. >> my name is mark tieman and i'm senior councilor at pet camp, san francisco, california. we dispose of a lot of carbon-based material here, dog poop, and the more we can turn that into something viable, the better off we are. in san francisco there's more dogs than children. finding a viable use for dog poop. >> proenvironmental policies, that's a way to win hearts and minds. commissioner mar: good

morning, everyone. this is the san francisco county transportation authority finance committee meeting for june 8. sitting to my right is commissioner daly and commissioner elsbernd. are there any announcements? >> no. commissioner mar:i will move to. this is an action item. commissioner mar: the movement is seconded. public, is closed. without objection, the minutes are approved. item three. >>recommend adoption of the proposed fiscal year 2010-2011 annual budget and work program. this is an action item. commissioner mar: thank you. >> i am deputy director for finance administration.

this item starts on page 11 of your package. we will have a short power point presentation, and then i will turn it over to our executive director. this is your second look at the fiscal year 2010-2011 budget. we've had one change in estimates. we have worked with the comptroller's office and took a look at the state board of equalization revenue information and have decreased sales tax revenues by $2.3 million. we are anticipating total revenues for fiscal year 2010- 2011 to be $129.2 million. let me take you through the presentation. as you are well aware, we are

required by the puc code to adopt the budget by june 30, 2010 of each annual year. the annual budget consists of six different components. estimates for sales tax revenue, a federal, state, operating cost, and financing and debt service costs. your budget package includes four different attachments. on page 14, you have attachment a, which is the preliminary fiscal year 2010-2011 budget. this is an executive view of the budget. attachment b is fiscal year 2010-2011 annual work plan. this provides the details to what the authority plans to accomplish during the fiscal year. attachment c is a line item

detail. this is on page 23. this shows you the different revenue by funding sources. our last attachment, attachment d, is on page 25. this provides a line item description and narrative for each of the budget line items. here, i have a pie chart for the revenue for fiscal year 2010- 2011. the total revenues for fiscal year 2010-2011 are projected to be $129.2 million. sales tax revenues represents 53.2% of the total revenues for the authority. the next largest funding is from the state. this is funding coming from the mtc and the state and local program. the next largest funding source is from the federal grant funding. this is approximately 8% of the

authority's budget. this is funding from the highway bridge program. lastly, we have revenue coming in from regional grants and program funding for 3%. interest earnings of approximately 1.2%. commissioner mar: before you leave that slide, i want to make sure the sales tax assumptions match the controllers assumptions? >> yes, it does. on the next slide, a pie chart of total expenditures for the fiscal year. proposed expenditures are for $187.2 million. capital project expenditures is the bulk of the total expenditure budget. this represents 91.2% of all projects. we have the projects here. the next largest expenditure is for debt service.

this represents 4.7% of the budget. this is related to interest payments for the commercial paper program and payments in regards to our line of credit. we also have personal expenditures for 2.8%, representing the 32 board positions. and lastly, 1.3% represents rent, office, expenses. one thing more to mention before i turn it over. the authority has budgeted for the need of a bond issuance in fiscal year 2010-2011's budget, we assume a bond of $340 million. the final timing of the bond issue will depend on the cash flow needs of the authority sponsors.

the $340 million bond -- after the issuance costs, the authority will have net proceeds of $152 to spend on future projects. this budget does not approve the issuance of the bond. if there is a need for the bond, we will bring that before the finance committee for approval for the size and timing of issuance. commissioner mar: any questions? commissioner elsbernd? commissioner elsbernd: the budget does not assume passage of sb 83? >> i will let you address that. commissioner elsbernd: thank you. >> good morning. i am the executive director. commissioner elsbernd, the

budget does not assume that money because it would not be collected or be part of the budget until the following january. commissioner elsbernd: ok. >> it will hit the authority budget, if and when it becomes a reality. let me give you -- let's to a transfer of knowledge here. thank you. if we go back to the power point, what is in the work program? this has not had any major changes from what you have seen the previous meeting, but for the benefit of the public as well, a different passed at different sections of the authority and what the activities are. the programming and policy division parts of the budget will deal with all the requests.

the amendments to the strategic plan and the five-year programs that are part of prop k, which you would have adopted earlier this year. we also have a major role in the oversight of delivery of 17 of those categories that are part of the five-year programs. the administratioand put into tl portion. all of the funding for the transportation improvement program, the state and local partnership, the lifeline program, and the cma program, as well as assistance to sponsors with deadlines and grant

obligations. on the sb 83 item, we would include additional information that can be used to inform the public about what the plan would be, and in preparation of the documents that would be needed to bring the measure to the ballot, which is something that is essentially ready now. on the regional transportation plan, on the transportation priorities and advocacies for san francisco, and then at the state and local level, all the tracking on legislation. the capital projects division -- before i go on, about the program division, the challenges that we have this year are

particularly severe given the shifts in state funds and the lack of definition in terms of federal funds. i think there will be an additional burden on the side of federal. everything i've been tracking at the federal level, it seems very unlikely that there would be a successful move in congress or even a move in congress at all to try to reauthorize the surface transportation act. i have been so bold as to predict that we may never have another six-year act the way we're going. the lack of agreement and congress to raise the gas tax that the federal level or create a new source of revenue -- i do not know where the picture is going, but it does not seem to be moving fast in either direction.

at least for the next couple of years, we're likely to be in a situation where the prop k revenues are the most substantive amount of money that is available to do stuff in san francisco. the same is true in all the key counties in the state that have a sales tax. when you match that up with the lack of resolution of a lot of the structural deficit issues in the state budget, essentially, the sales tax becomes one of the very few things that are reliable and available. that puts further pressure on the programming of the prop k money and even more pressure to try a new strategy for how to go beyond that in the next couple of years. the capital projects division has its hands full, too. the biggest thing that we have is the parkway project. as you know, the first part of that is already under

construction. the big news about the second phase, which is another $500 million, is that a couple weeks ago the transportation commission approved it to move into the public-private partnership process after a really grueling five-hour debate and scrutiny of the project. it generated a positive vote, 8- 3, and is now moving in the direction of a public-private partnerships retirement, according to the state guidelines. it's the first instance of a project of that kind that does not have a toll revenue source attached to it. it meant that the california transportation commission had to make a commitment to a certain year financial plan where the state would guarantee payments

that would result in the appropriate level of maintenance for the entire period of time, which is a major milestone in the sense that it begins to put the focus on the idea that projects should be looked at on the entire life cycle cost standpoint, not just the construction cost, but what does it take to maintain it so that at the end of the 30-years, you still have life in the project and you do not have to tear it down and rebuild it at a huge cost, like we are having to do now. it has garnished a lot of attention. both from the private sector and other counties of the state that are likely to follow us soon in the steps of what we did on that. the yerba ramps project -- we

have an item on the agenda later on that. among going to detail. will highlight that we have engineering support for a number of the projects. overall, program management oversight, as well as support for individual requests from the planning division. the planning division has a number of key initiatives that are likely to wrap up this year as part of the operating budget. the countywide transportation

plan update will get going and the next month or so. the mobility act and busing study will complete in september-october. the 19th avenue project is one we also have the design lead. and another major initiative is the octavia boulevard study. work is on going on the bi- county effort. there are a number of transportation issues that need to be resolved. there are several neighborhood transportation plans come as well as a significant amount of coordination with mtc and others

on new initiative related to sb 375. finallycommissioner mar: commisr elsbernd has a question. commissioner elsbernd: on the regional coordination, i know you will be working on it. 9000 new units of housing right of the county border and what that will mean. >> absolutely. that's a significant issue. i'm looking forward to the opportunity to discuss all of those at the policy level in their connections to the future plans for improvements to the muni system, bart, as well as

dealing with caltrain iss ues. we have a crisis, essentially, with operating funds. the worst thing we can do is throw small amounts of money at it. i think we need to have a very wide ranging regional discussion on how to deal with that service. and come up with a way to fund it on an ongoing basis so its budget does not depend on the muni budget, or general fund money, or any other measure that requires an annual rethinking of the sustainability of the budget. a number of those issues will be in the update of the countywide transportation plan. that is the only vehicle we have to take a 30-year look at the strategy for transportation

planning in the city. the technology services division will be a key support division for a lot of these things. anthrough improvements to our model and the land rose allocation model. -- land growth allocation model. i attended the first meeting yesterday of ceo's of condition management agencies and the three regional planning agencies to talk about sustainable communities and how we are going to get the strategy regionally. and allocating housing growth in san francisco will be a major task. the expectation, regionally, is san francisco will absorb a disproportional amount of that growth. it has a great transit service.

rail service will be very important at the consideration. we cannot survive that without inappropriate planning tool. it allows us to relate the capacity of the land for housing with the capacity of the transportation system. commissioner mar: how is that land-use model coordinated with other regional bodies? >> is fully coordinated. it resulted from a disconnected that the city the traditionally had. and then those would be given to the planning department. the planning department have a completely different set of projections and no agreement on where in the city those housing units would likely materialize. because the city has built out

and there are so many issues with density and so on, it became obvious of the only way to have a solution would be to have a land use allocation model. as i said, it would reconcile the ability to densify or in- fill different parts of the city against whether there is transportation capacity to deal with the strips or not. and of course, parking capacity. that has given us an opportunity to reconcile with them. in addition, it deals with the i.t. needs of the website and so on, which are increasingly becoming an important tool. among those uses, should mention we're working toward web based applications for other departments to be able to apply for money in a more streamlined way.

and of course, as we get close, they will also deal with the issuance of debt and the monitoring of our debt program, which is ongoing. they also function as are h.r. resource. that is a bird's-eye view of what is happening with the program this year. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. commissioner mar: colleagues, are there any questions? seeing none, thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. it has been moved and seconded. any objections? item three is approved. item four.

>> recommend authorization for the executive director to negotiate and execute annual contract renewals with city and county of san francisco departments and to exercise contract options for various annual professional services, in an amount not to exceed $1,227,220. this is an action item. commissioner mar: thank you. >> the item starts on page 31. th we are seeking approval to renewed two contracts with city departments and to exercise two options with outside firms. we are seeking approval to exercise a contract with the city attorney's office for

$60,000. the attorney office will be assisting on routine matters. we are requesting $37,00220 to e contacted with sfgtv for video production services for the committee meetings. we're also asking to exercise the first option. this will be exercising a $1 million auction where we have used it for project service. they have served as a supplement for staff. we're asking for a request for $130,000 to exercise the final option with the jacobs engineering group. this is for automobile traffic

on a train services. the authority is responsible for developing and adopting a congestion management program. the program is required to be updated every two years. in conformance with this program, the authority would be allowed to qualify for state and federal funding for transportation related projects. with that, i am asking for approval to contract with these two city departments and to exercise these two options with outside firms. with that, i'm more than happy to enter new questions. commissioner mar: any questions? how many years have we had a contract with them? >> this is our second contract. in the previous year, it was a three-year project with a two-

year extension. this contract is the same period. commissioner mar: ok. seeing no questions from colleagues, let's open this up to public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion? moved and seconded without objection. thank you. item five. >> recommend increasing the authorized amount of the memorandum of agreement with treasure island development authority by $487,000, to a total loan obligation amount not to exceed $9,287,000, to complete preliminary engineering and design for the i-80/yerba buena island interchange improvement project and authorizing the executive director to modify certain agreement terms. this is an action item. commissioner mar: thank you. >> good morning. i'm the project manager. i have a quick slide

presentation to go through with you. i wanted to update you on the project scope, schedule, of budget, and seek approval for items 5 and item six. they are related. a little bit of background. the original memorandum of agreement was executed in july 2008. the amendments were executed in may and october of 2009. also, all the authority costs are reimbursed. i want to go ahead now and review the scope of the improvements. the first component is

consisting of the construction of new westbound on and off ramps on the side of yerba buena island. -- east side of yerba buena island. our project will go ahead and include standard the celebration for the offramp. we have now also added the retrofitting of the nine structures on the west side of the island to a basically, a series of structures that lead to the westbound on ramp. those are integral to the

circulation on the island. also, to the bay bridge. we feel the approach is cost- effective. we've been working very closely with caltrans. we have been identifying the best project for the island. it is a very significant engineering challenge. there's only limited opportunity in terms of merging on and off the bay bridge. caltrans also improves some east on and off ramp improvements, which we are working with them on. finally, as part of the treasure island development authority, and they planned local circulation improvements. it will be a much better circulation network on and off the bridge and to