recognises,, frankly, the day-to-day work of our staff to engage and support tuf activityh the san francisco county transportation authority. i would acknowledge that partnership continues to build and develop in a positive direction. i would also like to acknowledge in the local government affair's arena my colleague and former colleague of yours, mr. ramos, the government affair's manager serving as our primary emissary with the board of supervisors and has been integral to our efforts to effectively work with the supervisors and their staff. so the summary of local priorities is included in this calendar item and touches on broabroad topics which i won't l out individuals. they're familiar in terms of contract vision zero and priority projects. moving to the state priorities,

the proposed 2020 state legislative program, and transportation funding, emersion and parking, land use and housing and sustainability and i would note these are issues carrying over into the second year into january, year two of the current session and the dynamics are different in year two. i think we're looking for opportunities to build on some of the conversations that started in year one. but also, perhaps, advance a little more aggressively some of the proposals have been eluded to around vision zero. with that, i will highlight a few of the things in the calendar item. first under transportation funding, there are specific things to call out and under state-wide funding, the tircp, we do anticipate advancing a

large request from this program for a combined core capacity investment, if you will, of muni forward and train control system improvements and they are due very soon. so i wanted to make you aware of that and we will be working with the delegatio delegation to makt case. skipping down to conversations that have happened here at this board and with the board of supervisors and the ta and in the region, around a megameasure. the faster folks were hea here d gave a presentation. our staff are working closely with all of the members of the city family to really identify the priority list of projects and programs that would be a part of any ultimate funding measure. in addition, in a parallel effort, there is conversation around a cal-train sales tax already authorized by the legislature and the folks on cal-train are working to make sure that if consensus and

momentum doesn't move forward with a megameasure this year, which would have to happen quickly, the cal train measure canvass. anyway, the second major topic area, and this is something mr. mcguire mentioned about the task force. the program itself covers our broad commitment to vision zero. for the past six months, i've had the opportunity to represent san francisco on the task force and i've been joined in the advisory group capacity by colleagues at the department of public health, walk sf and mtc have been pratting i participats and it has been important to have a state-level conversation around the discussions that san francisco and the large cities in california have been having over the last several years related to pedestrian and roadway fatalities. i think that with the

discussions that have occurred, we're anticipating seeing recommendations, findings and a report in january. and the focus of that report, pursuant to the original legislation that created the task force is on speed limit setting. so very specifically to director eakin's comment, that you called out the restriction, if you will, between the ability for us to lower speed limits on certain streets is squarely one of those topics that is addressed in the task force conversations. and so, our hope is that once a report and the recommendations come out, that there will be an opportunity for san francisco to put its full voice behind recommendations that will move us forward towards our vision zero commitment. so one of the notes -- and i sort of observed -- sometimes people have this ah-ha moment, that we cannot set speed limits below a certain point and the

answer is no, you cannot. the deep, deep precedent and practise of settin setting speet the 85th percentile, it's like setting your teenager's curfew on the tam time they get home. it's not the way we'll save lives. our mantra, if you will, at the state level, is to embrace the urgency and look to the specific changes to allow cities to have the flexibility that we need to move this agenda forward. so the next bucket is emerging mobility and innovation. this dynamic lane, if you will, in the legislature, this past fall, director mcguire and director tore had an opportunity to testify at an opportunity in november around shared mobility. we sha saw an interest in explog

what other possibilities exist, in the realm of shared mobility, what cities can do and those discussions are live and ongoing. we'll look forward to reporting back to you in the near future on what some of the fruit that will bear. and something i know of interest here in the past two and also a part of the vision zero, congestion pricing and i would say recognising the veto of the lumbard pricing bull is controversial. we will have opportunities to see where the legislation might go. i'll skip through. there's other categories of land use and housing and

sustainability and finance and administration and there's a proposal that our staff, our finance staff brought tow brougt has to do with the fact that credit card fraud is pr proliferating not just in the right imaginregion but in calif. this is to provide transit operators with the ability to require zip codes at ticket vending machines in the same way if you used a credit card at a gas station, any unmanned gas station and in this case, ticket vending machine would require of a zip code as a secondary form of off ten authentication to ree incidents of fraud. this crime, if you will, causes us up to $300,000 a year in cost-backs and we're looking forward to working with our state partners on that. and on the federal side, i think

what we're looking at is, you know, reauthorization, the federal law governing and that expires in september and i think the folks that are really in the know recognize that until we identify a long-term sustainable fund source, it will be hard to have a renewed program without some sort of new commitment to a yet to be identified funding source. we've seen multiple continuations in the past and the second priority area that i want to mention, because we've had our staff go back to washington, even as recently as two weeks ago to work closely with legislative staff and the national league of cities on autonomous vehicle's policy and really trying to make sure that city's voices and our ability to not have federal law or the company's preempt our ability to what happens on our streets has

been driving those conversations. so those were the highlights that i wanted to share with you today. this is actually an exciting year ahead in sacramento and a lot of opportunity for our priorities and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> directors, any questions? dr. eakin? >> i'll get in first. two quickkies. i'm not sure what the answer is to the first one, but i'll ask it anyway. you mentioned on the ballot measure front, this megameasure, the cal-train measure, there's a measure that i know you're aware of that mtc has put something on the ballot about housing and some expectation in the near term, not the long-term and whatever the ta is cooking up here in san francisco, about a san francisco revenue measure.

that just looks like a train wreck. [ laughter ] >> if they're all trying to be on the same ballot. are you participating of who goes first, second or together. >> you think all of the folks participating are well aware of the dynamics and the tension, if you will, of who will be the first horse out of the gate. i would say that the decisions about that are going to have to be made very soon relative to timelines to get things on ballots. and so, yes, the answer is yes, we are participating in that and i don't know what the answer will be in terms of what the shake-out is ultimately, but there are a lot of -- and mine, the bottom line is, there's such a need, right? i think one thing i would observe to your point about the regional housing authority approved, they have a green light, right? that is authorized and ready to

go. >> that's true for three of the four, right. >> that's right. >> the only one that isn't is the megameasure, which to make the ballot next year -- >> like march, like early. >> -- would require the statute. yes, you're right and in the next three months, it's not an answer but that path forward that will have to be revealed. >> the other question is on the tncs and i know there have been discusses andiscussions and effy to cut local government in to a regulatory position. have we explored whether or not that's possible through administrative action? i mean, could be state delegate its authority over that to a local jurisdiction? saw, on a pilot basis and say one that's near san francisco bay. is there anything worth looking at there? >> well, i would ask if our city

attorney has had a chance to look at that question, i believe early on, director hemminger, about why can't cities do anything? there was that fundamental, what is within our power? and, you know, susan is turning her mic on. >> i'm deputy city attorney. through the chair, this the cpc has been engaged in various rule-making procedures which is how the administrative regulations are informed at this point and san francisco has been actively participating in those rule makings on various issues, such as access to data and other issues, so far, i would say not great success. but we are continuing to file comments.

>> but that's access to data not regulation business? >> that's correct. >> my question is, could they? could the cpuc, by administrative action, by regulation, delegate some or all authority over the tncs to a local government or governments? >> i would just say that's not a question they have taken up. >> well, it seems to me, you know, you could keep hitting your head on the wall in front of you and there's a way around it. maybe this isn't the only way. but i would appreciate some thinking about whether or not that is worth talking about. >> and whether or not that requires statutory change. >> right. what i was looking for, i guess, is a way around statutory change since that isn't for forthcomin.

>> maybe you could figure out a way to negotiate something differently. >> there you go. >> ok, thank you. other questions from director eakin? >> just a couple, really quick. >> do you read or continued the house use in housing, supporting tod to include the sort of sb50 conversation around increasing density around transit as contempcontemplated? >> for sure. and we have last year looked at that in the context of that bill in particular and i would say that in general, we work really following the lead of city planning and we lack forwar looo any opportunity we can to bring our voice to that conversation. >> great. best of luck to you on the task force.

we look forward to big news in january. >> awesome. >> and just two small things. one was, there's a better market street item in here referring to engineering items in 2018 and i wondewonder if this is dated anf there is any work around better market street that your team will engage in if this needs updating in the legislative program. and the other pieces around the congestion charge item. this is a very small detail, but there's language in here about how we're going to look at a framework to ensure fewer vehicle miles traveled are reduced. >> got it. >> i want to make sure that we're not talking about that, but talking about the reduction site and i want to make it quick. >> ok, thank you for that. >> it's a typo that maybe changes meaning, thank you. >> ok, cool. any other questions from directors? i could hav do have a question r

machines and i don't remember, do the credit card machines take chip? >> no, that's the problem. >> and what is the prohibition for us doing that? >> frankly, a financial cost of replacing the equipment. >> it's cheaper to lose the $300,000 than to make the investment? >> or that's what's happened, practically. we're not alone in that. >> i mean, it was a big thing when it passed because consumers that don't know, back in, like, 2015, the law change ed this if you did not take a chip credit card in someone's claim that it wasn't valid and the business took on the cost as opposed to the consumer. and restaurants had a big thing around it and i don't know why we can't look at, maybe, chip technology. i don't know if the new -- if you got rid of putting it in or did the waiting, the tapping taking advantage.

it's something to look at for that didn' and i know our new iteration of meters will have that capability, right. >> right. >> just had a question about that. and then with the train control, what are other sources we've identified for funding? >> for the train control system? >> yes. >> so i would certainly defer to my finance colleagues on the capital side as to the funding plan for that. i do know that there are conversations about looking at, for example, the capital investment grant program at the federal level and packaging that as a part of a larger ask out of the traditional new start's program. but unless folks want to speak to the funding plan for the train control system. >> i know it's part of the ask and we don't what will happen with that. >> right. >> any other questions from directors? if not, i'll open this up to

public comment, on miss breen's report. >> no one has turned in a speaker card on this matter. >> wonderful, seeing none, we'll move on to our next item. >> item 13, directors approving all unilateral contract modification, 123 to 1300 lightrail program, surface track and systems to construct a chinatown plaza in the amount of $9,360,083.48. no change to the term of the contract. >> are we supposed to approve that legislative agenda? >> yes. >> all in favour? so just to not confuse the public, we need to take a vote to officially approve the legislative agenda and we didn't do so because we went back to

item 12 and now we're back on to item 13. >> so i'll ask my colleague to come up and give a presentation about the train town station and while he pulls the presentation up, i'll set context. we've been talking about this over the course of several meetings and the item before you today is about the very important design change that took place when the mta and the chinatown community agreed jointly to put a project on top of the chinatown station. when that decision was made, the mayor's office was able to come up with almost $7 million worth of funding and we never emit the the contract. even though that was over two years ago. because it's on the critical path to meet our substantial deadline, they have been doing that work at risk for over a month now some we feel obligated

to ask you to approve this which we will walk you through. >> so it's 9 million overall but theoretically we allocated about 6 plus million to this project but not contracted, right. >> right. >> so the real cost increase is about 3 million and we weren't contemplating 9 million. >> we're ask we modify by $9 million and to fund that9 million, we use a combination of the 6.9 million provided by the ipic committee which is the source of funds. >> thank you. directors, good afternoon again. i'm wyman lee and i'm a resident engineer for chinatown station. today i am presenting contract

modification 123 to construct chinatown station plaza for your approval. central subway, phase two, we are constructing four stations. one surface station at fourth and branno inning, one at mosconi, another at union square and and my most prized at chinatown. our timeline, substantial completion for the tail-end of june of 2020. for the rose station, the original station has the residenrendering, and i consista surface level as well as roof.

we want that to be incorporated into the construction contract. as can see from the rendering below, there's another story, another level that's going to be constructed above the surface. we'll end up with the ground level, the plaza level, as well as the roof when everything is done. and the next slide, is shows the magnitude of the construction that's being performed at chinatown. there are six levels constructed underground, along stockton street and three levels that have the cavern of about 1,000 feet, where trains and pedestrians will be meeting each other. the plaza itself will be at the very top and we'll call this level two and it will be the second floor above the surface.

contract modification 123, one of the main reasons is that the money, the monetary threshold to be approv approved by the direcs beyond that and that's why we're here in front of you, the board. also, in good faith, our contractor has been constructing this plaza and they've started construction of this since september of this year with some of the southern walls. and those wall constructions continue to this day. and the two elevators that will service this plaza have already been fabricated and scheduled for deliver iy in february of 2020. some of the ongoing plaza work i wanted to share with everyone, you can see the two renderings above. the southern wall is worked on

in the bottom left, as well as moving westward and some of the west walls being constructed. and also, what's going on underground, there's the staircases, structural steel and what you'll see is a long, long staircase and it's about 110 feet long and it will bring all of the passengers down to a ticketing hall where they can use a clipper card to enter the fair gates and board the trains. so all of this work is being constructed underground and we have escalators schedul schedulr delivery by next week. i have in front of you a slide just summarizing the original budget for this plaza work was just under 7 million and that's 680 million. the contract is $9,360,183.48. so our recommendation today is

pretty obvious, recommending to the board to approve contract modification 123 to have tutor continue their construction of the plaza at chinatown station. >> thank you. with that, directors, are there any questions specifically about what mr. a lo wyman presented u? >> i thought the understanding was we give you the award and you reduce the request. i guess that didn't get through to you. [ laughter ] >> part of my responsibility as resident engineer is to spend our money wisely. >> so my question, just to be clear about what we're doing today, this is a unilateral change order so the contractor doesn't agree with the number and so the number you just had on the screen of -- was it 12 or 9 or 6? >> 9,360,000.

>> what does the contractor think that number is? >> the contract? >> so there were two other numbers because remember, there's about a million-dollar difference between what we thought the cost should be and what -- >> you included in the staff report is side-by-side of what the city believes and the contractor believ believes and e contractor conclude concluded m. >> the tuit's about 2.$6 millios the difference. >> so a $3 million delta. >> yeah. >> what will be the process to resolve that and other disputes? >> so as we've discussed when we modified the scheduled completion date and resolved the delay claims earlier this year, it's still our intention to bring to this board an updated estimate of completion and that

will form our final true-up of the contract which has been once and for all, first of all, we'll know how much more we'll need to finish the job, but then we'll also give us an opportunity to agree to that bilaterally with tutor. >> when do you expect that? >> i'm hoping to have an internal analysis on the desk of our new director of transportation when he starts in two weeks. >> ok. so we should ask him when we should expect to see it. >> thank you. >> directors, any other questions from directors? if not, i'll open it to public comment. this is your opportunity to speak on this contract. >> madam chair, no one has turned in a speaker card but it looks like we have one.

>> this is herbert winer. when will the funding end? i don't know, maybe i'll see it completed in my lifetime. i'm 8 80 years of age. maybe it will be completed after we find the weapons of mass destruction. i don't know. >> thank you. any other additional public commenters? seeing none, public comment was closed and i will say that we, the director and i toured the tunnels and the stations about a month ago, six weeks ago and the union square station is almost complete, actually. fourth street is pretty far along. chinatown is ringing up the rear but you could take elevators and escalators within those stations and they were spraying the floors. they had light fixtures in, art

on the walls. but the point is that it is real and i posted this on my instagram and i think i'll post another one to remind people but we're getting close. i know it seems like forever. i like to equate these projects to building a house or remodeling your house. anyone who has remodeled your house has told you once they open their house, whatever remodel, they found termites or other problems, the project took longer, cost more money and thought they wanted to sell it but they got their project done and thrilled. it's that way, unfortunately, and the entire city are the residents and we're impact. but these projects, especially when you're digging below ground in a dense city, mind, the marvel -- i think the architectural marvels should do a story on the work at the

chinatown station and building down all those stories to create this station and now we've removed all of the the work at the street level in terms of the street right away to contain it within that site. that in itself is an amazing feat and difficult and you don't think people appreciate how hard that is. i want to thank you all for the har work. hard work. we wanted it open in 2018, at least myself, and we will see the project through. with that, any other comments from directors or are we at a vote? is there a second. >> second. all in favour? any opposition? great, this motion passes. thank you. get it done. [ laughter ] >> we hear you. >> item 14, authorizing the director to execute contract 2018-18 armed and unarmed security services doing business as allied services for

inappropriate tuf activity and insure safety of personnel not to exceed $58 million for a three-year term and with three options to extend the contract. >> good afternoon. i'm victoria wise. so, as you all know, safety and security in our system is a paramount importance, both on the system itself and our facilities of which we have many throughout the agency and so we have a multiprong approach at the agency in addressing security issues and one of the prongs is right-sizing the private security contract which is what we're here to speak about today. although, as part of the presentation, we'll touch on how we deal with this. the approval of a three-year contract with three one-year extensions and the current contract expires at the end of march of 2020, which is why

we're in front of you today. if you were to approve this contract, we need no move on to the board of supervisors for their approval. we'll do that in early 2020. this is more than $10 million so their approval is required. our chief of security joined us from out of retirement to do an assessment of our security system and, in part, form the basis of what you'll hear about in what's changing in the contract moving forward. i have our senior manager from the finance who helped to develop the details of the contract and financing behind it and i wanted to just take a minute and introduce our new permanent chief of security, kimberly burris, her second day on the job and we are making a transition in december and i will have glenn share with you the details of the contract and

glenn will cover a couple of things, how we do security enforcement and an assessment of those services and the results of that assessment and how they're incorporated into the contract and to touch on other efforts we have going on. with that, glenn. >> good afternoon, vice chair and directors. so as victoria mentioned, we're talking about a security contract today, currently sfmta provides security investigations enforcement through multiple divisions and some of the entities are visible to the public like sfpd law enforcement, our appeal, proof of payment, transit fair inspectors and mtap, our ambassadors which d do a great

job. some are not visible but play a role. the focus, as i said before, is going to be on our contracted security with allied universal security who in june 21st of this year acquired sniper security which was a previous vendor. so why do we need a new contract? well, we need to increase the security personnel so that sfmta can address all of security's concerns for employees and patrons. i believe if employees see that we're serious about the security and safety which they have talked to me numerous times, i believe the retention of the employees would exist. i think that will go a long way for the retention. during the past eight months in this position, i've heard a myriad of concerns from employees regarding many complaints and some of the concerns are individuals who trespass on facilities, largely at the green mme, flint patrol and these employees are finding

individuals actually inside the facilities. they're sleeping in there, they're in the bathrooms, locker rooms and they're stealing items from inside the facility. and another concern, subway agents and operators are concerned about the number of assaults, whether physical or verbal and most of the concerns are due to the lack of security personnel. and some are not secured all of the time or not a security person on premise. individuals or trespassers walk on unchallenged or noton seen. additional security personnel would help with the security guard at the gate. while the others would patrol the facility yourself. itself. another concern that i'm constantly addressing is the homeless around our division. although we are aware that this problem is city-wide, it does

affect our employees who are very concerned about health issues and the cleaning up syringes, feces, garbage that's left behind from these individuals. when there is no security officer on site, some of our edgeemployees are confronting individuals with mental health issues which is an uncomfortable situation for our employees. and some of these individuals are also found defecating inside of the facility and have found to be defecating inside some of the city vehicles. and because these are around our facilities, our employees are concerned that they do not feel safe walking to and from the work locations. however, we've been working very closely with sfpd, hsh, dpw, district station outreach teams and these are all after the fact. so with the additional security personnel, what we're trying to accomplish is the set-up of

these b encantments, so we don't have to call these agencies. we have complaints of vehicle break-s ibreak-ins. the last concern, although not as common is subway intrusion causing delay in our system. when an intrusion occurs in the tunnels, a train has to stop causing a delay. with additional security personnel and the addition of capital improvement projects which i will cover later in the presentation, this will enhance security in our subways. so sfta takes a three-tier

approach and obviously the first one we're talking about is the contract security and that's not all that we're doing to help our employees with the safety and security. we can also address this through capital improvement projects and training. and again, i will cover that later in the presentation. so here is our contract overview. again, the vendor is allied universal, the contract not to exceed is 59 million. the term is three years with three one-year options at the discretion of transportation and it's fiscal year 2021 and 2022 from the broughting budget. i conducted an assessment of 12 facilities and we have many in sfmta but 12 that were relayed with the most serious with security issues. out of the 12 facilities, i found that nine had the most

concerns. a majority of these concerns were just lack of coverage. in other words, there's gaps where no security officers were on site from, let's say, 4:30 in the morning to 5:30 p.m. the whole time that facility is not covered or secured by any guard. an inadequate number of personnel. the glaring need was a subway system. so we have one security officer during the day watch that covers nine platforms which is totally unacceptable. then we have a gap between 12:30 and 5:30 and one more security officer that comes on for the swing watch and some facilities i found had no security personnel at all. so our cablecar, for instance, two months into this position, i was told we had to security personnel at all in the cable

car division and we had to cover that. along with the additional security, is infrastructure updates will greatly enhance security for all employee. in addition with the capital improvement projects and security personnel, i think both combined would help greatly. i also conducted another assessment or video surveillance program, vsp. vsp utilizes security personnel for the retrieval and the processes of all video for our agency. this program started back in 1999 and the initial concept was two-fold. one was to defer criminal behaviour on our buses and the second one was also used for internal investigations for all sfmta collisions and personnel injured on the job. and so a request for video in the beginning was minimal.

in 2015, the request for video was about 600. fast-forward to 2019, and we're averaging 1500 to 1700 requests for video and this is from other city agencies, like the public defender's office, district attorney, sfpd, city attorney's office. and adding additional personnel to help wi with the worklowed is paramount for the public. we rely on all for civil litigation. the current weekly hours is 1,976 hours. of the nine facilities i saw

that neede had the most increase minimum amount of weekly hours of increased personnel would be 888. and since the inception of this contract, this should have been, this my opinion, an annual assessment of security guard needs for all facilities. this wasn't done job here we are now, in 2019, we need 888 hours to secure our facilities. this does not include the anticipated opening of central subway, which we feel an additional 232 hours is required. so that brings the total increase in security weekly hours to 1,120. as you can see in this contract detail, the highlighted areas are the ones that were increasing. everything else not highlighted in the presentation are services

that are already adequate, so we're increasing hours for unarmed officers and the video surveillance program and that increase is approximately 45% with 1.9 million annual costs. here is a snapshot of our daily personnel at our facilities and the most glaring that you can see is subway patrol and subway patrol gap with a total of two guards per day and we want to increase that to nine. and that would greatly enhance not only safety for our station agents but for pa patrons and tunnel intrusion and help out immensely to increase this to nine people. even this is a minimum amount. again, our proposed increase in security, our current services, weekly total is 3,643

authorities and we're proposing to increase it to 4,486 hours and the initial year that will be a 24% increase but over the second and third year with the central subway, it would total 30% increase. the annual cost is 6.1 million and proposed services for the first year will be 8.5 million but through the life of the contract, approximately a 39% increase. as we talked about earlier, security is a first tier of our three-tier program and the second would be capital projects. while this is not a part of the contract, it plays an important part of what we're doing for employees and patrons. video analytics, this is a pilot program that we're running in our subways and it's software that enhances the camera to detect intrusions, falls, people

sleeping, people falling on to the tracks and also platform overcrowding. and this will give us real-time notifications, whereas right now we're relying on someone seeing it, recognising it, calling it in and then react. ing. with video analytics, it's immediate notification to the transit management center where they can react immediately. another thing we're looking at is the emergency mobile command vehicles and this was purchased through federal grants. once we receive these vehicles, it is up to us to upkeep them and right now, they're starting to show wear and tear and capital improvement will help with that. generators for our facilities, this is very important for capital improvement projects as it ensures the safety and security of all of our facilities and the efficiency of operations. we experienced this, it didn't happen touts to us, but we were planning on this from pg & e and the big one here is facility

security enhancement. and again, this is what we need improvement on our facilities for broken gates, door locks that are not operating, cameras that are outdated that should be switched from and thaanalog to . we need to see who is coming in in and out of our facilities. the big one is, again, gates not operating. if we fix the gates, we don't need a security guard. and then finally tier 3 is security training for our staff. and next week we are implementing a practical communication's fool for safety and service. this program is designed to help employees deal with difficult

circumstances out in the field or internal conflicts. and this teaches them how to recognise potential crisis situations and how to use deescalating tools, how to talk their way out of a difficult situation. and again, this program will start next week for all of our frontline operators. active shooter training. this was done sporadically throughout the past years. however, we'll make this an annual training for all employees and this is put on by sfpd and this is teaching them how to respond and how to increase survivability. transit management center response is to train dispatchers on how to respond to critical incidents, such as hostage situations on buses and operators that are assaulted and anything that called into tmc will teach dispatchers how to respond. workplace security awareness. this will help employees how to

respond in emergencies, whether a fire, earthquake, bomb threat or disgruntled employee. and lastly, we will start annual joint training exercises which involve sfpd, fbi and the san francisco fire department. and this training will consist of anti-terrorism activities involving not only the agencies i mentioned but employees from sfta, operators, dispatchers, eru and so on. i want to thank you for your time didn' and i think it's very important that this contract be approved for the increased security. as i mentioned before, this should have been an annual assessment that was not done. so for the years since 2015, there's been gaps created throughout time which we need to address in 2019.

thank you. >> thank you for your presentation and this is very much an important topic and i want to welcome miss spur to san francisco and we're delighted to have you on board. so welcome. so with that, directors any specific questions about the proposal? i'll start with christina, >> i just have two questions. you ended with the fact we hadn't done annual assessments. will we do these moving forward. is that the plan? >> yes. >> great. my second question, i appreciate the presentation and the staff report which are very thorough and i wanted to know, in addition to the training you mentioned at the end of the presentation, are we doing anything in the way -- i know there's been a lot of press around kind of disproportionate impacts to communities of colour in terms of enforcement and i'm wondering what training or efforts we're taking to make

sure our security is appropriately enforcing equitably? >> on this issue? >> are we doing training so we don't have desperate impacts where who the enforcement efforts are going against? >> yes. our control officers who have the ability to give people citations, take implicit biased training and that is to both make them aware of the issues around people in power and people of colour but to ask them to examine their onl only onl .

>> one question, director eakin. >> there's a note in they're that we collect 61 million in cash and 169 million in additional revenue from fair media sales. as an agency, what's the portion of this security contract that we spend to ensure fair payment or reduce fair evasion as director levinson was speaking about, compared to the revenues that we collect? just out of interest. do you know. >> can you repeat that one more time? >> there's a certain amount, i would imagine here, with officers enforcing proof of the

payment and evading fair eevacuation. >> they were there to deter dangerous situations. >> the staff number, i'm curious of that number in terms of ensuring proof of payment as opposed to the amount of revenues we select. collect? >> that is something i would love to talk more about at the board workshop. it's cost effectiveness in parking and this is an important one for the budget. >> ok, thanks. >> related to that, i would love to know about the training for fair inspectors of interacting with people and that process. >> so we can comment on that, ththe fare inspectors. we're dealing with training on

how to deal with homeless individuals. so there's another arm of outreach on the buses. and they haven't had that before. right now, they deal with a lot of homeless and do issue them pamphlets and literature on what they can do to help themselves but they have no official training in the next month. >> you've painted a fairly dire picture as a justification for these increase. but we got a glowing article by reducing crime by 50%. is that crime reducing itself or in spite of our efforts or we'll

do a lot better now that we get the increase? >> so there's a difference between the report this week this the palm papers. that was crime decreased by sfpd and this contract has to deal with mostly our facility. but a large part is on the subways and the crime at a facility is different because it's after the fact but if we put increased security, there would be less crime at the facilities and the crime in the newspaper is talking about revenue vehicles and there's two different things. >> that's one of the other questions i wanted to ask you. the request is about a 40% increase in cost. what's the ratio of how that will be spent? is most of that going to be spent, most of that increase going to be spent at our facilities, basically protecting our employees versus on our vehicles protecting our passengers? how does that weigh out? >> i would say 60% would be at

our facilities and the other 40% at the new subway and the current subway. that's a large portion of the cost because of the number of personnel we're increase at the subways and the other 60% will be for our facilities. so at the subways is where our patrons will be impacted by increase of personnel. whereas, the facilities, mostly the general population doesn't go into our facilities. >> right, but we've got an obligation to keep employees safe, too. >> correct. >> 6,000 people is a large number. >> correct. and similar question, the ratio for armed versus unarmed personnel and your opinion just on the efficacy of having unarmed versus armed folks. >> clearly our armed positions are only for revenue personnel. so whenever one of our employees goes and collects revenues, an armed security guard has to

rescue them and it's a small amount of the security contract is for armed personnel. if you're asking about armed personnel on the muni buses for patrons, that strictly should be only for law enforcement, not security guards. >> a good segway because that's my last question. i used to see a lot of cops on the buses in my neighborhood and i haven't seen one in a blue moon, no pun intended. so is that an ongoing program? do we have to ask them to do it or do we have a contract or an agreement about how it happens? >> so we have a program that's -- we have a work order for three different entities within mta for sfpd and one is a small uniform presence and another one is a plain cloth's presence for investigation and the third is for k-9 explosive detection dogs and that's our work order with sfmta. we have officers we call surge

officers that are funded through federal grants for hig visibilt. >> have you or will our new director initiate that? (please stand by).

>> folks that are out there in uniform representing muni but that go around and essentially deal with difficult situations or help a driver out when necessary. really provide the customer service that people expect from us and we want to provide.

just sometimes challenging liveability stability situations that we have in the system. >> thank you. >> i will say that the transit working group will also be making recommendations in this area, specifically relate today security. >> i totally agree that law enforcement plays a role in this but you also have your intel personnel, p.o.p. personnel in uniform and along with the three entities, i think the more we can get them to ride the vehicles, the better the perception will be over time. it's a work in progress. we get everybody to work together i think it will improve. >> there are no questions of the director, i want to open it up to public comment. any members of the public who would like to tell us what they think. >> mr. winier. >> i'd like to speak in support of what is being presented. for one thing, you need safe

public transportation because it guarantees revenue. people will be deter fro deterrm taking public transportation if it's not safe. there's more than one ugly incident occurring in public transportation. that's one thing. i'd like to make a radical proposal. that is, that the security system be expanded to include violators of vehicles on the sidewalk. they could work and random basis and they could be assigned to randomly. it may only take one person, but that would deter people from riding on the sidewalk because they could be cited. and basically, there has to be safety around public transit stations and also on the sidewalk. now the police have a different priority. m.t.a. right now has a different priority. i know the bicycle coalition willow