Busses or can you not even answer that. It would be about 35 weeks in advance once we enter the production line. And right now as the market is, everyones trying to buy battery electric busses and theres not enough manufacturing capabilities. So we lose our place in line were delaying the whole decision about which are the better busses. Correct. Can i chime in again because i did work on this issue a little bit a bit in my former life. Californias in a unique position here, right. We have a state agency the air Resources Board thats essentially compelling the conversion of our Public Transit bus market to electric vehicles. So we are going first. And we are i think at great risk of paying a significant premium for doing so. I dont think we should be piloting a price. Because i dont think we want do give these businesses any idea this is what theyre going to get when we belly up to the bar for 800 800 busses. I dont know why it cant be a flat price or no price because what theyve got to gain say huge leg up on a market. Whoever conquers california will probably conquer the rest of the country. If i may add to that, were actually one of the last of the major agencies around the country and bigger agencies new york, seattle have already purchased the battery busses. And they purchased them at scale . Like how many . Same as us, nine, 10 pilot busses. Theyre pilots then. No ones ahead of us if everyones doing a pilot. Right. And then so youre understanding is that the pilot busses the other cities have purchased, theyve purchased at these same prices . Correct. Okay. I still want to move forward on this. Think its an important enough goal nor city and an important for the city and an important enough step id like to move to approve this and move ahead with the procurement. Okay. So there is a motion on the item as it stand before us. Is there a second . Second. Very good. A motion and second on this we can continue discussion but thats now moved. Director heminger, i understand your point so eileen ill lean on you would you care to propose an amendment or proceed on this . Maybe a subsequent motion to clarify the differences. My motion would be to direct staff to issue a second best and final offer or bafo to reduce the price of all of the procurement to the lowest price received to date. Okay. So we have a motion and a second on the amendment. Let me first ask mr. Mcgwire if the amendment makes sense to you and your staff so we can proved. And what the proceed. And what the hit to the time line of the busses would be. The first answer is it clear enough . Youre directing us to go back to the three manufacturers and ask them or ask new flyer and proterra to match byds price. Is that right . Yes. And i dont know if theres a way to craft this in the language but i think staff ought to have some decision discretion if they can save us 200 million than 300 million. Its one way of skinning the cat but if theres a way to avoid paying the price theyre suggesting because its a pilot i think we ought to take it. The issue is its a public proceeding. The folks paying for this are aware of what we did. We have to give a clear direction and if that direction is if you want to participate in the project you have to bid the low bid or you dont participate, thats clear enough. Directing our staff to do the best you can with negotiation puts them in a very difficult place that will be hard for them to win. Then ill make the substitute motion as stated previously. Very good. Director torres with you seconded it. We have an amendment and second on the floor. Now, mr. Mcgwires answers the question its clear enough and you had a question to what that would be to the time line of the pilot if youd be so good as to answer that thatd be great. As things stand today theyll be expected to be delivered in october 2020. Well have to look at it if youre going to issue a bafo. One thing i want to mention on the issuing of the bafo to match byds pricing, we will not get the same bus from the other two oems. While well have to give up something. I dont understand that. So if we succeed in get lower price it will be a modified bus in some way . Yes, it wont meet the range. Im confused. So theyre not apple to apple comparisons. Correct. I guess it would be helpful to understand you mentioned battery size but is that the goal to test the range . Director hemingers amendment doesnt give us a different bus for less. I understand its give us the bus you were going to sell us for 4. 4 million or 5. 2 million for the 3. 5 million price if you want to play in the pilot. Is that correct . Yes. You dont say take off the windows and have a smaller batteries to meet the 3. 5 million. Were doing you a favor by letting you play. Do you have an idea on their mark up or their profit . Its usually 10 to 15 . For Something Like this it may be higher . I dont think so. Its a Pilot Program lots of engineer is need on their end. One they finalize the vehicle they know our requirements we have one of the strict requirements. Im not trying to mess around with your different battery approaches and see what you get but i think were under the current approach missing a pretty significant moment of leverage its not insignificant. Its 3 million. The only way theyd be able to reduce the price is just decide to. And also the question is if were testing slightly different things. The battery is more expensive because its battery then thats different than they all have the same range but the batteries are different size for a different reason. I think it would be helpful to understand if the price differential is related to Something Different or greater that we asked for in the testing. No, i think the price is strictly due to the size of the battery. I know we have two motions on. Just as a procedural matter and the fact that i dont like writing multimillion dollar contracts from the boards seat, may i suggest something, dr. Mcgwire and see what you think. I think youve heard concerns about the pricing arrangement and a perhaps missed chance of leverage from at least three directors. Rather than amending this and doing something now, might it make sense for you and your colleagues to consider this feedback and the opportunities presents and come back to us at the next meeting with answers more detailed and more answers. Im not mandating this but im suggesting were getting into a lot of stuff we may not have answers and i fear were missing each other a little bit on the question but i think the issues the three of us have raised and i raised it, may be significant enough it may be worth waiting two weeks. Table the item until the next meeting and you and your staff can come back and say, weve looked into it, there really is an opportunity for leverage, heres how we want to exploit it or there isnt an opportunity for leverage and be prepared to answer why. Youll have some skeptical Board Members if thats the answer. It would be good to see if there were comparable prices the other agencies referred to paid that would be helpful information for us if its available. And has anyone bought these busses at scale . 50 to 60 orders. Id be interested to see what the prices are. Guys know this stuff. Its a good suggestion. My preference would be to continue to the next meeting. So lets pause on that. There was a motion and a motion to amend and a want to follow proper procedure. So directors, does anyone object to kicking it two weeks . Okay. So director brinkman may i ask you to withdraw your motion . I withdraw the motion. Director heminger. Likewise. Thank you for answers the questions. We didnt mean to put you in the hot seat in the hot room but there it is. Well look forward to seeing you. Let me ask, ms. Boomer do we have room on the calendar next time . For november 5,y. November 5 well look forward to talking about it then. Thank you. Do i need to do a formal motion to table . The power that is mine . Awesome. Lets wield more off that. Clerk and item 13 presentation and discussion regarding the scooter share program. Another controversial issue coming to us. What a day this is. Chair hieineke and board of directors i oversee the scooter share policy and ive been working on it a little over two and a half years and presented four or faceoff times and its four or five times and its a wrapped ily changing rapidly changing field and the latest iteration in our process in developing our Scooter Program theres a lot of detail in the presentation recognizing where we are. Im going to go through a relatively efficiently and happy to go back to any areas you want more detail on as part of the questions. In terms of context, in may, 2018 this board approved a oneyear Pilot Program which we started in october and presented the pilot results this spring. The one finding for that i wanted to highlight i have the graphic up here on the board and really the finding that keeps us coming back to why we want to expand the program is that when we did the user survey over 40 of the scooter trips would have been taken by a single occupancy vehicles. Otherwise 36 are by uber or lyft and while theres challenges to figuring out the equity of the program the number of sustainable trip was incredibly important to us and we developed a permanent program. In july of 2019, this board approv approved amendments to create a Scooter Program in San Francisco and based on the direction and guidance we heard we put together an application process and selected applicants this fall. Very quick summary by the numbers. We got 11 applicants and selected four perm permittees with a 12month permit date and the first day of the permit is today. And we wanted to time the presentation as close as possible to the launch but we ended up getting exactly. The four main areas i wanted to go through today is kind of what we feel are critical keys to the success of the program. And rather than reading the slide ill just jump into them. And the first one of those is defining a really detailed and rigorous application process. Something we learned from the Pilot Program frankly we didnt know enough about what we wanted. There was less clarity in the application process than was ideal. In this case we had eight categories clearly defined and 62 criteria in which we scored each applicant and we did a very thorough review at every one of the 62 criteria. Rather than the one thing to point out to the top four scoring am cants were ahead of the lower scoring applicants and we went with four. Weve had a couple questions about the numbers and people have asked why 4,000. The answer is simple and why i just said the four had the strongest applicants based on the criteria. We want to push the service to neighborhoods where its needed and were doing that in two different way. One, we have target densities for disadvantaged expects or communities of concern by the mtc and then the followup sued of that isuedandside. So no moree located in the financial district core. In addition to providing scooters in disadvantaged communities, we know thats not enough to have an equitable program. You need programs in place so people know why theyre useful. It comes with equity and engagement o. It includes multiple li lingual services. Then making sure scooters are affordable to everyone and all very robust low income plans that need to be available to everyone who is at the 200 federal poverty line or below and they do all have cash Payment Options and a requirement to partner with other certifying agencies in terms of income verification. Wfor ensuring that the program operates reliably, we require each to submit a labor harmony plan to describe their approach to management. And theres some summaries here of what each of the prosecutor s proposed b