mr. pilpel, yes, you're correct. there was one motion that failed the adoption. k that will be number four. to mr. dupree, i hear that point about the language equity priority communities. i very much appreciate that. we'll take that into consideration. there was a discussion at during the title vi analysis item where we discussed the significant limitations of title vi as a framework and had that. it seem to be a federally imposed requirement that require significant review. it seems like it's something that sfmta needs to comply on a basis. i would love to see a better framework and especially considering the needs of seniors and people with

mr. pilpel. >> so, david pilpel.m confused is the new phone number that i called the number to use for the rest of this meeting? >> yes. >> okay. so my ears hurt from listening to that screeching noise for 45 minutes on and off. the screen shows that we're now on item 9. are we actually on 9 or are we still on 7 or 8? i'm very confused. >> chair borden: we're actually on 9, but we'll accommodate comments on 7. we did not have a report for number 8. >> got it. and hopefully you'll find a way to reach people on the phone without computer or tv access, because they may be waiting and not know about the new number. so can i get my two minutes for item 9? >> yes, please. >> so, item 9. so today's agenda had too many items to begin with and we just had an hour delay, if you could continue any nonurgent matters. several items today involve contracts and agreements, but there is no consistent contract name and number scheme. some are 2021 -- whatever. there is no numbering scheme. so that part is a little confusing. as trans

mr. pilpel, yes, you're correct. there was one motion that failed the adoption. i think that will be number four. to mr. dupree, i hear that point about the language equity priority communities. i very much appreciate that. we'll take that into consideration. there was a discussion at during the title vi analysis item where we discussed the significant limitations of title vi as a framework and had that. it seem to be a federally imposed requirement that require significant review. it seems like it's something that sfmta needs to comply on a basis. i would love to see a better framework and especially considering the needs of seniors and people with disabilities as well as economically disadvantaged groups, people of color and everything. also, not to leave out mr. miller, i appreciate those comments as well. thank you all for listening to the report. i'll see you next month. >> chair borden: thank you. take care. we'll close our item on this citizens' advisory council report. >> clerk: item 9, public comment. this is an opportunity for members of the public to ad

mr. pilpel indicates, it's in the staff report. you have to hunt for it. it indicates a revenue loss, $10 million. that's on top of some undetermined revenue loss when we were essentially talked into freezing our fares right before covid hit. i do worry about the trend that we're establishing here. policies and programs however, making a move on our revenue. our primary job is to run the muni. muni is taking a couple of hits here with these revenue figures. i understand that part of what we're trying to do here is help small business not only survive the pandemic but get back on their feet as well as they can. i'm willing to support essentially the fee structure that's laid out in the measure before us today. i do think that we should make a statement about the fact that it is not our intent to provide $10 million subsidy to this program at the expense of muni forever and that overtime, there ought to be a way to get closer to cost recovery. remember, too, i think it's tempting to look at the temporary and the permanent program as a continuum. in many resp

mr. pilpel indicates, it's in the staff report. you have to hunt for it. it indicates a revenue loss, $10 million. that's on top of some undetermined revenue loss when we were essentially talked into freezing our fares right before covid hit. i do worry about the trend that we're establishing here. policies and programs however, making a move on our revenue. our primary job is to run the muni. muni is taking a couple of hits here with these revenue figures. i understand that part of what we're trying to do here is help small business not only survive the pandemic but get back on their feet as well as they can. i'm willing to support essentially the fee structure that's laid out in the measure before us today. i do think that we should make a statement about the fact that it is not our intent to provide $10 million subsidy to this program at the expense of muni forever and that overtime, there ought to be a way to get closer to cost recovery. remember, too, i think it's tempting to look at the temporary and the permanent program as a continuum. in many resp

mr. pilpel. i figured it was you. [laughter] >> caller: i managed to duck out and comment on something else. i remind you of my comments on this item i made at the last meeting about attaching or posting correspondence to the m.t.a. board. i hope that can happen. to respond very briefly on the questions that director yekutiel just posed, i am not aware of formal definition of conduct of public business for purpose of record retention. it is referred to in administrative code section 8.1, which goes back to city ordinance of 1939. it's kyle an old concept. -- it's kind of an old concept. there may be very old advice from the city attorney that's in their opinions about what constitutes the transaction of public business or even in connection with the transaction of public business for purpose of that section. i don't recall seeing it. i'm interested this topic. i hope that's helpful. thank you very much. we'll try to again in two weeks. >> chair borden: are there any additional callers on the line? next speaker please.