taken away so much of the resources that we traditionally have had to improve our roadways. the conditions of them are some standards. we considered a major measure of last year and clearly could not win the support, was not perceived to be necessary. for my purposes, this is an inappropriate thing to do as executive directors have pointed out. this is the first time in a decade that we have had the opportunity to dedicate a funding source for the programs that we have worked so hard to program and oversee with our own agencies in the city. clearly, this is something that the voters are ready to support. i think it will be good for the city. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, commissioner dufty. on one to ask a question to the consultant. -- i want to ask a question to the consultant. you mentioned the contrast

between now and 2012. and there is debate about the idea that we could not pursued and advance this year with the hope that we might have the chance to do something much more robust in 2012. why would we do that? >> what we see from the date is two separate issues. when we asked about the $10 fee that can be passed now and can provide 1 revenue source, we see strong support for that. when we asked separately about a 1.5% vehicle registration fee increase, we also see 50%

support. we can consider those in two different places come in two ways. a lot can happen between now and 2012 on a number of different levels, whether they are transportation measures or not. my feeling is, given the research today, given what is going on with other counties on the ballot, including this new revenue source, the first given to the transportation department in 20 years, this is an opportunity to do it now. the polling that we have been doing, what we vote on may not affect voters in a few years. it will not necessarily have the impact to pass something in

2012. supervisor mirkarimi: commissioner campos? supervisor campos: i just wanted to address an issue that was raised today, an issue around the legality of an agency of the transportation authority doing apoll. with respect to that issue, there are a number of questions that come up. a separate one is whether or not we should do that. that is a different manner. the question of whether or not we legally can, i think it is important for us to be very mindful of, and that was discussed at the plans and programs committee. i specifically asked about that question. my understanding from council is and that the transportation authority has the ability to do this. i just want to make sure for the record, that that issue was raised today, that we have legal

counsel on the record. so through the chair, if we could hear from the attorney. >> has my name is steven roberts. i am familiar with the vehicle registration fee. there is a very clear answer, like many legal questions. it is perfectly legal to pull out this. that was the case in 2008, out of santa barbara, which held polling was actually the responsibility of an agency looking at new measures because there would be a greater expense of putting it on the ballot. it falls squarely within not only in the right, but perhaps the duty of the agency looking at it. there was a case a year and a half ago in the supreme court looking at government agencies.

in that case, the santa barbara case was mentioned and approved. it is clear from a legal standpoint that pulling in advance of a measure like that is perfectly proper and within the powers of the authority. supervisor mirkarimi: since commissioner campos opened the door on this, there is some even this -- uneasiness of polling the vrf against the other measures. i agree that the question was not well-advised. how does this conform with what you said about pulling -- polling on the vlf?

this perception may not be warranted. >> if it helps, i am familiar with a number of the other counties. all of the polls and i know about pulled against other measures. particularly, the parks measure. i do not think it makes any difference in the legality of it. i understand there are questions about the appropriateness of it. polling against the other measures can offer assistance as to whether or not this will pass. i think this falls within the same realm as polling, is illegal,i9 one can debate the appropriateness to the question, but the concept is part of clearly illegal. supervisor mirkarimi: there is a clumsiness about this, to say the least. i think that needs to be

addressed for future reference, about how this effort was administered so that there is no misunderstanding. i do not know how it is how you set up a protocol, but i suggested in the press yesterday, that there be some sort of policy that makes sure if it is contextual, that there be some policy that sets up checks and balances, unless, of course, it is well vetted. i agree, earlier, as one of my own taxes were on their come i was not pleased. at the same time, i do not know how we would establish the process. >> two things.

the consultants that corroborated this, it is a tough thing to try to replicate a feel the a ballot. there will obviously be a number of different ideas about what is a fair measure. that is why we emphasize this was not intended to do any kind of depth polling with the measures themselves, but to your fundamental question, which is how we avoid this situation in the future, and i think what council told you it is that there is almost a due diligence aspect to during this preliminary polling, so that the agency does not waste money to put something on the ballot that does not have a chance. in this case, that is not the case. we would not want to have that ability eliminated in the future, but i have thought about

the issue, and i think what would be practical -- and practicality is the issue because some of these things happen in short order. i think it would be inappropriate for something like this, to develop a policy that would require a review of the actual survey instrument by the plans and programs committee, finance committee, depending on what the measure was. we have a structure with five members of the board on the committee that would give almost a majority right there. that would give us a level of comfort that clearly you do not have now, based on the process we followed. we could codify that in some board resolution that we could pass next month when you come back from recess, so when you have that precedent established for the future and staff has guided us on how to proceed. it is entirely doable.

there will be a time impact, anything that needs to be done through committee will require weeks to process the information through. it may be worth its weight, if it buys us a better sense of assurance that everyone feels fully informed. i should reiterate that we are instructed to keep everyone informed, bring the full extent of the work program to the board at the very beginning. i understand this material is tentative and can lead to misunderstandings. i would be happy to work with you to try to craft some sort of policy and moved to a committee structure. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. a couple more speakers. supervisor chiu: obviously, i share your concerns about this poll being funded by taxpayer

dollars. i would expect a formal policy to deal with this in the future. from my perspective, i cannot support this today. i say that in the context that supervisor dufty mentioned. the vlf was something that i was at the lead sponsor on last year, with supervisor dufty. i think this is the wrong time to do this, unfortunately. we have been extremely crowded ballot. we have been a significant need for revenues. there are already several measures that are on the ballot. the mayor's hotel measure, later, counsel, hotel measure, annan i think that if we're going to place anything else on the ballot, we have to put on measures that result in real revenues for general fund needs, not a measure that will provide kenny's on the dollar for

congestion and pollution mitigation programs and projects. as important as i think these things are, at the end of the day, i think we have to take a real setback, look at what we want to accomplish in november, and be focused and the discipline, and that is why i will not be supporting this today. supervisor daly: thank you. supervisor campos: i'm just going to make a quick remark. in terms of the policy, i do think that we need to have a policy. i'm still not sure that, notwithstanding the legality of it, that it makes sense for us to use public money for this purpose, so i hope we have an opportunity to have that discussion. it is clear that there are legal ramifications for doing it. i just am not clear that that is the correct approach. as one of -- i do think that we

need to have a discussion about that. supervisor daly: if there is no further discussion, we will move into public comment. any member of the public would like to weigh in, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. if there is no further deliberations -- commissioner dufty. commissioner dufty: i make a motion to move this and place it on the ballot. supervisor daly: roll call, please. >> alioto-pier aye. avalos nay. campos aye. chiu nay. chu aye. daly aye. dufty aye. elsbernd aye. mar nay.

maxwell aye. mirkarimi aye. there are 8 ayes. the item passes. supervisor daly: the item passes. thank you. i know we will continue this discussion on a few different levels. >> item 15, introduction of new items. this is an information item. supervisor daly: colleagues, any introductory items you would like to present? any public comment on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 16, public comment. supervisor daly: last opportunity on public comments. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 17, adjournment. supervisor daly: meeting is adjourned. thank you, colleagues.

director ford: good morning, everyone. i would like to call to order [inaudible] >> yes, prior to taking role, i would like to note that directors church and sartpi will not be joining us today. [roll call]

mr. chairman, you do have a quorum. item three is communications, and i know of none at this time. director ford: ok, next item. >> item four, board of director's new and/or old business. [no audio] item five, executive director [no audio] >> good morning. today, we have a number of exciting things to report on. you'll hear in a moment from our public relations team on a number of items that will be coming up. but i did want to announce to everyone and invite everyone to our new ground break. it will take place on august 11 at 10:00 a.m. at the thetransbay terminal at [no audio] you'll be hearing more about that in the coming weeks. with respect to our progress since our last week, paula clark

is currently 25% complete. we expect that the budget is shoring and expertise in package will be advertised and available to bidders at the end of this month. we are continuing to work and coordinate with various stakeholders, city departments, and caltrans. specifically, we have been meeting with the planning department and the department of public works on the various applications that need to take place. we have met with the mayor's office on disability regarding accessibility issues. we have started archaeological testing. you may have read about that recently at the transbay terminal, and that is expected to continue for the next few months. we also met with caltrans regarding the drawings for the busman's and continuing to review process there. we also met with them recently

on proposed the take your and pedestrian impact during construction, including events on the caltrans of france -- offramp [no audio] input on that. as you know, that is something at the request of ac transit, so we are continuing to follow up with that. we're also continuing our discussions of the planning department surrounding the bus storage and so forth along with the san francisco redevelopment agency. with respect to utility relocations, we are expecting that utility relocation packages will be issued for bid during the first week of august. these will be divided in seven discrete packages to encourage bidding by local, small, and minority-owned firms, so there will be more information on that in the upcoming few days.

at&t has completed the installation of their phase one [no audio] on first street. the balance of that will be completed. once telecommunications services is terminated, which is expected to occur in august. with respect to the temporary terminal, we are still working on finalizing some details, working detailscaltrans to address additional items they have requested -- working with caltrans. we finalized the lease agreement with greyhound, and you will be hearing about that shortly today. with respect to the real component of the project, the preliminary engineering term, too, is substantially complete. of the liberals have been committed to [no audio] and we're in the process of reviewing those, and should have [no audio] couple of months or so. i would like to go on to the funding report.

nancy is not here today, but we have bought back at the request of the board of the last meeting. we were asked to give a presentation on the jobs that would be generated as a result. -- we have bob beck at the request of the board of the last meeting. jobs are important to the economic well-being of the country. there is an amount of discussion surrounding what we need to do to increase the jobs, and this project alone, just in phase one [no audio] direct and indirect, tremendous impetus to our economy, and on that, i'm going to have bob report. >> thank you. when the mtc was working with the tjpa, caltrain, and the high speed rail authority on developing the investment strategy for the bay area application under our -- arra,

we wanted to find a common methodology or basis for estimating job projections. what the mtc and agencies agreed upon was to use a recently published publication on job forecasts for capital investment. it is entitled "job impact of spending on public education day-to-day in 2009. in that study, they projected an average of 30,000 jobs created per billion dollars worth of investment in public transit. that number of jobs ranged from a low of 20,000 jobs per billion dollar investment to 41,000 jobs per billion dollar investment, depending on the mix of capital, operating, and right of way costs that were involved in that. this envelope of jobs includes both the direct jobs of people working on the construction activities on site as well as

indirect jobs, fabricators of material, and supplies that flow into the construction project as well as secondary or induced jobs, employment flowing from the activities of the individuals involved in the project and the consumer services to support the construction. based on that active forecast of 30,000 jobs per billion dollars, maria mentioned 40,000 jobs are projected to slow from the $1.6 billion phase one budget, and based on our 2010-2011 annual budget of $363 million, would equate to 10,900 jobs this fiscal year. >> now with respect to the quarterly financial reports, we will have [no audio] present on

that. >> good morning, directors. these are your standard quarterly financial reports. the first is budget actual through the third quarter of fiscal year 2009-2010, and to the third quarter, all expenditures were within budget. we had one revenue line that came in higher than expected. on the financial front, we have our auditors in this week, during interim deal work, and we are, of course, working to close at the just-ended fiscal year so we can produce financial statements when they come back in october for their final field work. the second report is the quarterly contract status report. i do want to note one correction in the memo. i had stated that our bbe commitment for the year thus far was 30% and fte commitment was

31%. i have since updated the report after receiving updated numbers from our most recently awarded contracts, so our dbe percentage is 26%, %sbe percentage is 36% awarded, but both of those are above our goal for the fiscal year. the third report is the investment and interest earnings report, showing our interest earnings through the three quarters, and the final report inception to date shows expenditures and revenues for the life of the program. is there any questions? director daly: are we projecting to be under budget, or do we just have fourth quarter expenditures which are going to be higher than other quarters? >> this report does not reflect fourth quarter at all. i think we will be under budget in most categories because construction will not have -- will not start until the fiscal year that we are in now, so when

we sat last year's budget, we had expected to be in construction at a little bit earlier date. director daly: got it. director ford: questions? all right. >> would like to have webcor present the monthly sbe update. >> good morning, directors. wanted to give my monthly update on sbe activities. last couple of meetings, i talked about rq. on june 15, we received rq's and out of that, we've got 11 sbe's . we have seven qualified sbe's that will be feeding on the work. it was a good turnout of from our june 8 average rating. the other activity going on is we are developing sbe goals for

the budget shoring and excavation scope. we are working with dbi currently to finalize currentlysbe goal -- finalize those sbe goal percentage is. we anticipate we will have the finalized version of the package at the end of the month. >> thank you. now, our public outreach update will be given by courtney. >> good morning. just wanted to give you a quick update on where we are at with our ongoing public outreach efforts. we have installed sine is on the terminal. the ban is one of last night, along with all the moving sign it announcing the august 7 opening date for the temporary terminal. in addition to that, we created additional signs for the golden gate transit because they will not be using a bus stop at first

and mission street, in order to reduce traffic on main street. we only have two lanes open at that time. there will be moving over after the move. in addition to that, we relaunched the website, temporaryterminal that board, and this is on temporary terminal operations, not on construction -- temporaryterminal.org. we will be launching our ambassador program at the transbay tunnel to assist with the transition, and we will have a presence every day, so we have completed the move, and throughout the first week of the move, we will be commencing on august 12, and we will provide additional staffing if needed after that time. we're also going to be hosting a corp. -- commemoration of at the terminal on july 30. we are doing this in conjunction with caltrans and some of the local preservation groups. we wanted to honor the terminal and its history before we move forward and build a new transit center. we will be planning to is