or legislative process to create a conversation, and we were very close to going to the ballot to have a different process that this legislative body could be involved in and influence and have more say over the transportation process and transportation policy in san francisco. i've only been on this body for 1.5 years. i know supervisor kim's in her eighth year, and i'm going on finishing up my second. but there is no agency that we receive more complaints, inquiries, advice, suggestions, than the sfmta -- in my opinion. and it is frustrating beyond belief to have to say we are bound by the charter, we have no influence and input in the policy making. so i -- i am going to continue

to hit that point. i think it's an important point. i think the citizens in san francisco deserve to be involved in that conversation and need to understand that it's not just five members of a body that are appointed on a four-year term that have the decision over policy power in this city. i know you saw yesterday in the paper, paris came out and is rolling out powered scooter. they're not limiting the number. they're offering as many permits as they can, and i would argue they're leaps and bounds above san francisco in terms of providing a world class transportation system. we are making a lot of progress. this is not to undercut or undermine or demoralize anything that you are doing. i know that we have made a lot of progress, but i am using that as an example to say that is a world class transportation --

you can go to any neighborhood in paris, underground, above ground, and they're still not limiting the number of companies that can be involved in that delivery system. what i care ultimately about is delivering a system in san francisco that will serve the citizens of san francisco in the best way possible. so i don't have any other comments. i don't -- i would just say i will follow with up you all with my additional concerns, but this is what i wanted to layout today. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i just want to say that i agree with supervisor safai, that there should be robust community outreach in terms of a permitting process. i didn't mean to say that -- >> supervisor safai: oh, no, i figured you do. i know you care deeply about that. >> supervisor tang: all right, colleagues, questions, comments? do you have anymore. >> supervisor safai: did you want to say something? >> supervisor tang: sno. i have comments around bike share versus scooter share, but

save that for another day. we've been here many hours now. what would you like to do with the hearing? >> supervisor safai: we can file the hearing -- tapping tang okay. so we will file the hearing, and we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: all right. madam clerk, is there anything further before us today? >>clerk: there's nothing further before us today. >> supervisor tang: all right. thank you. we are adjourned. - >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their showing up and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help

san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 san francisco owes must of the charm to the unique characterization of each corridor has a distinction permanent our neighbors are the economic engine of the city. >> if we could a afford the lot by these we'll not to have the kind of store in the future the kids will eat from some restaurants chinatown has phobia one of the best the most unique neighborhood shopping areas of san francisco. >> chinatown is one of the oldest chinatown in the state we

need to be able allergies the people and that's the reason chinatown is showing more of the people will the traditional thepg. >> north beach is i know one of the last little italian community. >> one of the last neighborhood that hadn't changed a whole lot and san francisco community so strong and the sense of partnership with businesses as well and i just love north beach community old school italian comfort and love that is what italians are all about we need people to come here and shop here so we can keep this going not only us but, of course, everything else in the community i think local businesses the

small ones and coffee shops are unique in their own way that is the characteristic of the neighborhood i peace officer prefer it is local character you have to support them. >> really notice the port this community we really need to kind of really shop locally and support the communityly live in it is more economic for people to survive here. >> i came down to treasure island to look for a we've got a long ways to go. ring i just got married and didn't want something on line i've met artists and local business owners they need money to go out and shop this is important to short them i think

you get better things. >> definitely supporting the local community always good is it interesting to find things i never knew existed or see that that way. >> i think that is really great that san francisco seize the vails of small business and creates the shop & dine in the 49 to support businesses make people all the residents and visitors realize had cool things are made and produced in san

. >> supervisor fewer: the meeting will come to forward. this is a special meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am supervisor sandra lee fewer, the chairman of this committee. i am joined by supervisor stefani and supervisor katey tang. supervisor malia cohen is excused from today's meeting. can we have a motion? owe will do that without objection. today's clerk is linda wong. madam clerk, do you have any person(s) responsible for the ringing of or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic device. items acted on today will appear on the october 16 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk can you please call item number one. >> item number one, resolution authorizing the department of homelessness and supportive housing to apply for a grant from the california department of housing and community development. >> good morning, vice chair fewer, supervisors. i'm emily cohen with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. as the resolution title implies, this authorizes our department to apply for the california emergency solution and housing program, which is a new state program to provide services to people at risk of or experiencing homelessness. this -- there's a total of $5.3 million being made available from the state, and san francisco anticipates receiving 1.6 million in the first rounding funding, and there will be two rounds of funding this year. we appropriates spending the funds in the following way: 1.5 million will be spent on

supportive services for people in scattered sites supportive housing. we propose spending $50,000 on reentry costs, and then the remainder on administrative costs. >> supervisor fewer: let's open this up for public comment, is there any members of the public that would like to speak on this issue? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: there is no b.l.a. motion. would someone like to make a motion? >>clerk: public comment has already been opened and closed. would you like to open it up for public comment, madam chair? >> supervisor fewer: yes. we have one speaker at the podium. thank you, miss wong. >> the housing wong is the proposals that were indicated yesterday, because they were indicating some proposals yesterday that the -- that needed much funding to renovate

and other remodelling on other properties. is that what this is in regard or is this the homeless situation to build more housing for that or is this for increase in taxes? >> supervisor fewer: i believe miss cohen can answer your questions after public comment is finished? >> okay. is this for the funding process because if not, i need to elaborate how we're going to come up with a financing institution because it's of feasible importance to the project. >> supervisor fewer: miss cohen can actually answer those questions after your public comment has been completed. [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: are you -- is your public comment completed, sir? >> no ma'am.

i just want to get the -- [inaudible] >> okay. excellent. the importance to that is did you -- i'm here to resolve this corrupt government and corrupt society. the important thing is i will fund any project as long as it serves the purpose and it helps the project with what it's supposed to. you've got to go. so the important thing is we build or we buying property to renovate it to allow the homeless to be living in it. which one is it? >> supervisor fewer: sir, seeing that your time is up, i'm sure if you ask miss cohen, she'll be happy to answer your question. thank you very much for your public comment. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ].

>> supervisor fewer: colleagues, is there a motion on this item? >> supervisor tang: i'll make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: great. we'll cake that without objection. madam clerk, would you please call item number two. [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe jennifer calwart from the department of public health is here to present on this item. >> my name is jennifer calawart, and i manage the tobacco retail program in environmental health. i'm here to provide the approval

for the california justice department proposition 56, a law enforcement grant. the grant award is approximately $1.7 million to cover our tobacco program enforcement and educational efforts for the next two fiscal years. just last month, the f.d.a. has called team vaping a public health epidemic, shining light on the increase in youth tobacco use. the funding will expand our enforcement with the san francisco police department under 21 decoy department. in addition, the project will aid in the elimination of illegal sales of tobacco products at unpermitted tobacco facilities, as well as create a sampling procedures for unidentified tobacco products. through this, an administrative law judge will be activated.

the department requires a more face-to-face interaction with the department to understand federal, state and local laws. therefore an increases outreach effort by our department will occur at 400 retailers peryear to provide improved educational materials and conduct compliance inspections. lastly, our department will develop and provide training at conferences and to rural northern california jurisdictions regarding our enforcement and educational efforts and lessons learned. we look forward to the opportunity to expand our efforts to improve the health of san franciscans and to create transparent expectations for all tobacco retailers in san francisco. i'm here if you have any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, are there any questions? seeing none, there is also no b.l.a. report on this item. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the

public that wish to speak on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues is there a recommendation on this item? >> i'd like to move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. we can take that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: madam clerk, would you please read the next item. [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. supervisor tang, would you like to speak about this at all? >> supervisor tang: no. we have a representative from d.p.h. who can speak to this item. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i think june weintraub from the d.p.h. is here to speak for this item. >> we apply to receive it every year for the past several years. it's to support part of our water to do water quality

monitoring on our beaches. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues any questions? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. there is no b.l.a. report. would someone like to make a motion? >> supervisor tang: i'll move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: that's great. we can take this without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number four. >>clerk: item number four, item approval are you lugs master lease between the treasure island development authority and the united states navy to extend the term for one year to commence december 1, 2018. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i thank peter summerville from the developer's office is here. >> thank you. in front of the committee today is the annual extension for the lease with the united states

navy, continues the agreement through 2019. authority staff requests approval, and i'm available for any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. there is no b.l.a. report on this item. colleagues, do you have any questions for mr. summerville? yes. seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. do we have a motion for this item? >> supervisor stefani: yes. i'd like to move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: without objection, we can accept this item. madam clerk, please call item number five. >>clerk: item 5, item authorizing the municipal transportation agency to extend the contract -- with a minimum annual guarantee of approximately 32.3 million. >> supervisor fewer: thank you

very much. i believe gail stein from the sfmta is here to present on this item. >> good morning, supervisors. this resolution would authorize a five year extension of the existing contract the city has through the m.t.a. has with incident section media. the contract is on exactly the same terms as the initial term. it was worth a minimum of $32,250,000 to the m.t.a. over five years and possibly more if the contractor sells more advertising. there's a 65% revenue shares. the contractor has exceeded the minimum in each of the four years so far. i'm happy to answer any questions. i know the b.l.a. has done a report on this, also. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: thank you. i know it's in our information but maybe for the record if you could just state on you the contract has exceeded the max each year, what level. >> yeah. basically, permonth, we have an amount permonth, and if they exceed it, then, we get more

than the minimum, so it would take the amount permonth and multiply it by 65%. >> supervisor tang: no. i was just wondering if you could state what level it's exceeded the mag each year. >> so they have exceeded the mag by approximately 1.5 million over the four year period, and they have exceeded it each year, and particularly, the year of the super bowl, which obviously, there were quite a bit sold at that point. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. miss campbell, can we please have a report from the b.l.a. >> good morning, chair fewer, members of the committee. severin campbell from the b.l.a. office. the original contract was approved by the board for five years through june 2019, so this examine accept -- exercise the first of two five-year options, beginning july 2019 going through 2024. again, as the question was asked

and miss stein said, the revenues are either the minimum annual guarantee which is set in the contract itself not only for the first five years but also this extension option was already set in the contract or 65% of gross advertising revenues. the contractor has paid m.t.a. the gross advertising revenues over the first time years. it was about 1.5 million more than the minimum revenues. if the five-year extension is approved, the m.t.a. would receive 32 million in minimal annual guaranteed revenues over the five year term plus an additional $1.6 million had showing in our marketing fees, and we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. colleagues, any other questions for miss stein? i have one. i'm wondering, do we have the option to eliminate the wraps on the buses?

>> if we were, we would have to renegotiate the minimal annual guarantee. the proposal is to extend the contract as it is. any changes would result in a reduction in the minimal annual guarantee and possible a substantial reduction. >> supervisor fewer: has it ever been discussed eliminating the wrap from the buses? >> we understand we do have customers that don't like them. we have limited it to 30. the contractor, there are months where they could sell more. for example, right around now with dreamforce and the holidays. generally, there are no more than nine or ten at a time, which is 1% of our vehicles, but yes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. do we have a motion for this,

colleagues? >> supervisor tang: i'll make a motion to send forth the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: we can take that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, please call item six. >>clerk: item six, resolution approving modification five to the airport with pgh wong-mck jv for a total term of june 11, 2015 through july -- i'm sorry, june 10, 2019 to commence following board approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i think we have kathy widener here from the san francisco international airport to present on this item. >> good morning, chair fewer, members of the committee. the item before you seeks approval for a fifth modification to an existing contract with pgh wong-mck jv for project management support services for the on airport hotel project. modification number five would extend the contract through june

10, 2019 and increase the amount of the total contract by $4.6 million. the airport hotel project consists both of the new grand hyatt hotel as well as some road and aircraft parking reconfiguration that's required to accommodate the hotel footprint. the hoe tel is expected to be completed by the end of 2019. the project management contract provides support services for both aspects of the project, including design management, project controls, system testing, and cost and schedule controls. this contract is the result of a competitive request for proposals process with pgh wong-mck jv being selected as the highest ranked proposer. there is a budget analyst's report that does recommend approval, but i would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions for miss widener? seeing none, miss campbell, can

i have the b.l.a. report. >> so this was originally awarded to the pgh wong-mck jv through a competitive process in 2015. it has not had to come to the board of supervisors previously because it's been under the $10 million threshold. the contractor has modified the contract on an annual basis. in may, they increased it to 9.9 million to allow time to come forward to the board for the approval of modification number 15, which would set the contract at 14.5 million. our understanding is this should be the last modification to the contract. the hotel is -- project should be completed in 2019, and we do give a detailed budget for the $14.5 million, and we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any questions, colleagues, at all? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. public comment is now open. >> the indication on the airport

and the hyatt to utilize the funding, the excessiveness of it again is highly inadequate. the important thing is we must understand 9.9 million and 5 million, so what we're looking at is a total of 14 million -- or 10.4 million -- or more than that, get out of here. but the important thing is this -- i've got these idiots, and i want them away from me. i'm gregory williams, and i'm here to tell the board today i'm going to reform this government. i want the money back into my land. i want their name off of it. somebody put it there, and i cannot get access to it. and i don't want to utilize the

maritime law to profile civil litigations or terminations, including international litigations. but i need it done today. i can't get access to it for 11.5 years, and there's nothing i can do. so i want this body to make sure that the banks of federal reserves, embassies, counties, will get my money back to me. that will make a good undering of who we are going to utilize in the financial institution whether it's attorneys, management or anything in regards to the financing. so i'm ordering that this is did you happen today, immediately. and in regards to the funding for this project, we're going to put that project on hold. we have more important projects

and concerns in regards to san francisco -- [inaudible] fewer fur thank you very much. your public comment is now closed. any other members of the public that would like to speak? public comment is now closed? i'd like to move this item to the board with a positive recommendation. we can take that without objection. madam clerk, call eyes number seven. >> authorizing the department of the environment to submit applications on behalf of the city for grants offered by the california department of resources, recycling and recovery for which it is eligible. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe that we have charles sheehan from the department of the environment to present on this item. >> thank you, supervisor. charles sheehan. i'm the public affairs and policy manager at the department of the environment. the resolution you have before you today is fairly straightforward. it allows the department of the

environment to apply for grants for which we are eligible for from the department of -- from california's department of resources, recycling and recovery, more commonly known as calorie cycle. we routinely -- cal recycle. we apply for a lot of grants, including solid waste cleanup, container and bottle recycling grants, and so we have an ongoing relationship. some of these grants require yearly applications that we apply for each year. and so periodically, cal recycle asks us for updated resolutions to reafirm our authority to apply for these grants, and that's why we're here. we're working on a mobile recycling pilot grant, and that is mostly complete, except

they're waiting for an updated resolution, which is why we're here. i'll take any questions if you have them. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, do you have any questions for mr. sheehan. there also is no b.l.a. report. let's open it up to public comment. is there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'll make a motion to move this with a positive recommendation to the full board. take that without objection? thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number 8. >>clerk: ordinance retroactively authorizing the office of the treasurer and tax collector to accept and spend a grant for the financial justice project and amending the annual salary ordinance to provide for the creation of one grant funded position. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have amanda freed from the office of the treasurer and tax collector to present on this item. >> good morning, supervisors.

this is an ordinance to accept and expend 415,597 from the laura and john arnold foundation. this grant award is to support the treasurer's financial justice project to develop a fines and fees reform. fines and fees serve as consequences for breaking rules or help us underwrite our costs, but for low-income people and particularly people of color, fines and fees can become predatory. they can push people in a hole they cannot climb out of. but thanks to you, they eliminated these fees that were high paying for people but low gain for government. the impact of this legislation

was felt almost immediately when the court greed to write off debt for 21,000 people. cities and counties around the country are clamoring to learn from our experience. this grant will help us help other cities follow our lead. government should be an equalizer of opportunity and not another driver of inquality. thank you for your consideration. >> supervisor fewer: thank you for your presentation. there is no b.l.a. on this item. i have one question for miss freed, really. too. so this $415,000 plus is for one f.t., is that correct? >> it's to support the program over several years and includes one f.t.e. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so my question is what happens after this position when the grant is finished? >> typically, grant funded positions are treated like exempt positions for three

years, and at that time, the position is over. >> supervisor fewer: okay. and so there is funding for this for the next fiscal year? >> correct. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. there is no b.l.a. report. can we have a motion? >>clerk: madam clerk, can we please open it for public comment? >> supervisor fewer: thank you, miss wong. i'd like to open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now item. may i have a motion. >> supervisor tang: i i'll make a motion to send item 8 to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. we'll do that without objection. madam clerk, are there any other items before us today? >>clerk: no, madam chair. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. the meeting is now adjourned.

>> good morning, everybody. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the september 26th, 2018 regular meeting of the public safety and neighbourhood services committee. i am chair of the committee. to my right, will be vice chair, supervisor and ronen we have supervisor peskin. i would like to thank jesse larson and helena mendoza for staffing this meeting. mr clerk, do you have any announcements. >> thank you. please ensure you have silenced your