of whether we will get there or not. we all want to get there, but many the right items on the table to get there. there is no option to lose our full funding grant agreement, it is a lot of money. supervisor chiu: first of all, i appreciate the issues you have raised, and these are things that need to be discussed, but from my vantage point as a commissioner and board of supervisors member, i am hearing a lot from each body. it is the left and not talking to the right hand. what i would like is to have the staff work together. we're all in agreement that we need to make this happen. for it to take a hearing request from one of my colleagues to bring up these issues is troublesome from my standpoint. i would like to know that this feedback is going to be dealt with professionally, in face-to-

face meetings. we do not have a lot of time, i agree with you with that, but for you to be raising these issues when we have all of for many months that this is to get done, at this time, indicates the issues of the problematic relationship between our two agencies. >> i fully expected these issues to be addressed in today's presentation. the mta has the lead on this. we have been supportive from day one. we have sent key staff members to the mind the gap committees. it is not because of an unwillingness to participate in the process, but it is really mta's lead. i would have expected these issues to be fleshed out by this meeting. we are more than committed to working at the staff, management level to get this resolved. when i am telling you is it does not look to me like a road map

that will get us there. the commitment is there. we want to make sure that we have the ability to work in an integrated fashion with the mta to get there. supervisor chiu: and i would like to hear a response from mt s.a.. >> i was one of the members on the committee. -- from mta. all of these issues have been put on the table. there is a sense of frustration. maybe we are not moving as fast at the mta as we have hoped, but now this meeting is helping to provide the catalyst to move us forward. all these issues have been brought up before with mta staff. supervisor chiu: i was confused

from the director's staff. it seemed to these issues have not been discussed. >> they had been discussed. we would like a bit further to go to supervise the financial plans. now we are all under the gun to get this done. supervisor campos: commissioner dufty, did you want to add anything? supervisor dufty: as a cfo, in my humble opinion, ms. boze does a spectacular job, but awe havea capital planning staff that looks more deeply at the federal options. i know there are some of you here today, the project manager, ms. green, who does the

legislative work for us. the most important thing that i took from the testimony is we have the potential to impact decisions at the mtc as well as state legislative representatives to create the imperative around this project. it is not unusual to have a gap, particularly in this type of economic environment. expectations around government funding are not being realized. i agree with you. it is not constructive to have us working this out for a particle here. there ought to be more real conversations. -- cathartically here. i think that we do face the situation where i feel the mta,

along with the transportation of our day, needs to be making a more compelling case for this project. let's just to recognize the fact that no major transportation projects has been built without major criticism. that is the democratic process. but in addition to closing this gap, we have to make a transit justice case as to why this is important for the neighborhoods that will be served, an economic case, ridership case. some of the issue being laid out here are easily rebuttable. i agree, there is a two pronged approach that we need to take. we commissioners need to step up and connect with our federal and state and regional representatives to make sure that they feel the pressure that we do from today's presentation, but i would also like to see the leadership of our capital planning effort come

forward and discuss meaningfully what the building blocks are for a solution, as well as stating, in an effective manner, why this is an important project. but i know people who do not support this project. they believe we should be using money in different ways. i think we all recognize the reality that the federal government will support us to build things, not operating things. we have to look at improving our system and making a meaningful connection to chinatown which can then be extended to other parts of the city. i sort of take this as a call to action, and i am fine with that, but we could be more on page than we are this morning. >> let me make a couple of comments. on behalf of the mta, we are comfortable we will be able to submit a ffga by closing the

gap. i am not overly concerned about cementing an acceptable ffga, as ta staff appears to be. secondly, some of the trade-off conversations are having every day. because of the nature of what we do, the dollars available to our business, those discussions happen every day. all dollars are going to the central subway and would not be available for operations. for those in the public that are concerned that we are taking money away from operations, it is not correct. we would not be able to have these funds for operation, irregardless. i just wanted to clarify that. as far as i am concerned, i am comfortable we will have a viable ffga in february 2011. supervisor campos: thank you.

commissioner avalos? supervisor avalos: just from the discussion that is happening between the ta, mta, i would like to see if we can have this discussion continued and have both parties come together to vett the list, look at other options before us, and maybe we can have a special meeting in the near future to do that. obviously, time is on the essence with the february deadline looming. i am actually nervous about this project. i would like to feel somewhat placated by supervisor dufty who have probably seen more of these before us, but i am nervous about our ability to close the gap. i would like to motion that we continue -- in two weeks -- i

think it would be great next week. supervisor campos: before we do that, i want to complete the remainder of the presentation, items 5 and 6, and then give an opportunity for public comment. i do think the suggestion is a good one, to make sure that we come back as soon as possible. next week makes sense. in terms of mechanics, when a presentation is made to the committee, there should be sharing of information, discussion prior to the committee meeting between the staff and two agencies. i do not think that will be affected in terms of advocating for funding if we are not on the same page. i think we have to put our best foot forward, and that requires

communication and collaboration to the maximum extent possible, and it should not take a committee hearing to make that happen. commissioner david chiu. supervisor chiu: thank you for the suggestion. it is a good one. i want to reiterate a couple of points that i think need to be emphasized. one, like commissioner dufty -- and i have asked this question to the number of different projects. where we are now is not a place where we should be. there are always funding gaps with funds of this size, however. i have full faith city staff will be able to figure this out. the second thing i want to say is, my comments are what i view as the ongoing tensions, rivalries between the two major transportation agencies in san francisco. it has been a very frustrating experience for me in my few years here working with the city

and county of san francisco to see the continued finger- pointing. i am not going to place blame in this instance as to who received information, who did not provide information. the fact is, we need everyone rowing in the right direction. that is what we're asking you to do. hopefully in a week, i would love to see a report where we have ironed these things out. i do not want to see what seems like indications of a dysfunctional organization. supervisor campos: supervisor chu? supervisor ch supervisor chu: thank you. when the call this meeting, our intention was to get closer to where we needed to be to close the gap. we heard about the gap previously.

today's presentation was saying, given the joint experiences of the two agencies and partners, where do we think we can realistically go with it? we had meetings with different organizations. today, what is problematic to me is not that we identify we have a gap. people have identified that it is not unusual for a project this large. what is problematic is i hear two different perspectives. one that is very concerned about figure out how we are going to close the gap, and the other agency completely confident that we can make it. that, to me, is problematic, to hear that we have such diverse perspectives. i think we need to come together again. i would be supportive of having another meeting. it is important to keep this issue hot on our list. to the extent that the mta, ta

supervisors can help with something, we need to be clear about what they are and exactly what it is we can do, whether it is telephone calls or something else that we can do. this project is important to many of us here on the board and in the city family. the other thing that would be helpful is, as we go through this last page, -- frankly, what we should have focused on is what is that road map to getting to that $137 million gap, as well as this additional money that we may not get it because of the timing. the ideas we have here are simply have page presentations. we should have been flushed out. we need the numbers associated with what we can realistically expect from any of these ideas to see how big a gap really is. what is instructive for me is identifying the cost savings from a low bid environment for

contracts could result in $40 million. that is helpful for me to understand. if we are only expecting a five million-dollar cap, i have a different perspective. i think when you come back from the presentation next week, if we could start putting numbers to it realistically about where we think the numbers are for any of these particular ideas, and what those trade-off decisions are. that would be helpful for us in our decision making. i have had conversation before about the decisions of the mta whether you put the money toward the maintenance of your current fleet. there are equal things that are just as important. we need to make sure those things are on the table so we can consider them when we talk about closing the gap. if i could make a request, to the extent that there is anything our board can do to help with getting grants or other things to come in the door, let us know.

when you come back with a presentation, let's put numbers to it. let's have a sense of what is realistic in terms of how we can close at $137 million gap. supervisor campos: commissioner dufty? i just wanted to -- supervisor dufty: i just wanted to bring up, you do not have a new start project that is championed by a mayor pierre bois there is a transition, as mayor newsom takes a new position in state government, in the interim period, to bring that perspective into it. i would hope representatives from the mayor's office would come and participate in the ta hearing we have next week. i would also ask matt muni and

the transportation authority combined to have a presentation on this project. i do not want to continue to have great division on this project and this project being besmirched because of the value long term. we need to put that on the record and stark abusively at the board commack as the mayor, as different transportation agencies, making that compelling case. there is institutional tension between planning and programming and an operational agency. they exist in every locality where you have split agencies. in some localities, they have merged the functions. i do not know that that is better. to a certain extent, a bit of tension is a good thing. you do not get bureaucratic indifference. there might be an agency that is a chalk, yapping at the dalmatian, but to a certain

extent, that creates a system of checks and balances that i think isn't valuable. that is what i appreciate about htthe ta. i can say that in past years, it has been more harmonious than in recent times, but that is just a personal opinion. but to a certain extent, there will always be tension when you have this dual agency function. from the public's standpoint, it does serve them because there is a check and balance. there is not one had controlling the message, so to speak. then we come down the road and by that there are much more significant problems. i think those of us who are commissioners opposed the effort to have a new structure for the ta, have the mayor make appointments, have more control over that. i do not disagree but this is not the presentation that anyone

of us would type. i think coming back next week, giving the mayor's office involved, having the ta get those involved organized, going to be of organizations, to create a clearer path, going forward. supervisor campos: let's complete the remainder of the presentation. i would ask staff to please come forward. > good morning, a share, commissioners. i will be presenting this item. very briefly, we have the central subway.

this was done in september. we are expecting a letter from the fta later this year, possibly this month. february, 2011, and as you heard earlier of the funding agreement by the end of next year, the agreement structure will begin shortly thereafter. the early construction phase is all the work that gets done before the full funding agreement. it has two utilities' contracts, utilities boarding contracts with three different notices to proceed. two take place during the early

construction phase. this early construction phase has a budget of $112 million. the contract for utilities location is under way. basically it is for relocating utilities around the station. that project is now 90% complete. construction started in january of this year and should complete in january of the following year. there were no prop k funds in this particular contract. here are some pictures of the progress of this contract. harrison street, clementine and

utilities for location to. this contract has a scope for relocation on union square. reroute to the 45 union conduct system. it has a small business enterprise goal of 20%. we have some good news on this as we were talking about earlier with cost savings. construction management bid $16.8 million as opposed to the budget of 22.6 million. right now the mta is in the process of certifying the contract. taking it to the board in

december. the construction is scheduled to start in january. what remains of early construction, this is not part of the allocation request, but for the letter from december we will have the advertisements coming in february, completing this in september of 2012. if a location requires an amendment, we will reprogram our $6.7 million from the right of way phase to the early construction phase. the reason that we are doing this is the m.t.a. decided to use other sources of funding for the right of way phase.

there for these funds became available for the utility's contracts. there are some special conditions on this contract allocation. the first one is that the allocation is up to $22.6 million. once the contract is finalized and awarded, the mta will obligate the surface funds are around $6 million. also that the mta will provide additional funds with delayed expenditures to the extent possible which, as usual, with most of our locations there is the condition that the authority is included in all of the meetings. that completes the presentation. i am open to questions.

any questions -- supervisor campos: thank you. any questions? we welcome -- we will open this to public comment. >> savenuni.com. backup plans are needed for this project besides the financial backer of plans. we all recognize the republican congress'attitudes, which may be vindictive, very political. they are looking at challenging high-speed rail. certainly, large infrastructure projects will be threatened. the state's transportation cutbacks are started to be --

starting to be translated down words into the local increasingly more. in its january 2010 letter we were written to, saying that the central subway project is a very high risk project. having seen many of this type, they have stated that the local agencies must cover all cost overruns of the project. we need back up plans for that. the central subway project has already risen in cost. a project, in our minds, has a very serious conflict with the writers who needs in the near future. the own mta reports the deferred

investment within the system of which $663 million is required to replace an aging fleet of 205 motor corp. -- motor coaches and charley -- trolleys. as we have seen, the computer system, trolly failures, the delays are mounting. within the next month, within the next year, the munis system and writers will lose surface increasingly. the logic that you have in eight years, we will have a system that will benefit the city immensely. even if that were true, which it is not, in the near term riders will have no solution to their failing service. rising fares. service cutbacks. the design of the system, if one

were to look at it seriously -- and we have a lot of technical information -- the design does not make sense. it disconnects the system from the market street corridor. it does not connect to the station. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. next speaker. >> yes, good morning, supervisors. i am a member of savemuni.com. our white paper was given out at a press conference last week. at that press conference a rather radical idea was brought up. which was that the federal money, if it does not come

through, there could be a request to allocate it to one of the other projects. he did not deny that this was a possibility. i have not heard it brought out today. suggesting that if we did not take the money here, it would go to florida. he also agreed that he would meet to take the subject further. i would like you, commissioners, to ask the transit authority and mta to put that into the future discussions. it does not sound very optimistic, getting the $370 million. it would be a shame if that federal money went someplace else. i am sure that you have all heard about that mayor in the east that gave federal money back and abandoned the entire project. supervisor campos: next speaker,

please. >> good morning, supervisors. resident of district 3. including chinatown and north beach. we really need this project in chinatown. we are desperate for better transportation. saying that money can go to other places, 10 years ago we mentioned to the supervisor -- why not spend $10 million on 10 bus lines? we all know, as the supervisor reaffirmed this morning