working for some people. some of the commenters made a good point. it is our job to keep them safe on the streets. the best way to get them off the sidewalks is to make the streets safer and expand our network of bike and scooter lanes. whatever our personal feelings are about them that is our job to keep everybody safe on the streets. >> madam chair, before you approve -- >> i just want to respond to that. i do agree. i guess i come down on the underside of the question. i don't think we have clipped the safety problem. as long as we haven't, i am not comfortable authorizing a move from a pilot program to a mainstream, no, how many ever we want to have approach. i think if we cannot assure safety, both for pedestrians on the sidewalk, and the users of these devices on the road. i think we have to go slow.

>> i see your point, director heminger. mr. hyde, do you feel with the reporting that we get back from 311, and with the structure we have in place of what we expect to see from these scooter companies in terms of not blocking the sidewalk and being locked appropriately, people not riding on the sidewalk. if we were to come into a situation where as they expanded they get more numbers, and we start seeing bad behavior, multiply, do you feel under this proposal you have the tools that you need to then ratchet down on the companies who are not meeting our standards? >> absolutely. we are issuing permits that are valid for no longer than one year. that is one thing to consider, these will have to be renewed on an annual basis. it's not like we are just handing over permits forever.

acknowledging that the technology is constantly changing and this mobility space is rapidly evolving. in terms of whether or not we could potentially revoke permits. we definitely reserve the right to revoke permits if users are consistently not complying with laws, as well as if the companies are not complying with any of the terms and conditions of the permit. >> does that sort of help? >> i am afraid not. i think it is hard to say, no after you said yes. yes -- this is a yes. it seems we are voting on today. i wish i had reviewed the material director eaken mentioned. maybe i need to get better educated about the subject, too. for now, unless i know more, i'm still on the go slow boat.

>> if i could add, the information that director eaken mentioned has some safety as well. i think i share your skepticism about the as actually being positive, necessary form of mobility. they are replacing walking trips. it was director rubke pointing out we doing a lot of measurement of collisions of these devices that are reported, we are raising san francisco general hospital and other data sources such as the police department and they are thinking the single digits, more or less area when we compare that to the number of auto collisions, as

she pointed out, we should be doing this in a normalized way. it's probably an infinitesimal fraction of the collisions on the street. based on the observed behavior of these in the streets, and other items in this meeting, i think to the extent that this is really facilitating mode shift from tnc's two scooters, notwithstanding that there are legitimate safety concerns that exist with scooters. probably better that a car being driven by somebody who doesn't know where they are going, who's @ an ab, his maybe racing to pick up a fare. on balance, we not elect to the safety issues with the scooters, but to the extent it is a facilitating mode shift out o of -- automobiles, seems to be a nontrivial percentage.

on balance it is a positive thing. there are a lot of protections in the permit we have seen from the pilot. we have been able to drive the complaints way down. the number of citations we are issuing our way down. suggesting that the regulatory framework can be an effective way to manage for many things, including safety. i offer that for your consideration. >> i would agree with that. in general, you can't ensure safety. people make bad choices whatever it is. that is a hard thing about it all. people who are safety minded will wear helmets and make safety choices. they were and the full traffic lane and i thought, oh my god. >> this is an age-old problem.

enforcement. it is a constant problem in any facet of law. because enforcement is always the key to making sure that you implement the laws the legislator intended. be careful when you say you're going to get this under control, because it hasn't happened in so many areas. and fact, many times legislation ought not to be introduced we should just enforce the laws we have on the book now, but we don't. whether it's toxic issues, environmental issues, health issues, traffic issues, et cetera. the issue of safety is extremely important as we begin to look at mobility devices and approaches. i want to share my fellow directors concern on the safety issue on the fact that i do @ that enforcement is really going to be implemented properly.

>> if i could ask a question unrelated related to safety, i guess? somebody mentioned the fact that they have seen electric scooters with seats and i always have an interest in making sure our emerging technologies take into account people with disabiliti disabilities. i am wondering, under the legislation for the pilot, not the pilot, the permit if an operator came forward with an innovative idea to make their scooters more accessible without be a factor that would weigh in favor of them getting a permit? >> yes. that is part of the permit application. we are asking permittees to pilot adoptive scooters. that will be a part of this version of the reporting period. >> i appreciate the legislation as a whole. i thought it was awful. that we are tracking the non- revenue. >> we have a mesh -- motion,

second and we have an amendment. >> you need to amend the code. a motion to amend the code to delete the duplicate. >> motion to amend the code to delete 9.16 e3. all in favor of the amendment? >> are we doing two motions. >> that was just for the amendment. >> now we take the original motion of the legislation. all those in favor of legislation as proposed? the motion does carry. we are going to move on to item 14. i have to read a little script here. >> appointing tom maguire to serve as the interim director of

transportation beginning august 14, @ and continuing until a permanent director of transportation an employment agreement with tom mcguire, with an annual salary of $299,000 reimbursement for professional develop in expenses and benefits and other terms and conditions equivalent to specified benefits and other terms and conditions in the memorandum of understanding between the city and county of san francisco and the municipal executives association. >> this agenda item is to take possible action to improve employment agreement between mta and thomas mcguire. the employment agreement with. >> reiskin expires. he will serve as interim director of transportation from the expiration of mr. reiskin's agreement. [reading notes]

california government code section 54953 c three requires the board to report a summary of post salary compensation of fringe benefits before mr. mcguire before taking final action to approve the employment agreement. @ pursuant to that agreement, the board provides the following summary. the proposed agreement says an annual salary of $299,000, under the proposed agreement mr. maguire will receive fringe benefits equivalent to the specified benefits provided to the employees represented by the municipal executives association under the memorandum of understanding between mta and the sfmta pay the full list of benefits as set forth to this agreement. [reading notes]

under the proposed agreement, mr. maguire will be eligible for $2,000 of reimbursement for eligible expenses. @ also receive retirement benefits according to the applicable provisions of the san francisco charter. under the charter, mr. maguire is responsible for paying any required contributions to the san francisco's retirement system. are there any questions from the director on what i have just read? >> are we going to give him a scooter? [laughter] >> have one question on one of these terms, it's probably been negotiated already and it's not the time to amend it. i want to note, for someone

willing to take on this position as interim director i see $2,000 for professional development as @ in terms of executive coaching and other supports that might be appropriate to take on this significant of a challenge. i don't know if there is some limit to, in the budget, or some additional sources of funding. i would be very supportive of additional resources for professional development to usher his success. >> or if he were to decide he did need something else, is that within the ability of the board to approve it on a requested by request basis? >> city attorney, maybe you can explain, where it is number come from? >> good afternoon, katie porter. i believe that is the reimbursement under the municipal executives associati association, per individual, per fiscal year. this is also anticipated to be a time-based contract through the

october -november timeframe. this is $2,000 for a number-5 month period. also the agency has training funds that probably could be deployed, if necessary. $2,000 is what the employees give her a fiscal year. for professional reimbursement on development. >> even a new director, when you hire that person they would only get $2,000, as well. >> it is a negotiated time. this is just a term we came up with with a contract based on the model. certainly a future director, or this existing contract could be amended to have a higher amount. that is the city model, this is not even intended to be a full fiscal year contract as it structured right now. >> do note to the deputy city attorney's., that this contract as well as this collective bargaining agreement which is where this number comes from as well as some of the others provide for professional develop

men dollars. those are in addition to agency funds that are budgeted and available for training and professional development. they are not the only source. many conferences and other things that people attend, some are able to use funds that they have is available through these collective targeting agreements. first of all, the board does not have to stick with this 2,000 number. as with all of those other things, and the collective targeting agreement. even if you left it, as is, for whatever reason the director just like any other employee, had needs or desires for more training and professional development, there are resources within the agency budget to accommodate that. >> great. are there any other additional questions? without i'm going to open it to public comment? >> mr. bloch is not here.

>> good afternoon. my name is laura, i'm here on behalf of doug block. he is sorry he had to leave for another meeting, but he wanted to say that he is supportive of this appointment and thanks to mr. maguire for his collaboration on multiple projects including the commuter shuttles. congratulations. >> deleted you prefer the record. when i read this agenda item, i was encouraged. we need to have continuity in this agency. i found him to be approachable, and attentive. i go to many of these meetings,

not just here but in other places. engagement and approachability, and the open door is very important. tom and i are both products of new york. my area of expertise is much more in the subway and railroad realm. tom's global perspective of leadership and knowledge in this very broad endeavor that isn't public transportation. my narrow perspective of subway and railroad. it is indeed what this agency needs going forward. i'm looking forward to tom being able to give us a sense of continuity in this so-called interregnum.

thank you. madam chair, your last item on your agenda. as everyone should know, if they aren't already aware, we have started a nationwide search for our next director of transportation. as part of that search we want to engage all of the stakeholders throughout the

entire community, within mta, external to mta about their thoughts on the next director. we have a research committee. they are going to be interviewing potential candidates working along with a search firm and recommended them to the board. i want to thank them upfront for taking the time to do this very important tax -- task. >> am pleased to provide an update on the search. the committee has met twice this summer and we have made good progress. we have additionally provided feedback on the position description on the position announcement is being finalized as we speak. the purpose of today's agenda item is to hear, from the public, those if few of you who remain. the quality experience you want to see. i just want to ensure members of

the public that your feedback is going to be taken very seriously as part of this process. we have want to hear from you what kind of director you think is appropriate to lead this agency into the future. i will say as a side note we've heard some inadvertent feedback on the qualities people want to see in the next director things like calmness, embodying the agency's values, dedication and accessibility. i just want to mention we are going to be sending out a survey in the next few weeks to give folks an opportunity to weigh in anonymously if you have feedback. if you don't feel comfortable speaking today. in terms of timeline and updating on that, we do want to move as swiftly as possible to find a new director while balancing that goal with our commitment to run an inclusive process to find the right director to lead this agency forward. if you have any other comments, that you want to send incoming you can e-mail the mta board

with any further suggestions at sfmta.com. >> were going to open it up to the public. >> herbert weiner? >> yes. >> herbert weiner, these are the qualities i would like to see. for one thing i think the new executive director should be a transportation professional. i think that goes without saying. these are some of the qualities i would like to see from my own personal perspective. i believe that the executive director should be able to take issue with his managers, for one thing. he should be able to clash with

them, bite them and even dismiss them. this has not been the case, so far, and i think this has been one of the reasons why we are in the mess we are in right now. he should also take issue with this board. these clashes should be public. they should not be in private only. we should be able to witness these differences and provide some input. we have something to say about this. i think what has been the case as you have rammed through everything, these meetings have been a dog and pony show. and, we have to get all of the vehicles off of the sidewalk, except the wheelchairs for the disabled. also seniors on the disabled should be supported by the executive director. they have to walk up to a court

of a mile to the bus stop. this is inhuman. also, we have to make sure that everyone is search. this agency should serve everyone, and that is the mission of the executive director. so, also, the neighborhoods get equal service. >> thank you. >> i love a good public meeting. i get to participate and say all kinds of good things. i am looking forward to our search for a new director. my comments today are to be simply taken as they are,

comparisons to anybody else out there. i'm looking for bold leadership. i'm being able to embrace the old, and the new. somebody who is diversity mind minded. [please stand by]

him my technique in developing the apartment building and he used this technique and my technique saved him $66 million. is that clear? and i have heard nothing about it during the affordable housing here. and by the same response, this is another example of the differential treatment and you

refuse to use the 15% of all buildings for low income bracket people. and as a result you're missing out on approximately 45 units that is supposed for low-income affordable housing. and i also object to all of your words, and being paid a mere $400 million when (indiscernible) -- strike that -- >> thank you for your comments. >> shot four times in mario woods. >> thank you. next speaker. >> supervisor, and from

maccoseff and i would like it to be a director that is willing to take action and have a culture of taking action. and we saw this in the meeting today is that we see not just myself but members of this board trying to push the m.t.a. to do more. and it would be great if that pushing came from the people inside the m.t.a. and this board and less pushing was needed in the long term. thank you.

>> paul breed. i would like to comment that questions are at innovation and towards this job description but i'm not sure that is entirely applicable in my view. when we look around the world we see places like asia and places like europe that have managed to soft their transit problems. it's not a new solution that i think that we're looking for. i think that it's an examination of what we have already found to be evidently useful and productive activities. we see seoul and tokyo with transit systems to go 160-mile range in an hour and a half and that's not the reality anywhere in america. and so when you contemplate searching for a new director, as this constituent, i would encourage you to examine someone who has experience leading and developing those foreign networks because of those transit networks seem to have done a more functional job at

serving their populous than any transit network in my opinion in america has. >> thank you. is there annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn >> this job, it's really not an i job. i wouldn't be able to do this job without other people. i make sure that all the regulatory and nonregulatory samples get to access in a timely manner. we have groundwater samples, you name it, we have to sample

it every day. i have ten technicians, very good team. we work together to attain this sampling. >> a sample is only as good as when you collect properly. if sample is not collect properly according to not the proper protocol, the sample could be biased, could be false positive or could be false negative. so all this to have good so you can manage the sample collectors, as well as the schedule, and she is pretty good, and she is very thorough. and so far, i think that she is performing a very good job. >> this job is really not an i job. i wouldn't be able to do this job without my team. you can assign them any job, they can handle it, and again, without them, i wouldn't be here. i take pride, you know, for

what i do. we are providing a very good water department. my name is roselle, and i have been working with the water department [gavel]. >> chair fewer: good morning, everyone. this is the july 17, 2019 regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i'm sandra lee fewer, chairman

of the budget and finance committee. i'm joined by supervisor raphael mandelman and aaron peskin, who's sitting in for supervisor stefani. colleagues, can i have a motion to excuse supervisor stefani? thank you. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, madam clerk. can you please call item number one. [agenda item read].

>> chair fewer: thank you very much, madam clerk. colleagues, you might remember that this item was before us at the last budget and finance committee, and i requested it be continued so that we could get a b.l.a. report. i think we have jim hendray before us from the san francisco public utilities commission. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am james hendray from the san francisco public utilities commission. we are here to talk about an ordinance introduced by mayor london breed. the goal is to ensure that san francisco receives maximum value and timeliness to benefit

from the energy program. this builds off of a number of resolutions and ordinances that the board of supervisors have task today significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a variety of sources. these activities compliment activities going on by the state and the california air resources board as part of ab-32, california's global warming solutions act. one of the main programs operated by the california air resources board is the lcfs, and the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity and emissions by 20% by 2030, and it's progressively stricter standards to reduce emissions over time and creates an incentive program that those that exceeds the standards can receive credits which they can then sell. as usual, san francisco is

ahead of the curve, which is why we're here today. we have a very symbiotic relationships with the p.u.c. sfmta has been participating in the lpsc program since 2017, has received many credits, and we enters into an m.o.u. to submit proceeds from the credits by 50%. the ordinance before you today would allow the sfpuc which would be selling the credits to exceed the $1 million

threshold. >> there are a variety of safeguards that are embedded in the program. basically, the program is run by the -- it's overseen by the california air resources board. they're the ones that basically register all the people who might be purchasing the credits, so we know who the market and buyers are. the credits are done through the air resource board, which basically kind of serves the central bank. price data is publicly available, so we know what transactions are, where markets are going, have a sense of where to do it, and we're looking at other safeguards on the p.u.c. side in terms of structuring the bidding process to ensure that we get maximum value, and the bidding process will be overseen by the current

planning group. as for the uses of the credit, the sfpuc plans to use a contract as it has done for similar programs to engage in a variety of program that's would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so basically, we're trying to sort of pay it forward, so we're trying to do what we currently do, maintaining greenhouse gas resources so they still remain available. sfmta has proposed to put their money into a variety of sustainability programs.

>> good morning, chair fewer, supervisor mandelman, supervisor peskin. se severin campbell from the budget and legislative analyst's office. our analysis of the fiscal impact is there are currently 54,000 credits that have been accumulated to date based on current prices. the estimated revenue would be anywhere from $8.6 million to $10 million. we consider this to be a policy

matter for the board. if the board does approve the ordinance, we recommend that p.u.c. report on the p.u.c.s protocols for selling these credits and report annually on the sale of the credits, including the amount of renew credits in the sfpuc. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item number one? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any comments or questions? i would like to take the recommendation of the b.l.a.? so i'd make a motion to accept the motions of the budget and legislative analyst. thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: i'd like to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you very much. thank you very much. >> thank you.

[gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call -- i'm going to take this a little bit out of order. can i call item number three. >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> okay. good morning, chair chair fefe supervisors. today, you have before you an ordinance approving the health

service system plans and contribution rates for the calendar year 2020. the health service system agrees with the budget analyst's report, so at this time, i wish to comment on the record, the key components of the cost changes. i can either take questions throughout or toward the end of my presentation. it's the preference of the chair. i am most grateful for the significance of this work and those involved. this increases the amount contributed by the employer and the employer toward retiree premiums. the survey here notes the amounts contributed by the employer for the employee-only coverage for the medical plan. for plan year 2020, the rate is

at $705.92. this represents an increase of 5.04% from last year. the health system serves employers from the city, the community college, the unified school district as well as the superior court. the 4.95% aggregate cost increase includes costs for all medical, vision, dental, and long-term disability insurance: he greggate medical only cost for the increased health system is 5.7% while the city is only 5.5%. this rates are within the

national range of 5.5% to 6%. the health system contracts with three medical insurance carriers. kaiser permanente administrates a plan. the health service board approved after overall rate increase of 6.5% for retirees and medicare retirees covered for could i skaiser permanente. kaiser also provides medicare and premedicare retiree access

to their facilities in california, oregon, and wash, which are also mentioned in the aggregate 5.57%. a subset of current infertility services will be aligned with the cost share in 2020. kaiser permanente senior advantage retirees have a rate increase of 11.7% for members who live in california. as you may recall, kaiser permanente retirement rates decreased by 0.2% last year. this rate reflects a reconciliation with the forecasted rather than the actual medicare reimbursement. the health services board also approved an enhancement for kaiser medicare plan where

there's a transportation benefit for up to 24 one-way rides per year. this benefit is scheduled to take effect january 1, 2020. the health service board approved a 0.9% increase for the trioh.m.o. plan, and a 2.3% increase for the h.m.o. plan. the board also approved two plan design changes. one, members will have an improved access to receive vaccines at participating pharmacies, and secondly, the members will be able to access additional counseling without a specific disease diagnosis. the third medical plan is united health care. united health care administers the p.p.o. city plan for active and early retirees as well as the medicare advantage p.p.o.

for medicare retirees. the health service board approved a rate of 10% for active and early retirees, and the cost impact of one design change contributed to this increase. the health services board approved one design change for 2020, unites health care p.p.o. this reduced the out-of-pocket maximum, expected to have minimal financial impact to the plan which will benefit families using high levels of care. the united health care p.p.o. advantage has a rate increase of 16.5%. there are no planned design changes. the 10% of this rate increase is due to the federal insurance tax. the rest of the increase is tax and utilization.

we had a medical second opinion service and is going to allow this to expire in december. the health plans are now supporting the membership in seeking second opinions within their plans. the vision benefit, the basic vision benefit remains the same. there is a 4.3% increase for the member contribution for the optional buyout v.s.p. premier plan. we have multiple dental plans. there are some rate increases for the delta dental p.p.o. at 5.3%. the board approved a 3% increase for the u.h.c. delta h.m.o. plan. for retiree dental, the board approved no rate change for the delta dental plan, but it

approved two design changes. it will increase the cap from 60% to 50%, and the second is an increase in the annual deductible from $50 to $75. life insurance is now provided by the hartford, who acquired the group life and disability business of aetna in 201. the health service board has approved an aggregate increase of 12.4% for these products. the specific changes are listed at the 20% for basic life. there's no rate increase changes for the children's life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment services. so that concludes my remarks. can i take any questions? >> chair fewer: yes. let's hear from the b.l.a.

first. >> the board of supervisors is being asked to approve the health, vision, and dental plan rates for 2027, to start in the year 2020. i won't repeat many of the things said today, but we do show the total cost to employees, employer, and retirees. it's going up by about $35 million from 757 million to $802 million. we do recommend approval. >> chair fewer: supervisors, any comments? i do have a question. we had questions around services for infertility

treatments for single-family women. actually, i think it is somewhat discriminatory, so can you tell me a little bit about that. since we are talking about our contribution rates, i think we should be talking about the coverage and who is covered. >> yes. as i stated at the last hearing, we are scheduled to present the staff recommendations to the health service board at their august meeting? we're still on track for doing that. we are in receipt of some data from all three plans. we are meeting with them regularly to discern what the services of this infertility benefit has been over the last two years. i don't have the recommendations available today for this hearing, but we hear the concern, and are trying to determine what -- what steps need to be taken to ensure that our membership has access

either to the infertility benefit, or whether they'll need access to fertility service, where they're not infertile from a medical diagnosis point of view, and perhaps they are in a lesbian relationship or a single person. so we're looking at how they're constructed and how the plans are doing them. there are some third-party vendors that are available to assist that have a lot of appeal on the surface of how they could help our members feel more welcome and comfortable, so we're trying to figure it outaou and are commid to putting all the recommendations before the health service board at their august meeting. >> chair fewer: because we know if these services are available to heterosexual couples, then

actually these benefits should be accessible to single women or just others. >> well, the medical services -- a woman may be infertile, and she may not be able to conceive in a normal sexual relationship as a heterosexual couple would, so having assistive services for

reproductive technology plan that's not covered under the plan because it's not a medical diagnosis. >> chair fewer: but i understand if heterosexual couples were having a hard time receiving, they would just wait a year, and all the benefits accessible to them without any conditions at all. >> that is all old school thinking, and that is not necessarily true. >> chair fewer: it is true that it is a person who maybe as a single woman in her 40's and not ovulating as often and not able to be pregnant, then wouldn't that be also considered a medical condition? >> yes, if that ovulation was considered a medical condition? >> chair fewer: if there was a low egg count. >> yes. those are diagnostic procedures that would lead to a diagnosis of infertility. >> chair fewer: and then, would single woman be eligible for

that? >> yes. >> chair fewer: okay. and all the benefits -- >> yes. >> chair fewer: okay. -- currently? >> yes. >> chair fewer: another concern, it seems that pharmaceuticals, other prescriptions that are more expensive, when you buy them through our insurance plan versus out-of-pocket, i've seen comparisons where there's $1,000 difference. so why is it that are people covered, for example, under blue shield would pay more for prescriptions using the medical plan versus just paying out-of-pocket? >> we have opportunistic pharmacies that are taking advantage of that plan. we were not aware of that

previously, so we are in conversation with the pharmacies on how to best manage the situation. because these pharmacies are popping up, or these pharmaceutical services are out there. there certainly is news to -- this certainly is news to me, so it's something that we have to find out how to grapple with. if you are contracting services with a pharmacy, you are paying whatever that price is. if you're buying it from a pharmacy that is one of our contracted, it's a negotiated price. so that's why this can occur, so as i said, it was brought to our attention, and we need to understand who are how prevalent that market practice is. >> chair fewer: so i think that's my question, how prevalent is that because just from this one example, i think we can agree that it's rather alarming that we have the

assumption that we are covered under a medical plan, that our pharmaceuticals would be less expensive, quite frankly, than out-of-pocket, but there are instances when it's not. so you have no idea how far this extends or if this is something that is at a level to be very alarming or that -- or have you done any analysis? >> yeah, i wouldn't be able to speculate on that at this time, but it's alarming, and it is worth the attention that we need to spend on it. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public who would like to comment on item number three? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah, i'll move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair fewer: yeah. i think we can take that without objection. thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can we go back and read item 2,

please. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. okay. this was also presented last week as an item, and now, we're coming back, i believe, with some language amended to actually institute a labor harmony agreement. so do we have julia dawson here? >> chair, members of the budget and finance committee, before i go into my brief presentation on the agreement, i do want to say that we are proposing to make a small change to the agreement that you are currently considering for approval? we are proposing to add a clause under section 512, new

section k, and we're submitting copies of that new section for your review. and we are also submitting a copy of the contract as amended by this new section. and this new section would promote labor harmony between j.c. decaux and any of their potential partners who would be sourcing attendant services. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> so with your approval, i'm going to go ahead and do a brief presentation on the agreement. >> chair fewer: thank you. >> linda, can we have the projector. >> so you can see this is the

newly designed toilet for our program and existing agreement. this current agreement was signed in 1998. it currently offers 28 a.d.a. accessible public toilets and has 114 total kiosks at this point in time. 24 are advertising and 69 are new stand. there have been 13.5 million flushes in these facilities since the agreement was started, and we had about 825,000 flushes last year. so the new -- in the new agreement, we're proposing to replace the toilets and kiosks with up-to-date technology and a more contemporary and cutting edge design. it is time for a refresh of this equipment.

we will continue through this new program to provide safe, attractive and easier to use amenities. they'll be lighter in color overall and have some light inside, which is not like the new one. under this agreement, j.c. decaux would be responsible for staffing at 11 locations, and the city can purchase additional toilets at cost. so one of the big highlights in this program, and we mentioned it briefly a second ago, is the staffing. so this agreement covers 11 locations. i think we all feel that the attendants are very crucial. they keep the units safe and attractive and improve the surrounding area. the intention here and as is memorialized in the agreement, that j.c. decaux would continue to partner with a nonprofit for

attendant services as a workforce development program. should at some point in the future our need for a workforce diminish, the city can instead decrease the number of attendants and accept the number of attendant services in cash. right now, we are currently staffing 11 decaux locations using a public works grant agreement, and these are the locations and the hours of service that we're providing at several decauxs across the neighborhoods. so some members of this committee have asked about the potential for these new toilets. the cost is estimated currently at about $400,000 per unit, and if the city was interested in taking this option, it would