San Francisco County Transportation Authority - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. I apologize for the late start of our meeting. Welcome to the February 24th, 2026 regular meeting of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board. I am Commissioner Myrna Melgar, chair of the board, and our vice chair is Danny Sautter. The clerk today is Amy Sayoung. I would also like to acknowledge Eugene Libadia at SF Cup TV for staffing this meeting. Madam Clerk, please call the roll and then make your announcements.

Commissioner Chan. Chan absent. Commissioner Chin. Chin absent. Commissioner Dorsey. Dorsey present. Commissioner Fielder. Fielder present. Commissioner Mahmood. Mahmood present. Commissioner Mandelman. Mandelman absent. Chair Malgor.

Present.

Malgor present. Vice Chair Sautter. Sautter absent. Commissioner Sherrill. Sherrill present. Commissioner Walton. Walton, present. Commissioner Wong? Wong, present. Chair, we have quorum also. The Transportation Authority welcomes your attendance here in person at the Legislative Chamber Room 250, second floor of City Hall. When you can't be here, the proceedings are streaming live at sfgovtv.org or airing on SF cable channels 26 or 78. Written public comment may be submitted by sending an email to clerk at sfcta.org or by mailing comments via U.S. Postal Service to SFCTA 1455 Market Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94103. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. At this time, I'd like to excuse Commissioners Chan, Chen, Mandelman, and Vice Chair Sautter from this meeting. Before calling the next item as chair, I'd like to invoke Rule 3.26 from the Rules of Order to limit total public comment per item to 30 minutes for today's meeting. Each speaker will have two minutes to speak on a given item. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Item 2, Chair's Report. This is an information item.

Colleagues, I'm pleased to share the good news that Governor Newsom signed the Assembly and Senate bills that authorized $590 million in loans to Bay Area transit agencies last week to help AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, and MTA, SFMTA, to provide bridge funding support until the potential regional and local transit ballot measures take effect in 2027, should the Bay Area and San Francisco voters approve them this fall. Our thanks go to Governor Newsom, Senator Weiner-Narraguine, and the MTC Commission, which would administer the repayment of the loans by transit agencies over a 12-year period, as the loans are secured by operator state transit assistance funds. We deeply appreciate the state's partnership in helping sustain the region's transit system while our operators work to stabilize their budgets. I want to give a special shout out to Ms. Alicia Jean-Baptiste at the mayor's office, who did an enormous amount of work in making sure that the loans work for us with the governor's office. Without these potential funding measures, BART, Muni, AC Transit, and others will face devastating decisions about service and overall operations. We all know what would happen. in our region without Muni, BART, and other transit agencies. As we learned from coverage of BART's board meeting, BART may have to cut up to 70% of train hours and close as many as 15 stations, increase fares by a cumulative 50%. While San Francisco BART stations are not included in any potential reductions, we have to acknowledge that the folks that they bring are essential. to our economy. These service cuts would have tremendous impacts across the region in San Francisco and compromise our economic recovery efforts. I want to thank in particular at Director Julie Kirschbaum for being with us this morning to provide an update on MUNI's budget and outlook for service under different funding scenarios to present on the potential local parcel tax funding measure, which may appear on the November ballot alongside the regional transit measure, sales tax measure. We appreciate all of your hardworking transit agency leaders and your staff who advocated alongside groups like transit and labor advocates, civic and business groups for the state loan, and overall funding solutions to Stable Light Transit for our city and regional partners. With that, I conclude my remarks. If there's no questions or comments from my colleagues, let's open this up for public comment.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item two, the chair's report? There is not.

Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Item 3, Executive Director's Report. This is an information item.

Welcome, Director Chang. Good morning, Chair Malgar and Commissioners. Just wanted to echo thanks to Director Kirschbaum for being here, and we do plan also to invite BART staff to a future meeting of the Board to share more information about their budget and service outlook. I will begin this month with a report on the portal. Assemblymember Haney has introduced a bill to support funding for the portal. As reported at the February 10th Transportation Authority Board meeting, the TJPA is seeking state authorization to extend the term of their existing local tax increment financing on the former state-owned parcels near the transit center, the transit district. In effect, on February 19th, Assemblymember Haney introduced Assembly Bill 2308, which would authorize this time extension, and if approved, that would enable the TJPA and the city to raise additional local funds for this project. We thank Assemblymember Haney for authoring the legislation and continue to keep you all updated in the coming months. At the state level as well, we have three autonomous vehicle updates. First, the DMV continues with its rulemaking, and we continue to comment alongside other city agencies. However, notably, the updated regs continue Lack the recurring feedback that we've given. For example, DMV does not require companies to report vehicle miles traveled at the city or county level. It is only at the state level that it is available, leaving local governments unable to gauge the scale of AV operations on our streets or to calculate rate-based performance metrics. In addition, the new rules require reporting of hard-breaking events only on roads with posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour or higher, effectively excluding most streets in San Francisco. As a result, the significant share of meaningful hard-breaking incidents would go unreported, obscuring critical safety data for our city and other urbanized areas with denser street networks. Second, I just wanted to mention that, as you may have seen in the news, Waymo has started passenger service at SFO Airport. The airport provided Waymo a permit earlier this month, and after completing a series of tests with and without safety drivers, select passengers can now use Waymo for pickups and drop-offs at the rental car center, accessible from the main terminal via AirTrain. The approval follows, again, those two prior phases, and we understand that now, under the terms of the permit, SFL will require trip data reporting from Waymo. And then finally, as you all may also know, for the public's benefit, there will be a hearing on Waymo operations during the blackout from December 20th of last year. It has been set for March 2nd at the Board of Supervisors Land Use Transportation Committee at 1 p.m., and this will be a hearing to better understand the circumstances and causes of the stalled Waymo vehicles and the operational impacts from that day on travelers, traffic, and emergency services. Turning now to some local updates on project outreach. Geary 19th, the Geary 19th Avenue subway and regional connections study will be holding some virtual town halls on March 5th and March 7th. This is a study that we've been conducting in partnership with SFMTA and the San Francisco Planning Department to examine conceptual planning for a subway underneath Geary and 19th Avenue, as well as regional connections. potentially, and this is very early planning, but it is the second round of community outreach for the study, and again, the dates are March 5th and 7th. Our website will have the details at sfcta.org, and both sessions will feature similar content as well as include language interpretation in Cantonese and Spanish. Another project update is the Geary Fillmore Underpass Study, which has launched community council work and visioning for this corridor's revitalization. This is a federally funded grant from a Reconnecting Communities program at the FHWA, and it will develop a new vision for the Geary corridor between Laguna and Divisadero streets to reconnect these communities that had been separated from the widening of the roadway back in the 60s. And we thank District 5 staff for joining the meeting where the community council composed of eight community-based organizations discussed opportunities and concerns for the project and provided feedback on goal areas and next steps. So folks can follow the study at sfcta.org slash Gary Fillmore. Now turning to project delivery, I've got one funding update and three project completion updates. The Yerba Buena Island multi-use path northern segment secured $6.7 million in state funds at the California Transportation Commission earlier this month, and this action allocates interregional improvement program funds as well as local partnership program funds. We're grateful to the CTC for their support. And this fully funds the $38 million construction phase of the project, which will build 1.2 miles of bicycle and pedestrian connections with protected pathways along Hillcrest Road and Treasure Island Road. So we're very excited to see that take shape and appreciate the Arts Commission also approving the art design for this segment of roadway. We anticipate advertising the Treasure Island Road Improvement Project, which is that multi-use path segment in March, with construction anticipated to begin in July. SFMTA has also completed construction of a left turning traffic calming project, including installation of paint post and rubber speed bumps as part of the Vision Zero left turn traffic calming program. Funded with $100,000 in Proposition L sales tax funds, this project will install these left turn calming treatments for the remaining 27 locations in the Tenderloin. With left turn crashes being one of the top fatal crash factors for pedestrian and cyclists, this project improves, importantly, the visibility and reduces conflicts for road users. Second update, Lake Merced, the quick build project is also substantially complete, so thank you to SFMTA for that work, bringing a series of targeted safety and mobility improvements to sections of Lake Merced Boulevard from John Muir Drive to Skyline Boulevard. These improvements include transit boarding islands, enhanced pedestrian crossings, traffic calming measures, and protected bikeways. With substantial completion of the project, there's now a continuous active transportation facility ringing Lake Merced, and an additional alternative to biking and rolling through the east side of Lake Merced. This project is funded with $725,000 in sales tax funds, and improvements will support broader safety and accessibility goals for that Lake Merced area. Finally, the Next Generation Sanchez Slow Street project is also substantially complete. Agencies have been so busy, SFMTA has completed the design and construction of this project funded with $277,000 in District 8 neighborhood transportation or NTEP funds. These funds supported installation of next generation improvements along Sanchez from 23rd to 30th streets, such as painted safety zones, traffic calming islands at six intersections and landscaping and planters on select islands to add green elements to the roadway. With a full citywide slow streets program approved by the SFMTA board, these treatments allow Sanchez streets to pilot innovative next generation improvements for the citywide program.

With that, I'm happy to take questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Director Chang. I don't see anyone on the roster with questions. Madam Clerk, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item three, the executive director's report? There's not.

Okay. Public comment is now closed. Let's go to the next item, please.

Item four, approve the minutes of the February 10th, 2026 meeting. This is an action item.

Okay, I don't see any questions or concerns from my colleagues. Let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item four, the minutes? There's not. Okay, public comment is closed.

Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes, please? Moved by Dorsey, seconded by Cheryl.

Let's call the roll on that one, please, Madam Clerk. On the motion to approve item four, Commissioner Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Chair Malgar? Aye. I'm so sorry. Commissioner Mahmood? Aye. Mahmood, aye. Chair Malgar? Aye. Malgar, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Commissioner Wong? Wong, aye. There are seven ayes. The minutes are approved. Thank you. Let's go to the consent agenda, please. Items 5 through 11 comprise the consent agenda. Staff is not planning to present on these items, but are available for questions.

I don't see anyone wanting to break away any part of the consent agenda. So let's have a motion and a second, please, colleagues, to approve this by Jackie Fielder and Stephen Cheryl, second. And I think we can do the same house, same call. Please call the next item, Madam Clerk.

Item 12, SFMTA budget and local revenue measure update. This is an information item.

OK. The moment we've been waiting for. Director Kirschbaum, the floor is yours.

Well, thank you so much for the time and for all the work you all are collectively doing to support Bay Area Transit. We are incredibly proud of Muni service and the critical role that it plays moving San Francisco and really the region. Muni has the strongest recovery of the large transit agencies in the Bay, and we are now carrying about half of all Bay Area transit trips. We're also critical for how our kids get to school, carrying 14,000 people a day as well. We're also what enables San Francisco to have such a dense and productive downtown area. The downtown represents only about 4% of the city's land share, but it is more than 10 times that in terms of economic productivity. That is just geometrically not possible without the BART immunity system delivering hundreds of thousands of people there every day. We. We face a lot of challenges when we think about transit funding in California. And I do just want to take a moment. As everybody pictures their favorite European or Asian system, one of the questions that I often get is, why can't we have that? Or why don't we have that? And the unfortunate reality is that those systems are largely funded by the federal government. in recognition for all of the positive externalities that transit delivers, economic, equity, as well as health and air quality. But in the United States, we largely are without that level of support. California also lacks the state support for operating funding that many of our peers enjoy, including in New York and Illinois and Pennsylvania. We receive about 15% of our operating support from the state, largely in the form of a gas tax. I think BART is less than 5%. So there's a tremendous amount of pressure on counties to fund transit. Prior to the pandemic, we would have said that San Francisco had a really robust and sophisticated system. It was already showing signs that it wasn't keeping up, that expenditures were growing faster than revenues, but it was a lot of diverse sources. We benefit from parking revenue, we benefit from the general fund, we benefit from our own fares as well as advertising revenue. But the unique thing about the pandemic and the slow downtown recovery is that all of those sources are impacted in the same direction. which has really meant that in order to sustain the Incredible transit service that we have we've relied on one-time funding from initially the federal government and then the state and the region But that funding is largely exhausted next summer And what we start to see is a very significant deficit in our operating budget that starts at about $300 million. This would have been significantly higher had the agency not been taking significant action to reduce expenditures over the last several years. And then because our revenues are growing slower than our expenditures, that challenge grows to over 400 million if you look about five years out. Things like healthcare, COLA, tariffs are all expenditure pressures that we are facing. To avoid cuts and achieve long-term financial stability, the SFMTA must bring cost and revenue closer together, but we also need a significant source of new funding resources. And so in order to tackle this challenging problem, we are incredibly grateful that the controller sponsored a process to really look at all of our available choices. And I want to thank Supervisor Mendelman and Melgar for participating actively in this process that included labor and business advocates and policy makers. And there was really strong alignment around the fact that Muni could not cut its way out of this problem and that we needed significant new revenue sources. That process largely led us to our current budget plan, which is essentially a three-legged stool relying on a regional revenue measure as well as a complementary local measure and continued focus by the agency to really stretch our own resources as well as maximize the revenues that we control. I'm going to go through each element, but I want to start by saying that this budget will also require a significant amount of one-time funding for year one of our budget because the ballot revenue measures largely are not available until the second fiscal year, fiscal year 27-28. So we are very grateful to be getting a loan from the state. That loan will have to be paid back and it does have interest. We are also likely drawing from our own reserves as well as some of the savings that our actions in previous years have generated. So starting with the first leg of the stool, which is the regional measure, The region is working towards a five-county measure. This would be a half-cent sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, and a 1% sales tax in San Francisco, largely due to the density of transit. We have so much rich transit that either is contained within San Francisco or terminates in San Francisco, including BART and Caltrain. A group of citizens is currently collecting signatures to place the regional measure on the ballot. And if successful, the regional measure will raise about a billion dollars annually for transit agencies in the region, of which Muni would receive approximately 155 million per year. And that number really was largely driven by the strong technical and advocacy work of the TA with their county hats on, really making sure that the regional role of Muni was understood. There's also a small amount of resources in the regional measure to continue to expand Clipper Start, which is a program I'm very passionate about. It provides a 50% discount for people who qualify from low-income households, not just on Muni or BART, but on all regional measures. transit, as well as some additional resources for signage and further regional integration. The second leg of the stool is a local measure that would complement the regional measure. It would be paid by property owners on their annual property bill, but unlike a property tax, it is not based on the value of the property. It's largely been used in the past in San Francisco by the school district, but is envisioned here as a square footage based parcel tax. Originally, when SFMTA was developing the parcel tax, we solicited feedback from a broad group of stakeholders on the structure. And I really want to thank Supervisor Melgar and Mendelman and Fielder for really actively engaging in that process. A group of citizens has taken the SFMTA's proposed parcel tax structure and submitted it as their own measure to the Department of Elections. It is now on the Department of Elections website with the title and summary as well as the full text. And this could mean a signature collection could start soon. The citizen measure carries through on the themes of the stakeholder input. So it is, as I said, a square footage based measure. It has three categories, single family resident parcels, multi-family parcels, and non-residential parcels. The majority of parcels would pay $129 per year, and the structure is intended so that apartment units would For the most part not pay more than the value of the single-family home If successful the local measure would raise approximately 150 million for existing operations and also includes 10 million dollars for service quality improvements this will be critical as we work to keep up with crowding and demand as the city recovers and The parcel tax proposal would also include several exemptions and deductions. Parcels or units owned by seniors who occupy that parcel would be exempt, as well as single-room occupants. There's also a series of built-in exemptions for property taxes that would apply to this parcel, including nonprofits, hospitals, museums, and government land. The proposal would have a sunset date of 15 years and would have an inflation factor. There's also a pass-through of up to 50% of the parcel tax with a cap of $65 for rent-controlled units, which do represent the majority of rental units in San Francisco. And then finally, the third leg of the stool is work that the agency is doing to try to reduce that gap between revenue and expenditures. We began that work coming out of the pandemic. focusing on service quality and the customer experience. So we have very scarce resources. The resources that we're spending, we're spending on developing a muni system that is reliable, that is clean, that is safe, and that is what has driven our ridership return. We have also cut hundreds of positions that were vacant out of our budget, trying to right-size our operation. And we have invested and championed programs like the Muni Forward Program, where the travel time savings not only increases ridership, and passenger revenue, but it also saves about $10 million a year in our overall operations. I think another example would be our parking garages, which were all converted to self-pay during COVID. Moving forward in the current two-year budget, we will also be expanding our efficiencies around a number of categories. We will continue to look for ways to reduce expenditure as well as change service delivery. An example would be that we are really focusing our recommendations for our capital program on replacing assets that are costly to maintain and pass their useful life. We are also investing in things like security hardening at our facilities, cameras and gates that will help us reduce the security personnel that is trying to manage these very porous and open campuses. We are also in the process of retiring Muni Mobile, which is a program that we had to set up while the region was updating its Clipper system because things like our Muni Day Pass and our Lifeline Pass were not available on Clipper. But now that we have and are transitioning into the new program, we estimate we can save about a million and a half per year by not having that redundant system. We have also asked all of our contractors for one-time concessions and in some cases we've been able to extend contracts to build in those strategic savings. Our paratransit contract is an example. We are in the process of extending our paratransit contract two years with administrative and rate reductions that the vendor has provided that will generate about a million dollars per year in savings. We are also looking to continue to maximize our own revenues. We generated about $18 million this current fiscal year to help close the gap by increasing parking meters by 25 cents and being really strategic about our parking control officer We are looking to continue to try to optimize parking, including a second 25 cent increase in year two. So we think we need a little more time to understand how the market responds to the current increase, but based on what we're seeing, we would recommend a second year increase. We are also looking to lean into some of the new tools that the upgraded Clipper technology provides. So, for example, we don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a Clipper differential when you can also pay with your credit card, or we have a lot of customers, not a lot, but we have some customers still paying with cash. So we would recommend a $3 rate for everyone instead of that $2.85 discount for Clipper. But we are also recommending instead of having the day pass, which you need to know at the beginning of your day, hey, I'm going to take a lot of muni trips. Instead take advantage of fair capping which the new Clipper system affords so that anybody that pays for muni twice The rest of their day would be free and we feel that that is a more equitable program and will also give us some experience with fair capping We are also looking to better align the cost of cable car service, which is almost $20 a trip, to our cable car fares, but also try to provide improved customer amenities. So right now a single cable car trip is $9, and then you have to look for other ways to get back to where you're going. We are instead recommending a day pass for cable car that would be approximately $15 but would let you take any muni system and unlimited cable car trips. And then as we kind of go into the future years, we are continuing to lean into this efficiency culture. We are actively participating in the Connect Bay Area Act efficiency work, which is a requirement that the state built into that program. We are tracking key metrics like our speed and our cost per hour to try to drive them down, as well as to look at further refining our internal procedures. If both measures pass, we anticipate that MUNI will stabilize and that we can really continue to focus on service quality and growing the system. And so we are very grateful for everybody that's come together to create this plan. If one or both measures does not pass, we are really looking at dire conditions. As Chair Melgar spoke about in her introductory remarks, both Muni and Bart would be looking at very, very significant service cuts. We would be cutting up to 20 muni routes. We would expect our core network like the 38 Geary and the 22 Fillmore to experience double wait times and very significant crowding. We would essentially have a system that stopped at 9 p.m. So we would have some kind of core owl service, but very little nighttime activity. And we would reduce or cut the historic service that is so embedded in our city's brand and our agency's history due to its high costs. Impacts of that would be profound, you know, not only would this impact transit riders, but it impacts everyone So if you drive to school drive your kids to school you would be looking at significantly longer commute times frustration Riding a bicycle would also experience some of that same congestion And the economic impacts would be significant really taking our strong recovery and heading in the opposite direction we are fortunate though that because we do have a Robust plan for year one that relies primarily on one-time money and not the measures we believe that we have enough of a runway that we do not have to make any preemptive cuts and that there would be time for at least a truncated public process as well as a process with our labor partners if one or both measures failed. So we really would not be looking at implementing these significant service cuts until the fall of 2027. And we have achieved our short-term goal of stabilizing the service while while we implement this plan as as as we go through our budget process we have been getting feedback from hundreds of stakeholders both through surveys as well as we've met with up to 50 different Groups and community leaders. We're also going to be having Three public workshops and we will work with your staff To make sure that you all are aware of those and can help us get the word out We are on track to deliver a balanced budget to the mayor on May 1st the mayor would submit that budget to the Board of Supervisors for your, I guess, review with a different hat on. And then either action or no action by the Board of Supervisors in July. So I really appreciate your time today and for all of the partnership to get us to this point. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Although if the questions get too technical on the parcel tax, I'm going to call up Katie to help me.

Thank you so much for this very thorough overview, Director Kirschbaum. I will turn it over to my colleagues to ask questions. Before I do that, I wanted to thank you in particular and also Director Chang for doing a very heavy lift in figuring out both the parcel tax and the sales tax. and particularly for Katie and Judson True also, for your team. And then on the TA side, Martin Reyes and Jesse Kaler, who did a lot of the heavy lifting on the technical work. I also did want to acknowledge that this was a very heavy lift. That was a collaboration between staff and policymakers in the region and also the state. Besides Senators Arreguin and Weiner, I wanted to acknowledge some of my colleagues in the peninsula and in the region, particularly Jeff Gee in San Mateo County. I don't think this would have happened without Jeff. And on the staff side, Tim Hale in Contra Costa County, Director Chang's counterpart. And also MTC staff, Andy Vermeer and Alex Bachleman. And I wanted to give a great shout out and thanks to Sue Nowak in Contra Costa County and Margaret Abacoga in Santa Clara County, who also quietly behind the scenes did a lot of the politicking that we needed to get to a deal. for SB 63 and for the sales tax. So I don't think I've ever seen in my time here in my fifth year as a supervisor the amount of collaboration between counties and between staffs at the different transportation authorities and at the regional level. It was difficult, because we're all defending our own, but at the end of the day, we need each other. So it was really great. And likewise, for the parcel tax discussion, all of the advocates, I want to particularly thank my colleague Jackie Fielder for her work in getting us to a deal, as well as President Mandelman, it was also on our local city-county boundaries, a great collaboration with a very wide group of advocates that got us to where we are today. So thank you, everyone. That just got us to the start line, and now we have to finish the race and make sure our Tri-Inset agencies survive and thrive. So with that, I will turn it over to Supervisor Sherrill.

Thank you, Chair Milgar. Dr. Kirschbaum, thank you for being here. I'm broadly very supportive of this, despite my concerns about some of the details. Just a few quick questions for you. Uh, seniors being exempted generally makes sense. Um, was there any thought given to, um, looking at kind of the interplay of seniors who can definitely afford this, like say in the 5,000 plus square foot mansion properties?

I think Katie may be able to build on that. I think throughout this process what we were balancing was the need to avoid complexity. This is already going to be a very complex task to administer and deliver as well as trying to make sure that we were focusing on the people who needed it the most.

Okay. And, you know, there's some elements of pass-through to rent-controlled tenants. Are there exemptions for senior renters like there are for senior homeowners?

Chair Milgaard and Commissioner, thank you for the question, Katie and Gotti. This senior exemption is modeled after the parcel taxes that came before us with the school district. And currently, the exemption is limited to owners, not to renters of units. But we tried to account for those renters through the provision of the pass-through.

Only being able to pass through you know $65 a year for for those rent controlled Okay in improved parking program efficiency It says 18 million dollars a year generated by updating outdated parking policies and upgrading technology My assumption is that some of that is what is? Included the details of that are kind of what's included in summary of efficiency proposals. Is that a fair statement? Like basically on page Loss of 21 you say improved parking program efficiency Updating outdated parking policies and upgrading technology and then on 22 and 23 you have some details I'm assuming what is referenced on page 21 is kind of what's included on 22 23.

What was Identified on 21 is Investments that are already underway So we've already done the self pay we've already increased the first quarter what is referenced further along in the presentation would be new and

Great. Thank you. Can you give a little more detail on improving double parking enforcement in transit-only lanes?

Yes, we do currently have legislation that enables us to use forward facing cameras on our buses to issue parking tickets in transit lanes for double parking. But it is a very inefficient system that requires a parking control officer to review at a very high speed hundreds of hours tape, essentially. We currently are in the process. We have an RFP out that would allow us to use the latest AI technology in order to identify and send a clip of an incident of double parking. And then that would still be reviewed by a parking control officer. But instead of them having to hunt, they would have just a Like many many cases that they were reviewing very quickly great.

Do we have a sense of timing on that?

The RFP is on the street now. I think it would probably be about an 18-month rollout Thank you.

And then my last question on page 24 you talked about increased meter recovery Construction slash temp no parking permits. Does this mean reducing the number of construction permits or just raising the fees?

It means raising the fees TO BETTER REFLECT THE COST OF THE METER LOSS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR. COMMISSIONER WALTON.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. IS ALL GOVERNMENT LAND EXEMPT? LIKE ALL LAND FOR ALL BRANCHES, CITY, STATE, FEDERAL?

Commissioner Walton, I would have to get back to you on that, but I know that I'm fairly sure it is. I know that our city-owned land, state-owned land, federal, I'm fairly sure they are all exempt from property taxes. But I can get back to you.

I would like that. Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Fielder.

Thank you, Chair Melgar, and thank you, Director Kirschbaum, and the whole MTA team for all of your work on it. I just wanted to also thank Policy Chief Alicia John-Baptiste for meeting with advocates in the tenant space, Anti-Displacement Coalition. I wanted to thank the public transit advocates of the Many Now, Many Forever Coalition. including Dylan Fabris and Emily Horstman and Kat Siegel, Cyrus, and others. I want to thank Labor SCIU 1021 for coming in and engaging. And I also wanted to thank Chair Melgar for steering this whole process. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

OK, thank you, everyone. So if there's no other questions or comments, I guess we take public comment on this item.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 12, the SF MTA budget and local revenue measure update?

There is not. OK. Public comment on this item is now closed. It is an information only item. Let's go to the next item, please, Madam Clerk.

Item 13, introduction of new items. This is an information item.

I don't see anyone on the roster with introduction of new items. Let's go to general public comment.

Item 14, public comment. Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 14? There is not.

OK. Public comment is now closed. Let's go to item 15, please. Item 15, adjournment. We're adjourned. Thank you.