union, down on fill more and back down. they are already bus streets. why put the buses on residential streets when there is dedicated commercial streets for buses less than a minute away? number two, no one is against the exploratorium. but this place, lyon and chestnut has been inundated with cross traffic people from the presidio, who ironically were supposed to solve this problem and add extra parking in their area for everybody according to the e.i.r. and yet they reneged on the cars, and we have them at the yacht harbor and every place else. the one thing that disturbed me was the drawings no this intersection at lyon and richardson. we didn't get to see them until

about 24 hours ago. no figures at all. >> ok, thank you. next speaker, please? >> the last person is ariel? >> high there. i am from the board of directors of the marina community association. i wanted to address you on the issue of the charter buses. previously, 75% of the buses that are visiting the exploratorium are yellow school buses. those are not the buses we are talking about under item 11-amp, buts it is the 25% of the charter buses. our neighborhood is currently facing an epidemic of charter buses not related to schools, but related to the businesses who come and pick up employees in our neighborhood. we are fortunate that they are shuttling employees, but unfortunately, these charter

buses have been inundating our neighborhood daly. we have a number of buses, i would say 10-20 buses in the morning and evening range. these buses are operating illegally in our neighborhoods and on residential streets not permitted for bus us. has been no enforcement. our fear is that these school buses that will be bringing children to the exploratorium, which we are obviously in support of educating children and giving them vital science information through these types of trips, we are concerned about enforcement. if you have a charter bus, they are very large, have tinted windows and hired drivers. how do we differentiate between those buses and the buses that are breaking the law? with this loophole, now they

have carte blanche to come into the neighborhood, and we are actively trying to keep them out. we want to know what the enforcement will be and who our neighbors can talk to if we see there are other organizations besides school field trips using charter buses and how we can go forward working together with keeping the neighbors happy and keeping students traveling to the exploratorium. thank you. >> all right. >> that is the last person. >> i have a question. >> all right. go ahead. >> as someone swith small children, i know the merits of the exploratorium, and with a home in a neighborhood, i appreciate the merits of traffic flow. we have heard everything they have said. i am a tad confused because i hear some people say they are worried this exemption will let

too many buses in. and then some people are saying it is too narrow because some children come on non-yellow buses. the way i read it is the exemption applies to school pupil activity buses, whether yellow or white, so that the exemption is for students, but not broader. it appears to me you have driven the middle of this issue, but i want to be sure i have it right. >> to clarify, the current restrictions that are in place are for weight restrictions and tour bus restrictions. currently the regulations already exempt school buses, the yellow ones and the ones you see commonly. this tick proposal we have in front of you is to exempt those that are chartered but are not

yellow that are carrying school children. >> right. >> i think in the staff report we specifically mentioned that during the peak season, there is up to 40 school buses total. of those, three quarters of them are the yellow school buses. we are only talking about an addition of 5-10 extra buses we are exempting with this proposal. >> i didn't catch the last name, but the resident named maxwell who said he was worried about the additional buses to get to his, the only buses we are exempting are the school active buses? >> yes. there are very few of them in number. >> that gets to the final speaker, who helps me understand the residents' concern of the buses. i will ask the question she asked. how are we going to enforce this and make sure that nonschool activity buses aren't using this as further cover to do what she says is unlawful?

>> the existing regulations are still in place. we will be sure to be working with the police department's traffic company to make sure these regulations are rigorously enforced, especially when this set of regulations go into effect in two weeks. >> i don't want to get too far into the weeds, maybe if a charter sbuss a school activity bus will get a plaque or something to differentiate them. again, i don't want to go too far, but i hear the comment that they don't want this to give greater leeway to nonschool activity buses. >> we agree completely. that is not our intent. we are very cognizant the impact the neighborhood is experiences from the massive construction project, and we

are endeavoring to keep the impacts to a minimum. one final thing. instead of doing what was suggested, that we use -- allow these buses to use existing streets that don't have restrictions to loop around to the exploratorium. these streets, while they technically don't have restrictions, they are physically very narrow, less than 40 feet in width, and they are not suitable for that type of movement. that is why we recommended the routting. >> there was one other request for information, which i gathered was addressed by the proposal, but the specific request had something to do with one street becoming two-way instead of one way? >> off line. i failed to mention will

bumgarnergardnerer, -- will bumgarner is here, and he can talk about the exact dimensions. >> chairman, my personal view is that he has addressed my concerns. i want our residents to know that this is not necessarily the end of it, but we need to deal with this right now. this is a time sensitive issue. so my inclination would be to move the proposal but make very clear with our residents that they can meet with mr. bumgarner and others, and if there are questions we can revisit it. >> there is a motion on the floor. is there a second? >> second. >> question? >> the traffic moderate --

modifications are temporary. modifications are going to be made for certain intersections and streets to allow for a more permanent temporary solution. >> a more permanent temporary solution. >> one question i have is what is the ultimate impact to the neighborhood streets? if i am looking at this construction document correctly, they are going to have wider street space. we all love nice quiet narrow streets. what happens to their streets ultimately after doyle drive construction is over? >> what we are proposing is to make the improvements at these two intersections so the buses can use the elevated structure to get to the temporary parking lots without having to use the city streets. as soup as happens, we will lift the temporary restrictions

on the city streets and reimpose the full range of restrictions on tour buses and weight. >> and does lyon street go back to the way it was before everything started? i guess i want to make sure that the residents end up with a situation that is either the same or possibly even better than what we had before we changed the traffic restricts and before the parking lot gets moved and doyle drive is constructed. >> good afternoon. >> will bumgarner, a consultant to the county transportation authority. the intersections could certainly be put back to the way that it is today. once the doyle drive project is complete, it will be restored to the existing condition.

>> so the residents end up with a situation that is the same or better than what they have now? >> yes. it won't be required anymore. >> ok. >> and is this proposal sunsetted such that it will automatically go back to that or not? >> the intersection and improvements do not have that fixed end date on them. [inaudible] >> that's fine. that is the state of intent, is to return that -- >> and if i understand it correctly, the way the resolution is written, we do not have to come back to the board. it can be dealt with under the authority of my office immediately. [inaudible] >> right. >> and we will just reverse it back to its original -- >> and after doyle drive construction is completely over, the neighbors get back a street that looks the same as it was -- the same or better than it was. that is what i wanted to make sure of. i completely understand the

neighbors' concern, having buses on the street where you haven't had buses before. that is a big change to your neighborhood. as long as it is a temporary change for the buses, and ultimately their street is trurned to what it was, i am ok with that. >> anything else? >> i know there has been a certain amount of discussion in the city by some supervisors about the whole charter bus phenomenon, and it is all over the area. do you have any update where any that have is? >> there is a report that we were finalizing for president chiu with some proposals as a pilot to work with some of the charter operators. we want to come up with a solution that is beneficial to both parties. we were focusing, i think, primarily in the norton beach area as a pilot? >> yes, we were focusing on the

tour bus side. the charter buses like the googles and all those vehicles are being looked at by the t.a. they are doing a shuttle survey. so we sort of bifurcated the project. they are working with a t.a. on the googles, the yahoos and all those buses. >> are we likely to hear about this sometime in the next several months? >> absolutely. probably in the next month or so. >> we have heard about the google type buses. >> and they all have an impact on muni and things of that nature. we thought it would be important for the city's benefit who look at who is managing these operations from a regulatory standpoint, and that is not occurring right now. >> at the risk of stating the obvious when we are looking at

ways to look at enforcement of private dozen drivers more efficient, i would want to include tour buses that may be parking illegally. >> we have a motion and a second. do we have any further discussion? >> we have one more. >> jan. >> we will have jan and that will be it. >> i am jan. i live at 3252 lyon street, which is directly facing the island that is going to be cut in order to make that two-way road across from the island to the other piece of the land there. i, too, i am concerned about enforcement because right now we have a one-way road. cars cut right across doyle drive into the presidio against the arrow coming out, and we have the opposite where they

are coming into lion street. nobody is ticketing these cars. there should be a camera or something. if we are going to have a two-way road now, it is going to complicate matters even more. i was glad to hear about mrs. bankman's comments about will it go back? my question is will they restore that piece of island they are going to cut off to make another road way, and will we go back to what we have now? once they cut it, what happens? my other thought is we are doing a lot of this for the benefit of the exploratorium, and we all appreciate the exploratorium, and we feel that they have a marvelous program there. but they are moving shortly, and they are moving to the emembarcadero dareo. all of a sudden we are put in

this position of looking like the bad guys, but they are not going to have anything at the embarcadero. how are they going to manage? >> we have a motion and second on the floor. all in favor say aye. >> the eist have it. >> i want to thank everyone who participated in the discussion. >> presentation and discussion regarding the year end budget for 2011. >> i am going to ask our chief financial officer and director of i.t. to brief you on our five-month act what financials for this fiscal year as well as a preliminary projection in terms of the closing of the fiscal year. as you are aware, this is five months in. we still have another seven more months in terms of our financial performance. but we thought it would be good

to get you some early information as to the status of our revenues and expenditures to the budget. >> goo add noon. before i start talking about this year, i just want to take the board back where we were two years ago. two years ago at this time i was in front of you with a $129 million problem. as you know, we had significant ways to address those. last year at this time i was in front of you with about a $50 million problem. that is when we started talking about service reductions, and we implemented increases in fares, fines and fees. the picture looks a lot brighter than where we were three years ago. unfortunately, we still have some work to do. with that let me start off. >> are you going to use the word problem, or are you going

to avoid that altogether? >> i am trying not to use the word. if i do, please let me know. >> the message matches the color. >> on this first slide, this is the revenue picture. the first column is the approved budget that you approved on april 20th last year. you approved a budget of $749.5 million. subsequently during the budget review at the board of supervisors, the budget was aadvised plus some technical changes, including the parking grand jury revenues. that increased the budget to $775 million. through the first five months, we have actually received $327 million of revenues, and we are projecting the end of the year at $763.4 million, which is 11.6 million below our budget.

i will go through that in more detail in the next slide. i wanted to focus on this bottom line, which is the $35 million. every year as you know, we end the year off, and we have prior year commitments that we carry forward into the future year. last year we entered into contract and commitments of $35 million which we didn't spend. so we are moving that revenue budget over to this year, and on the expenditure side you will see it being spent in certain line items. that is why the budget has now been increased by $35 million, to reflect the careover from the prior year. so the good news is our traps it fares. our transit fares, we are projecting a $7.4 million positive variance on the fares. the story here is most of the variance is in the discounted

fares, not in the past pass. as the fast pass has increased, our life line fares in tick -- because we reduced the life line fare while we increase the fast pass. it has created more innocentive for people to purchase a life line. because of that we are seeing a $4.6 million increase in the budget. we are seeing a $1 million over budget in the discount passes, which is the senior use and disabled passes. cash fare is about a $500,000 increase. the class pass which is available to the universities, a $600,000 boof budget projection. and proof of payment, we are showing an increase above budget. the one thing that is negative on the fares is the limited smart card surcharge that we had budgeted for but that you

agreed to rescind earlier in the year. in the operating grant, this is just -- >> i want to make sure we amplify that. if you recall, we had the 25 cent surcharge on the limited breeze card. i wouldn't say it is a disposable card, but we were trying to recoupe the cost of that card. our ridership from time to time is using a single ride pass. even though that limited use pass can be reloaded repeatedly. but it was a 25 cent surcharge that we rescinded earlier this year. >> all right. >> so on the operating grant, the $7 million, all that is doing is taking the $7 million we budgeted on the operating side and moved it to the capital side. this was a one-time funding source for the service add-back from problem kmp.

the next area, parking traffic fines and fees, this is where we are seeing the biggest negative variance. it is -- we are projecting about $14.2 million below budget. the majority of that is coming from parking citations. we are having to adjust our budget because we have had delayed implementation of some of the parking things you approved in the basketball. the m.t.e. issued permits for city vehicles and code enforcement. we will be giving you a stat -- status on those projects. they are all in various forms of implementation, and we expect to have them implemented in the next several months. we had a $3 new court surcharge implemented by the state page. now it is taking an additional $3 out of every citation.

we have decided not to increase citations. that asounts for the $14.2 million variance on the parking and traffic fines and fees area. taxi services, we are projecting a zero variance because we are still expecting to collect $10 million from the medallion sales. i have talked to the leader, and she feels comfortable she will be able to do that. we have collected about $2.1 million from 22 medallions. i noticed in december the rate of medallion sales picked up. the majority of the medallions sold are the m.t.a.-owned medallions. this number is actually going to be going up in the next several months. on the other, we are showing a $500,000 deadline or negative

variance. if you remember, the m.t.a. board approved an amendment to the advertising contract to allow a certain amount of vehicles to be fully wrapped. the board of supervisors tabled that, so we are not going to see that revenue. we heard some good news from the city that we are expecting about $2.7 million baseline from the city based on initial first quarter projections. all those line items add up to a $11.6 million negative variance on the revenue side of the house. on our extend tours -- expenditures, the first, second and third columns reflect the same as the revenue side. the the first column is the

approved budget and the seg column is the revised budget. we have spent about $79.2 million. for example, our work orders show $65.2 million has been encumbered but has not been paid because we are still waiting for documentation. so we are projecting on the expenditure side that we will spend $818 million, which is a 9.6 million variance. the reason the line items look negative is we are showing the prior year expenditures being spend as a line item. they are shown as a negative variance. the next slide gives you more detail. the big variance we are seeing in our expenditures side is on

salaries and benefits. the majority of that is about $16.6 million due to overtime as a result of mostly special events like the world series. vacancies due to early retirement and front line positions. unlike previous years it has been operator overtime, it is overtime in the nonoperator areas. i don't think we were adequately budgeted in this area because we didn't anticipate the level of early retirement, nor the impact of furloughs and special events. the other area is a $5.3 million commited expenditure from a prior year. this is a prior year liability that we have carried forward, and we are projecting at this point we will be paying out

some of that. to the extent we don't, this would help address our deficit. >> we wanted to point out also that in that category there was increased level effort as it related to maintenance on rolling stock and tickly on rail. if you recall a few months ago when we were really having difficulty in terms of vehicle reliability and rail operations, there was an effort to increase management and maintenance levels. >> the next area is contract and other services. when you see an explanation that says f.y. 2010 commit suspend tours. these are contracts we entered into in 2010, but because they weren't budgeted in 2011, they are shown as a negative variance, but they are beingoff set by a revenue amount.

it is not really a true deficit, but it is a deficit from what was budgeted. materials and supplies, we moved $4.7 million from the operating budget to the capital budget. the remaining part is fy 2010 committed expenditures. same thing on the material on supplies. some of it is going to capital budget because of prop k and the remaining part is the prior year commitment. the next three areas, rent and building insurance payment and work orders are prior year commitments that will expend this year. the work orders, we had $4. million in work orders unpaid from last year because we had not received the documentation. we carried them over to this year, and to the extent we get the appropriate documentations,

well moosm the dash make the payment. the bottom line is the off set of the $35 million offsets that . so this is the picture. $11.6 million negative variance on revenue. $9.6 expenditure average, which is about a $21 million problem. if you care it to when we started, it is not the same magnitude we have been face negligence prior years. it is about 2.6% of our budget, and we believe it is minkable by taking the following actions. on the revenue side, we have to continue to make sure that we