discussed. so -- it makes sense to me with sf go and the demand sponsive pricing that will move on its own steam. but it does seem coming out of the pandemic now, and with the shift of state here stabilized, that makes sense it examine the under loyaling rate. there must be a base rate that we do all the tinkering from. and we could raise the base rate up to an amount and then let the tinkering continue. so madam chair i'm asking for these are pretty significant financial issues. and we have pretty significant cantz stormy weather ahead of us on the budgetary front. and uncle sam i'm afraid sent his last dollar we'll see for

awhile. i believe that evaluating the parking tax and parking rates. i know we had discussionless madam stele attorney with your office about the residential ping rate and how that applies to which parts of the city or the whole city. come had ref now that would generate. i hope we can schedule a briefing on that at in point in the near future. that might dovetail with the budget process for next year. so we could again take advantage of the strides we made on the cost side and efficiency side and see whether there are things to do without knocking down pat republicanage much but on the revenue side that might help go

to the order. >> i think this is a whorth while discussion and electric at elasticity of price and inflation at the same time i hate it [inaudible]. to that point i think this is a worthwhile thing to endeavour into. any other comments? director yekutiel. >> i have 3 questions. one the 10 thousand dollars management fee. i wonder since we have done the w to up grid the facility and modernize them and automate them, do you worry paying a blanket 10 thundz an among may be over kill do we know how much it is costing and some cases could it upon let's than 10 thousand dollars a month if they are not all are staffed like before? >> a management fee covers their over head, back office needs to

support everybody working out there. we did make you know -- analyze and consider the change in the way they are operated you know versus 20 lefsh to now. for way of example in the 3 contracts 2000 or 2011 we had 3 groups each 8 thousand dollars a month management de feo that was 24,000 per month and for 16 facilities at the time. and as we added a few when the nonprofits went away, those management fees grew a bit. probably today i'm sorry we are planning at least 30,000 a month in management fees today. it is more efficient and the groups are larger. we accounted for that in

proposing the 10 thousand dollars. we will save about a third the day the new contracts start. >> 9 in group a and 12 in b. how many companies manage them getting the 10 thousand y. there are 2. one company have the group contract. allows parking. the group a and, 10 thousand dollars per lot or, no a flat fee for the group. >> paying 10 thousand dollars to manage 9 fasils. correct. and for 12 that sounds more reasonable then and there 10 thousand dollars per facility. >> for the entire group. >> second thing are we planning on acquiring large are garages?

i think i asked this last time. are there more in the pipeline? i'm jumping off of director hum jeffer's comments. we don't have a lot of great means of new revenue quickly this is a way. are there other plans tom or -- welcome to address this question. good afternoon. tom mc guire. we don't have money on the program or plans to build new garages the system with transit first policy. we work with other city property ordinance like the port and rec p when come in and manage the garages. we pass the revenue through to those owners. so there is an only way in which we would add to the portfolio. >> i did not money to construct

and divide. are we in this might be opening up a pandora's box the 800 car lot in golden gate park is that looking to get revenue from? >> this is for the voter this is fall. i don't know. i don't want to jump the gun. i say that we have a great relationship with rec park and managed rec p's facilities in the civic center and union square with professional sxichl cleanliness. >> we get some of the revenue. we get management costs. >> thank you. >> and the next question is about the topic of conversation around the city which is the seemingly semi permanent move to remote w for downtown workers. and largest garages are downtown. and while i'm also happy and

surprised to see revenue is 2020 levels, i'm nervous about what it means for the revenue longer term if the lots are not filled with office workers coming to the city. dwloen is something to bake in the contract sings the de feo is for 2. but i don't know if you have thoughts about that or the fee structure we put in place has resilience that might take into account what might 30-40% drop in park usage or if we have did thea how many of the vehicles visitors and locals. >> to clarify. the mta staff, my work unit we have control overnight rates and the garages. venders operate at our direction. we approve the staffing level and approve the upon maintenance budgets and arc fruf the rates the venders don't set rates they

make recommendations to us of course we want any recommendations they have based on experiences. but approval is with us. in terms of do we know what we been what is going on out there. one thing the pandemic encourages us to do we stood up an among in the fan dem and i can conditions i know every morning 10 a.m. what the garages did yesterday. we have online a google sheet everybody populates we know and we compare that year over year and comparing years. i can tell you as of yesterday, we are pretty consistent low in the summer here to a point where transient parking daily parkers in the monthly about 80ish % prepandemic number of tickets if

there were a million tickets 800,000. in terms of ref now we are more like 92-93%. fewer are coming but staying longer. so the average ticket process is up. and you know we don't have super granular data but our experience tells us this you have office workers who used to be month low parkers while they were showing up upon 300 bucks now i'm going in 2 days a week i will buy the machining low pass i will be a daily parker. >> how has this netod revenue the extent people moves to daily that he is better for us. i don't make transyenlt. >> perhaps i should cope my mouth shut then. joy will give an example. we are i have in the heard any off the wall ideas come out to

us yet but that's manage we want to understands as it feels like the situation of office workers get more stable and predictable where now it is mobile and all over the place. you are seriously considering to designing new programs that work for them. with the commission i would love i think it would be necessary for you to get a report may be a year or year and a half to see how changing work handles affecting parking. our department lendses the parking best of your knowledges and use the revenue to run the transit system. it is important for us as a board to understands how this may be asciiing the garage usage. you skwoo thank you. director eaken. thank you. madam chair i'm hearing diving

deep in parking issues. i will second that request. the tax rate and source of revenue and check in a year that sounds great. at the top of the staff report, there is a bit of an italian with the mta plan. and the 2 items here the top of the staff report are positioning mta for financial success and parking policies for areas served by transit. is the whole city. shall be designed to encourage public by alternative modes of transportation. i wanted to know if you could talk about the 2 strategic plan goals and the second is how we are parking policies encouraging transit. >> addressing of the first is

straightforward you could see by our depiction of the financial success we are getting more deficient as we go to the extend we have to have expenditures to support ref now we work to have the expenses controlled as possible. so we provide as much net income as possible to support muni and other prospects. in terms of well served by transit. in my minds, this means in -- i mentioned through that quarter low rate and review process. there is a very hard data part of this. what is it or monthly the [inaudible] what is the rate structure of come peeth facilities in the your. in terms of what -- pricing how -- how easy it is for people to get it an area is something

that come in as art part rather than seasonals. i have been working in the same role for 12iers, there are pressure depending on that is going on in the economy near lower rates in our retail centers whether union scare >> that is understandsable in areas that are well served by transit i think that come in to the consideration of how you you known likewise and respond to such requests. you know need to understand what percentage of people to be part of the larger mta. we reach out to colleagues in the planning group in street division, for example, what is

the data about transit? i had this locked into this question years ago. now where we started asking for and looking at what is the bart exits number of bart exits at powell and montgomery stations. versus how many people come and park in the garages in union square. customers how many are driving versus how many of them are using transit? so we and -- whenever we get requests about rates we have to consider is -- when we make money and when we get common to suggest we support transit. yes, we might be charging customers are pay and someone could argue they are paying too much this money is going to

support the transit system and brings others when don't have a car or don't think that driving is the way they want to go there. it is a balancing act there. >> okay. may be take that conversation off line. the other question i had was related to the rates you spoke to that concludes my questions y. thank you. director hinze as a request. >> thank you. this is a question that -- because we don't see it often i think contracts [inaudible] trimming down and maintaining an equal -- level of service.

so the one area is to touch on is garage security. i talked about this before [echo] they are out there. i want to [inaudible] what the content is what how we make sure ore our garages are secure. >> sure. well, just to be frank, it is fair that as we have moved forward and made our operations efficient this meant fewer people are at some of our garages. we have good site on our garages with all of the hd cameras that feedback and access to. it is -- does embolden people

who are -- may be looking for an easy -- way to mash a window and steel a purse. they see people and more of a target. that is an on going challenge. so -- in terms of working with our venders again. sgr just to repeat the venders are working at our direction and in partnership with us in terms how they implement all policies they are working to address security and any other policy in the garages in terms of what type of staffing they are using. what the approved budget is for staffing. we are you know -- we take the lead in the primary most intanses the lead in working with the police department. and cases with rec and park ranger and facilities for settingum protocols for escalating and response to

issues. i would like to say that while these certain dbi and other you know use and behaviors do happen i think a certain amount is inevitable in the large public facilities they are public. and you know not like someone is walk nothing the door. when are you doing here? the default is a person has the right to be there. they could be walking through and taking a short cut to the other side versus a private facility who can just try to keep people from walking in. it is a challenge. >> yes. why but we -- have --

>> and a good you know part mership and plan with venders

and the various e mails sworn officers that assist us. it is a challenging issue and not something you bring to zero. it is a top of mind all the time. and always look for example suggestions from this board and all our various stake holders for strategies for consideration on how to make that experience better for customers. >> thank you. i wanted give you the opportunity to speak to it. it sounds like you are doing what you can given the circumstances of being a public garage. >> thank you. director. >> i made the motion. >> public comment. why [laughter]. i feel like we talked so much when would public have to say. member of the team [inaudible] with this we will open up to

public comment for anyone who would like to comment on 10a and b. or who are in the room welcome and if you like to peek online get in the queue by pressing star 3. >> i have 1 card fred mc kelly. >> good afternoon madam chair and members of the board and director tumlin. i'm fred the founder of convenient parking. llc. it is certified local business serving the city since 1994. and i'm a partner with [inaudible] parking. and because of the join venture we are mall businesses we are able to anticipate in this and qualify. and i just appreciate the opportunity to comment on this support of the board's approval of the contract 10a and b on the

agenda before you. small business [inaudible] like appreciate the dedication of the board. the staff, contract monitoring division and for your effort in assuring that local businesses get their share of the government contracts. this may be just another agenda for the board but for the dedication of the board, to encourage inclubhousive and small businesses participate is huge for us. because it means a lot to us. thank you very much, is had i want to say. >> thank you. are there other speakers in the

room. no. anyone else? we will move to online callers the first speaker, please. >> this issue with last here at the board on october fifth of 2021 to extend the existing contracts the staff report refers to this date in 2020. i was not aware mta managed the rec and park department kewhereafter lot i wonder if it is new and not in the map in the presentation. i would have included that in the presentation and the staff report. and perhaps in the future it could be included and distinguished the mta facilities for rec and park facilities. i think this this management and

operations function should in the be contracted out. i would bring it in house i said that before. i would be interested in mark and the team sters perspective on this issue. perhaps hoe is listening. i appreciate your remark. i had a flash back earlier to when the director heminger served on park and traffic commission and this was a few years ago. i think hoe and i were younger. the resolutions result cluzs 5 indistances refer to the sfmta you know -- i said this before i'm sorry please, please please look at materials before they go public it is embarrassing to have typos like that page 144 in the second contract refers to mr. malone's office on south

vaness boulevard i believe it is south vaness avenue. please proof read this. thank you for listening. >> thank you. are there additional commenter on the line? no additional callers. we will close public comment. i wanted to say i'm happy to passport this measure and happy we could one of the things is important to the condition tracts are due support and represent our community i love this contract does that. i want to make sure our lbe's are sustaind and important part of contracts i look forward to where they are the lead of contracts. you want to make a motion. >> if i may. incorporate that prosecute pose the ma'am to the resolution to

correct typose of the sfmta. >> excellent idea. >> so i would like to propose we pass the motion as amended, please. >> second. >> call the question. director cajina. >> aye >> director heminger. aye. >> director hinze. aye >> director yekutiel >> aye >> director eveningen. why aye. >> director borden. >> aye. >> move to the final item. that was for items 10a and b together. thank you. >> item 11. approving contract sfmta 202231 compensation claims and administration serves toin are care insurance service for amount not to exceed 33, 7 font, 962 for a 3 year base trim and 2

options 3 years each to extend a toll of 9 years said options bite director of transportation options 3 years each to extend a toll of 9 years said options bite director of transportation2 options 3 years each to extend a toll of 9 years said options bite director of transportation. >> good afternoon. i'm happy to be presenting a contract. [laughter]. a little taller is this better. >> i'm happy to be here to talk a bit about a conphotographic we are asking you to approve worker's compensation within are care holdings to provide worker's compensation claim in administration for mta. worker's compensation a program mandated by the govern of california requires every employer to have benefits for employees injured on the j.w.. support piments for temporarily

disabled. medical care out of work. permanent disability payments for permanent disability. . the sfmta a self insured employer for war's compensation claims. assume responsible for managing the claims on july 1 of 2000. the sfmta and department of hr, has had joint contracts within are care holdings since november 1, 2012. this year we decided we would combine poreses and have our separate contract. dhr will have their contract and we will have ours. the reason why that is an advantage for us is gives us flexibility to make changes in the contract we need to do

add-ons and to effectively manage our claims which hopeful low will result androus costs. >> thein are care scope of service includes claims intake and investigation. management of temporary and permanent statement payments. management of medical claims, medical service reviews, and working with our staff in terms of medical bill review services. they coordinate payments to medical service providers and evaluate physicians. they provide medical and disability claims to pasillity employee's return to work. cost reduction programs we partner with them on. management of segregation and third party claims settle am. litigation support to the city attorney. ocea data base management and

did thea reporting. we did go through competitive press. reached out to 47 different companies claims third party add administrators. letting them know the rfp would be coming out. 3 who submitted actual proposals. 2 were evaluated andin are care was the number one company with the highest score. so. we are asking for your approval for us to award the contract. it is 3 million 324 the firstier a 3 year contract. two, 3 year um -- extension options. the total contract is 33 million, 771 over 9 years. what questions do you have for me? >> did we have questions. >> seeing none we will open.

doctor eaken. >> i have a comment. >> a comment. why yes. >> i don't have speaker cards i see one caller in the queue. why please a speaker. mr. pillpel? hello? please unmute the line moderator. >> great can you hear me. >> yes, we can. >> it is in fact mr. pillpel. [laughter] no typos on this. great work. once again i question should should be condition transacted out i would bring it in house the staff report referred to 20 staff that the condition tractor would be providing to support the mta worker's comp function third party add administrator. function. i believe there are other agencies that do this work in house and don't contract with a third party administrator.

i think that staff reports should not -- in reviewing alternatives say, should we contract this out in this way? extend the existing contract? or let it lapse? considering should be goin wlo to bring the function in house. and if there is a good reason to do so we had and if there is in the a good reason we should continue to contract it out. i did in the see discussion of this possible and that's what i was looking for here. if you chos to keep contracting it out i think this is fine. but let it go. thanks for listening y. thank you. are there other callers on the line >> no additional callers. why we will ask director eaken. you have requests. that was my question as well is why contract this out rather than services in house?

you know it takes a huge staff, 20, to actually administer in house. we have a small team of 6 on the worker's comp team who help with the management of the worker's comp and liaison with the tpa. that group of employees they work with liaison with employee and the decisions bringing them become to work. drug testing, assisting with doctors, et cetera . it would take a significant can team to fully do everything in house. we don't have that expertise. i mean have you to of course all of the different things that i mentioned about, they did enter the scope of service. medical review. right. each one of the clirms has to be evaluated you have to have a medical team who reviews them we don't have this in house expertise that will be can have the low to get. 1600 open claims now.

we get 500 a year. that would take a huge staff to monitor. also i continuing is beneficial to have an outside tpa who can do the evaluation and make the final determination. we have involve am there is i dialogue but up to the tpa. >> thank you for this and my last is picking up on chair boarden's comment on the last item they are significant sums how are we thinking about local businesses eligible to compete for the dollars. >> you know what i don't was not on the panel. but i'm going to ask machine an hr manager he heads up war's comp team. i know were involved in the panel may be can peek to that. >> good afternoon lead service accommendation's manager i was not on the panel i was in working with the contracts it

would be a contradiction but we did look at 47 that came in reached out to 47 company and got responses back from 3 companies min low because we are a large company, lot of claims it is difficult for companies to deal with the amount of claims we present. we reached out to as many as we knew and submitted requests in the past. everyone we have extent we reached out to them. we took the time to figure that part out but can't control who responds back. why thank you. >> thank you i think there are community based organizations that did partner with us in an indirect way with worker's comp. return to work and drug providers a commune based organization and e ap. so we have other way nas we can bring that local community

business indirectly to the contract. >> a question relate in the our contracts do we have the lbe >> yes. >> requirements. and how are they met for those condition tracts? usual low they are not a main [inaudible] and all that in somebody's -- >> what was the question. >> a lot of the contracts you don't have as many players like in a construction contract how did this play out. that men a legal question for council more so than me in terms of the contracts and rfp. >> my understanding is lb participation in this area is very low because there are few opportunity due to the licensing requiremented related to dealing with these documents and these managing the climbs and issues. and also the fact that electronic medical records has e

eliminated opportunities. a lot of medical records and documentation e eliminated the opportunities for lbe participates. >> okay. all right. something to think about. other questions director heminger. >> i move the item >> perfect. >> a second. >> seconded. >> call the question y. on the motion to approve director cajina. >> aye. >> director heminger. >> aye. why director hinze. >> aye. >> director yekutiel. >> aye. >> director eaken. >> aye. >> chair boarden. why aye. >> thank you, the item is approved and concludes the business before you today. why we are adjourned. next meeting on october fourth and i special meeting on the 14th.

>> this committee will convene remotely until authorized to meet in person. public comment is available. comments to speak during are available by calling 1-415-655-0001 code: 2481 141 0092 # #/ to request to speak, press *3