project cost, we just have to put into a contingency bucket at a later point in time? >> that is right. the plan allows us to reduce our contingency levels for the program. further to the point, currently, the program carries $300 million in program contingency. that is part of the $1.58 billion program. this is not allocated, not assigned to any effort in the program, besides program contingency. in the management plan, there are seven intermediate milestones. if the agency meets those milestones, those contingency levels will be reduced, and a radically, it could go down to zero in 2018, when we finish the program. the effort, as outlined in the risk management plan and

contingency management plan, is that when the program matures, levels will drop, and when those contingency levels are essentially freed a by the fta kroger, how -- program, the agency will be able to reprogram those funds back into the capital program. commissioner chu: so the current $300 million that exists in plans, to the extent that we have additional savings, that would add on top of that contingency? so for example, the 18.5? >> exactly. commissioner chu: and as you meet different milestones, by the end of the project, this contingency balances can be reduced? >> yes, requirements will be lowered, and so the surplus funds, the agency will have the chance to reprogram that money. commissioner chu: so the point i am taking away, the project we have right now, 1.57, that could

be down -- brought down in terms of cost savings, but we are not ready to reflect that in the numbers until we meet milestones, until the contingency is released. >> thanexactly. commissioner campos: commissioner david chiu? commissioner chiu: i just wanted to clarify a couple of things. i know we continue to get questions about this from constituents, some of which are here. the overall project is one. $1.578 billion, and the local contribution is only about 10%? >> right, there is a three-to- one benefit for every local dollar invested in federal allocation. >> i know i get a lot of e-mails

from constituents assuming that the city is spending $1.6 billion, and it is a portent to make that point. the gap you have been trying to close is a wonder $37 million gap. $100 million of that will come from state bond money is. -- $137 billion gap. we did not otherwise count on that state but monebond money cs that correct? >> yes, that is correct. commissioner chiu: other pieces coming from savings from current projects. the question i have is, is this money that otherwise would have been used -- will there be more products delayed as a result of the use of this money? it was not counted on for other

projects, right? >> going back to -- currently, the agency, under prop1a, has a balance of $137 million where it can reprogram the funds to a project, and the requirement for that bond fund is that it shows connectivity to high-speed rail. the agency decided to utilize central subway as a way to demonstrate that connectivity. under proper 1b, $78 million of the uncommitted current bond allocations, uncommitted to any capital program, so 72.3 would

be allocated to central subway, leaving under 6,000,004 other programs. that said, under prop 1b, the agency has also allocated $6 million to other projects other than the central subway, like the rehab program, and the metro east facility, geneva canopy project. motor coach rehab, white motor overhaul -- light motor or halt. so there are other producing the prop 1b funding. commissioner campos: so what is the answer to the question, whether or not the use of this money comes to the expense of other projects? is the answer no, is that what i am hearing?

>> out of the prop 1b effort, the agency is assigned it capital funding level. central subway is its number-one priority, and with that number one priority, has garnered a lion's share of that. but there are other programs benefiting from prop 1b. commissioner chu: what you are saying, in terms of the $72 million, that does not come from taking it away from another project that has already been allocated. it was previously unallocated money and is going toward this current priority. commissioner campos: i think that clarifies it. thank you.

>> now, the sfmta needs partners to time of the allocation of these funds, primarily we are asking for advocacy, identification of the prop 1a bond funds in the state budget, so that we can put in a program request for the $34 million. also, for a time allocation of the issuance of the prop1b funds. along with our partners, we will keep as a dig to you board resolutions considering -- presenting you for resolution is considering an advocacy for state and federal funding partners. these resolutions will help us two fold in helping push forward

allocations of prop 1a and 1b bond funds that are subject to state process, and also as a demonstration to the government, the city of san francisco is fully supportive man behind the central subway program in order to garner approval of the full funding grant agreement projected in november of next year. in closing, to provide you with some of the benefits of the program, central subway will become the most active realigned in the system. it will have a projected ridership of over 20% of any other line in our system when it is fully operational. it will provide a much-needed vital and downtown link to underserved neighborhoods and will connect areas in the city that are currently experiencing dramatic growth. central subway will also lower

our future operating budget impacts, introduce $1 billion into our local economy, creating thousands of local employment opportunities. also, it represents an unprecedented three-to-one return of federal dollars for every dollar invested of our local dollars. a big thank you goes out to all of our stakeholders, partners for working with us, to close the projects remaining funding gap. we will continue to work closely with our founding partners and the s.f.cta as we begin preparation to revise our financial plan to the federal transit administration in february of 2011. commissioner campos: thank you. just a quick question. i know there were some initial remarks about this. some questions for the executive director. i want to keep it brief because

the have a number of members of the audience here. it does this plan makes sense to you, are you supportive of this strategy? i know a lot of work has happened between this and last meeting to make sure both agencies are on the same page. i wanted to make sure that we get that for the record. >> chairman, commissioners, executive director. i think this is exactly where we need to be. this shows that we can and do work effectively together. the most important feature of this is we are really leveraging the advantage of these state bonds to get us close to the federal price. the other thing that john mentioned, that i think is of

significance, we are using the flexibility we have from prop k funds. i want to reassure all of you -- and i want to thank you, commissioners, for the question -- large transit agencies have large portfolios of projects. not all problems are on the same schedule. there are many reasons why different projects run on different schedules. this is a great opportunity to optimize. you are not taking money away from further construction, things that would slow down the highest priorities of the agency. that is something the public needs to hear. for good or worse, it is a harbinger of what we are likely to see in the next couple of years, as money is tight and optimization of all of these

programs, leveraging the money forward so we get the biggest bang for the buck. this is the right way forward. i am gratified that we were able to bring it to this point. i would be more than happy to support it. commissioner campos: thank you. commissioners, colleagues? commissioner carmen chu? commissioner chu: looking at the $137 million laid out, $71 million from the capital program, that is pretty straightforward. with regards to prop1b and prop1b, flush out the reason why we need to work on advocacy? can you speak about how this relates to this money and what

is necessary? >> the bond fund, as was mentioned, represents a need opportunity to leverage bond funds for the grant process. that said, the goal of the financial plan the agency will be submitting in february is designed to represent a fully funded, committed program to the federal transit administration. that said, the bond funds are still subject to other actions beyond the control of the city, agency. so one of the challenges we have before us is to demonstrate this money can be included within the state budget, allocated

within the program in a timely fashion so as not to harm the delivery of the program or require the agency to initiate some short-term financing in order to move the program along. that said, this challenges doable with advocacy. as the executive director said, the program has a means of leveraging this money, it has a means of advocacy to include the $34 million and prop1a to the state budget. the california transportation commission has already demonstrated it likes the central subway program. with the approval of the $27 million in march.

under prop1b, although it is a voter-allocated issuance, and that needs to be brought to its full capacity. >> commissioners, i will be very brief. i doubt that there will be too many projects before the transportation commission that can come into the meeting with this much promise of federal money. that is really what is so fundamentally right about this. we are -- in terms of how you solve a transportation funding challenge, this is an idea to get in front of the treasury body, getting in front of bond

capacity, and this is a great way to leverage those bonds. on that basis, i think it is an effective strategy. commissioner chu: in terms of the next steps, with 1a, 1b funding, making sure that they are in the budget, if they are already not, and second, the bond allocation, issuance. >> that is right. commissioner campos: great, thank you very much. colleagues, questions? before we open up to public comment, commissioner avalos could not be here. he has a sick child at home. i wonder if we could have a motion to excuse him? thank you. any public comment? without objection. if we could now go to public comment. i do not know if we have speaker cards or any of them members of

the public that would like to speak, you each have two minutes. please come up. you each have two minutes. >> good morning, again, supervisors. my name is joan would, i live in north beach. i am here representing friends of washington square. this latter group's interest arose because of the plans to extend the machines stay.

i think that was a way to persuade the power brokers that eventually this somewhere will go on and on to fisherman's wharf. anyway, the federal transportation agency wrote to muni back in january the central subway was inherently risky. that letter had led to the decision that we had to put up this good faith money in order to get the federal money. "the chronicle" article seems to think that they have the money, "and the examiner" was not so confident. muni does not have a good track of handling money. i went out to one of their facilities on illinois and that has been open for business for many years, but they do not have any business. it is a view for project. they have 10 open spaces

available for vehicles. three of them were open, but there were no vehicles there. this was at 4:00 in afternoon. it is just an underused facility. i also think, to assume that they are going to get state bond money, they need to see letters from the state confirming that. the fed's will be remiss if they do not ask for verification if this money is available, and to shortchange muni riders by taking money from other projects to put into the subway -- a commissioner campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning, my name is wilma pang. this project was supposed to be through chinatown. i want to say something in chinese. [speaking in chinese]

[speaking in chinese] i just said, i am 70 years old -- what i am saying is, if i take the s or l car from the sunset, i must get off at powell street in order for me to go up to

union square to catch the subway, right? then i have to go down to union square, take the subway and then go to chinatown, get off on washington street. if i want to go shopping, i have to go to pacific and stockton. after three or four backs, back to washington street to go to the subway, then to union square, walk up, and then to powell street to take the l car. i want carmen chu to explain to the sunset residents -- the bulk of the chinese come from the sun seset. most chinese will say, the hell with the subway, i will take the bus. commissioner campos: next

speaker please. >> my name is bernard myers. i am a member of the people of task force of the board last year. our concern in that task force was to help the continued robustness of the entire public transportation system in the city. the allocation of substantial amounts of public funds, to me, to this project -- and i will let others speak about what is wrong with the product itself, but the allocation of these funds, the potential of being held for any cost overruns, has the potential to impoverished the system for years to come, which will not allow a lot of jobs to take place. just to justify it on the basis

of leveraging federal funds is almost an end in itself, as this the gentleman indicated, does not do it. you should not be so blinded by the idea that the money, the product itself, is not worth it. the other thing that i am really amazed about, all of the supervisors who have transportation -- parts of the transportation system in their district, are perfectly willing to allow the system to not be able to robustly rebuild and expand those systems, just to allow this one idiot boondoggle project to take place in a part of the city for the purpose of leveraging funds. i have to say, i have a suspicion that there may be other agendas here because this

is always touted as good for chinatown, it is going to destroy the stockton corridor. commissioner campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> i am a transportation engineer. last thursday, there was a meeting of the central subway citizens advisory group. at the meeting, we expressed our doubts that the subway would cut muni operating costs, and again asked for a breakdown of the cost estimates. in response, he assured the group that "by making people more efficient, it would cut costs. in response to our question, he referred us to be reports. we have completed an initial review of those reports, but first, a bit of history.

a draft eir published in 2007 showed the subway share saving money. that astounding benefit was repeatedly broadcast by others -- published a year later. the figure was now down to 3.1 8 million a year say but it was still savings, so again, that savings was trumpeted in many public meetings. two months ago, the mta submitted this new structure board, so now we see the subway would increase we have gone from saving 27.82 + $7 million. should be aware of that when you are listening to stop you're being told. as recent as the last week,

people were being told of cost savings. is this one example of the many accuracies and distortions that have misled people, including you, that bill -- that chinatown would benefit from this ill- conceived project. thank you -- commissioner campos: thank you. >> linda chapman. i have lived in not hill for over 40 years. most of us are completely dependent on transit. over two-thirds of the household when we did the census had no vehicle at all. i am very sympathetic with the idea that maybe a well-designed subway corridor could work, but this is not it. if you live around polk, suter, how do you get to the north? you go down to sutter, and then

you get on the 30 or 45. now what is going to happen here? you are going to go down to the civic center, get off at washington, and then wait for a bus. i do not think so. they are going to reduce service through there. i am all for capturing federal money. put it into van ness somehow. you have heard about my last winter rainy trip, when the meltdown occurred, it took me two hours to get to my school. last weekend, i tried to take the van ness bus because of the rain. you do not have it -- expect to have a bad experience at 6:00 at night. the driver told us to get out and take taxicabs. i went on a 4.5 hour odyssey

tried to get to berkeley. i never got there. the van ness vrt plan is not going to work. people need more time to get across, not less. there are 13 places where another bus crosses dan ness. they are dependent on making the signals go for that bus. what happens to the pedestrians? commissioner campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> howard stress. you have to know, with these high speed rail funds, 34, 72, there is already millions of dollars the state is contributing. you should really think about this connectivity fund. these and do not connect, they run in parallel. the central subway is parallel to t e