is great. i think for anyone who was out there at the opening of the ecocenter, you got a sense of the possibilities there. hopefully we will include more kids, families, and+,. we can growt*tp)k. it is fantastic. i am in support. i want to open up to public comment, unless commissioner lazarus has any comments. commissioner lazarus: i just want to echo that i am excited to see this happening on the waterfront. caroline, you have developed you have shown real leadership in developing all of this. it is great to see it grow and spread and involve more, and to have a vision of what can happen with a not large amount of money. >> thank you. if you can indulge me a little, when you say things like that i

when you say things like that i have to think back to my first going to try to get approval for the,u:qei whole heron's head pk project. ñ;eyogthe commissioner said, "wo not buy this. the port is not going to take care of this thing. they are going to buildprizvda d not do anything with it." [laughter] we proved him wrong. president fong: motion. commissioner lazarus: so moved. ç brandon: second. president fong:ñ5 favor? any opposed? president fong: 100-69 is -- 10-69 is approved. jg our next meeting is october 26.

-- commissioneré,a next meeting is october 26. attend maria shriver's conference in long beach. i will miss you. >>. y]aíl.commissioner lazarus: do u want to tell us how great you are feeling? we are in public comment. ñ why you are here, ? >> actually, i am here because i have not been here for a while. i think you all for hanging in there even though you do not haveyoz)n@8 a full complement. i am going to miss you terribly. congratulations on planning commission. i am sure i will see you there. you have done such a wonderful

job here. is;[ñgtyou really have. you have all done just tremendous jobs. thank you so much. any other public comment? -rñis there a motion to close? commissioner lazarus: motion to adjourn. ç meeting adjourned.

>> welcome to the finance committee. could you please colon an number one? >> roll call.

>> item 2. approval of minutes of a september 21, 2010 meeting. this is an action item. >> without objection. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? simenon, public comment is closed. >> item 3. recommend award of a three-year consulting contracts with two additional one-year extension options. >> thank you. we have cynthia. >> as you may all recall, the fiscal 2010 budget includes a $340 million bond issuance.

we anticipate using the proceeds from the bond from the presidio for project, mta subway, refund 150 million commercial paper. the authority has used bond and disclosure council services with legal documents and requirements in connection with the commercial paper and sale of bonds. current contract is with. it is the authority's policy to revisit the contract every five years. on august 3 the authority issued a request for proposal for a three-year contract with two one-year options to select two firms to contract with the bond counsel and disclosure council services. on september 2, we received nine bids from different firms. on september 10, we interviewed four firms and the panel consisted of the stories that and staff from the

transportation authority of marin. the panel selected two firms. nixon peabody and squire, sanders and density as the first and second ranked firms. the other firms all qualified for this work. nixon peabody, squire, sanders, and dempsey were selected because they showed an excellent financing plan. staff are well qualified and available for the assignment. both rates were competitive with the proposal. the cac was presented this item on september 29 and recommended the motion unanimously. the contract will not exceed $400,000 in total. with that, we are seeking a recommendation to or the three-

year contract with two additional one-year extensions to both companies in a combined total not to exceed $400,000 for disclosure council services in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of bonds. both firms are available at the meeting to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. could you not the presence of supervisor maxwell and alioto- pier? other questions? >> two firms with an array of expertise. >> seeing no other questions, is there anyone from the public

that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. move to without objection. we are moving to item number four. >> recommend award of a consulting contract to perkins and will in an amount not to exceed $990,000 for planning, urban design, a conceptual engineering. >> i am a transportation planner with the authority. this item begins on page 13. in july, the board allocated $790,000 in prop k for the better market street project. the authority is leading the procurement for the interagency team comprised of the people of view, and today, and planning department. we went through our usual procurement process but with a

twist to to the unique challenge of the private. we made a request for qualifications for which we received 700 and statements of qualifications and we shore listed three teens and we short listed them. the interagency team and review panel rated the proposals and interviews and we selected perkins and will as the firm. this was presented to the cac on september 29 and it was unanimously recommended. the project manager is here as well as the project manager from perkins and will. i can also answer any questions that you may have. >> questions? let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is

closed. supervisor maxwell? >> could you give me three important criteria that you used in your selection? >> certainly, with the request for qualifications, we were looking for experience of the firms. this came in both brett in international and national experience as well as focused knowledge. we also knew there was going to be a time crunch with the repaving in 2015. we want to be sure there is sufficient staffing to complete the project with people who have relevant experience. their ability was important to us. the other was the technical approach to market street. we were looking for ideas that were both realistic in reality and also changing the paradigm. we know there will be a mixture of things that will -- that are necessary to be a top firm. the other thing is strong out

reached. we know there will be many stakeholders involved, agencies, and elected officials, and public at large. we wanted to be sure there was a strong, innovative approach taken to that. >> is there a motion? without objection. thank you. >> item 5. recommend execution of the option with vno patson annvan ness holding to extend the office workplace lease. >> in october 1993, the authorities office was at city hall. with the approval of prop b, the authority help to relocate the office to 100 van ness. there we were administrating --

the transportation for clean air program. with the passage of prop k in november 2003, there is the need for additional space in august 2005. the authority move their offices up one floor. we were able tim expand 60% to accommodate for all of the additional space needed. currently, the authority has a five-year lease with vno. the lease expires august 2011 and includes a five-year option to include a contract term. the authority had a big bet on march 20 and sought estimates from four other locations. we took a location at the embarcadero, the south of market, the civic center. from that bid and request an

proposal, we were able to obtain estimates for the property at 1390 market street. a five-year contract would cost $2.4 million. atat 220 market street, we were able to obtain $2.5 million that we were able to contract for a five-year term. 1455 market street, we were able to obtain an estimate of $2.7 million at a five-year term lease. staying at the accord is current offices, it would cost approximately $2 million to continue with the option and to fix the contract. based on financial impact alone, authority staff determined it would be to the authorities staff -- advantage to remain in their current

location, with the area closest to city hall, it made the most sense. with that, i am seeking a recommendation to exercise the option with vno and to allow the executive director to contract and negotiate all terms. >> commissioner maxwell? >> it would also cost us a great deal to move. >> yes, the estimates included does not factor in the amount of staff time it would cost to pack everything, arrange for the move, this is just purely how much it would cost in rent. an estimate of fair market value over the next five years. >> i appreciate the attachment. it shows the viability. 1390 market is fox plaza.

even though the rent is lower, as supervisor maxwell said, the cost of moving other associated costs i am sure is much more cost-effective to stay in the current space. >> it is a lower rent initially for fiscal year -- fy11, fy12. as you go on, rent increases incrementally from $1 and up to $10. >> commissioner elsbernd? >> if a civic center is established, will it be passed on to the ta to pay any cost? did that come up? do we know if the property owner is supported or opposed to the creation of the city center? >> no, we are not aware.

>> any other questions? let's open this up for public comment. anything from -- anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. move to without objection -- moved without objection. >> item 6. recommend a ward of a three-year consulting contract with two additional one-year extension options to smith, watts and company. >> the authority currently contracts with smith, watts and company for state and legislative advocacy services. the contract will be ending this month. it is the authorities' policy to rebid the contract every five years. the authority would like to continue receiving these benefits. the consultant has provided advice council and authority to

all legislative items. for instance, you have a monthly update on current legislative items. on august 26, we issued an rfp for a three-year contract terms with two one-year options. on september 15, we received only one bid backed from the proposal. staff determined that smith, lots and company was the best firm to contract the company to. the firm has expertise in specialized transportation experience, including drafting legislative -- legislation relates to congestion management, consolidation of state transportation improvement bonds, as well as having the other sales tax authorities as past and current clients. with that, i am seeking a recommendation to award the

three-year consulting contract with two additional one-year extensions with smith, what, and company, and to authorize the executive director to negotiate the contract terms. >> questions? i just wanted to thank mr. watts and his firm for their years of effective service. how long -- has it been a three- year contract previously? >> yes. it has been a three-year contract executing both 1-year options. >> is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. moved without objection. is there any other business before us? >> item 7. state and federal legislative update. this is an information item. >> chairman, commissioners.

thank you for your vote of confidence. when i was here last, the legislature had wrapped up its regular session for the two-year period which ends in november. but there were a number of bills on the governor's desk and they were still negotiating the budget. the governor was traveling. we were not sure how these bills were going to come out. we now have final action on a number of these bills. i want to highlight a couple. there was a lot of focus in transportation and high-speed rail this year. at one point, half a dozen major bills trying to influence the high speed rail authority policy process. there were three bills of note. ab 619 which was compiled by assemblymember blumenthal. the prospect of cucontractors fr

any work they had done during the world war ii period for transporting -- i do not know what you call them -- they were not prisoners -- but they were transporting people against their will. the governor vetoed that. interestingly, the target company has indicated they will abide by the structure of the legislation despite the fact that it was vetoed. they will disclose any activity they may or may not have engaged in. a second high-speed rail bill was senator lowenthal. that would have dealt with the requirements for authority members appointed by the governor to be subject to senate conference it -- confirmation. the governor vetoed that bill. at heart there, as i discussed

last time, an issue between certain members of the authority between potential conflicts of office issues, where you have two members of the authority, and the governor's veto give some breathing room to ellis' one of those folks. the last high-speed rail bill i want to draw your attention to was sb965. it, too, was vetoed. it seemed innocuous. this would have streamlined this.

there is a theme there. in addition to these bills in the high-speed rail policy area, within the budget act itself which was signed recently, several vetoes added to try to give more direction to the high speed rail authority. so this governor seems pretty comfortable with the way that the high speed rail authority is working right now. we will see about future governors. a couple of other bills. bills of direct interest to san francisco were authored by a delegation members, including assemblywoman loss. that expanded the definition area for transit builders development districts from a quarter mile to a half mile. a bit more flexibility for the infrastructure development required for those districts. ab2729 from assemblymember

ammiano. that was the bill designed to facilitate the use of automatic equipment at octavia four right turns off of market. the governor vetoed that bill. he claims the authority already visit -- exists. the city felt they needed clarification in the bill. i am not sure why that is the basis of the veto. in his view, it was not necessary. last, senate bill 1061 by senator hancock would have added the pedestrian and cross walking project as part of the bridge project. the governor vetoed that bill as well. there are several other bills and i will not go

normal subcommittee process. there were not major issues that confronted the big five or the four caucuses as we got down into the 100th day of the deadlock on the budget. there were a couple of important items that were included in those waning days of the budget discussion. principally amongst those were the governor's request that was included in the budget to fully fund the state's commitment to the presidio parkway and to include language, in addition to the appropriations that comprise the billion dollar appropriation, included language that specifies and clarifies the funding mechanism availability payments and some other mechanism was it an eligible approach. that sweeps away a lot of the uncertainty that was in the underlying statutory

authorization. presidio parkway is now fully funded from the state's perspective and has cleared the policy issues that were confronting some of the prospective bidders. there were a couple of vetoes that the governor did. $240 million augmentation of state outlets for caltrans. the governor of a limited and that citing the fact that proposition 1 b is getting close to its end point in terms of delivering projects. therefore, there was no need to keep staff at a higher level than what the governor thought was necessary. unfortunately, the reality is, even with that small amount, $240 million, there may be some impact on caltrans ability to deliver projects in a timely manner. they were already under an attrition of order.

this will make it more difficult to match personnel with jobs that they need. those are probably the prominent aspects of the state budget that affect the transportation this year. we will see how the new governor treats transportation when they amend the governor's budget in january. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions? i know this is an information item. >> good morning, mr. chairman, executive director. i wanted to let you know, you just heard mark talk about legislation that took place as part of the budget negotiations to clear the last few options on the presidio parkway. i also wanted to let you know this afternoon you will be receiving a memo detailing a

little bit in latest news. the news is quite promising. in addition to having the legal issue is essentially removed from any potential future for the project, the state panel that developed with the proposals on the presidio parkway had concluded its deliberations on friday and selected a top bidder. we have now not just technical proposals but financial proposals. what gives me pleasure is the abatement level identified by the transportation commission as an inevitable condition to move this forward. that has been improved by the proposal. in other words, we received a winning proposal that is 20%

below the limit set. i am delighted to be able to announce that. it is a first for california, led by san francisco on a project that i know has been of tremendous interest to the board. i wanted to make the announcement and thank you all for this support. this will mark a new way to do business. of course, this announcement is very preliminary in the sense that the negotiations now start with a new bidder. i am fairly confident that we will have a commercial close on this by the end of the year, by the end of december. >> thank you. item number eight? >> introduction of new items. this is an inaccurate information item. >> i do not see any new information. >>