for the funding plan. that is definitely at the high point of the legislative agenda. did you have a question? of course, advocating for funding for the approvement program so funding can be used for these projects. and local funds will be reimbursed. that is my presentation. i am glad to answer any questions for you about this agenda. i will turn the mike over. >> i just wanted to thank you and lombardo for the great work and the regional approach. there is a coalituion, the county coalition this came out

of. what is this alliance? >> these are the counties with sales tax in the county. there is a coalition forming over the years to gather a couple of times a year, coming to a meeting of the minds on a legislative agenda. >> this 2011 legislative agenda, can you talk about how this is different? it seems very similar and flexibility is a key part. >> there is not that much different. increasing revenue and protecting revenue. that has not changed. if this is reaffirmed, there is a level of certainty as far as protection revenue, which wasn't

in play at this time last year. however, transportation revenue is always at risk of diversion. and high-speed rail, time is of the essence to get the bonds sold and getting the funds flowing in particular, among other projects. >> we have mr. mark watts. >> glad to be here. we have spoken in the past month about the tax swap. it was capitulated here for your benefit. the budget sub-committee met on these issues, and have moved the big budget items off to when the general fund is decided upon or

not. the goal of both houses is to have the $25 billion package with the tax extentions and cuts. this will come back in a month to deal with the technical aspects and their budget requests. today, we hoped to have the senate meet. they will meet on thursday. they -- the republican caucuses are in an off site. they put it off until thursday when both parties and houses are back in session. we do expect all the work we have done since the passage of prop 26 to focus on the

reenactment of the fuel tax swap. there was strong indication of support, but if there is failure to adopt the solutions early, we will be in the same soup as well. they won't let one program area move ahead if it all falls apart in late february or early march. the fuel tax will go if the budget solution is addressed. we recommended not bringing a matrix for you, because the number of bills -- however, a reminder that a week from this friday is the last day of bill

introduction. there will be 10 bills on there and we will give you a highlight of what each one does to guide you in your positions on the bill. i did want to draw your attention to this bill. bell from san jose amended his bill to reflect the governance by adding appointees from the mayor of oakland and capping the representatives, nd thaand that measure is in play. he finally got the green light from mtc. it will be in the commission as

the first hurdle. you wouldn't typically expect a policy hearing this early. it depends on the pressure they bring to bear. i haven't heard of any special efforts. i would not be surprised to hear them pushing for a hearing. they would waid for other bills. we are monitoring this on a regular basis. >> ab-57? >> it is b.e.a.l.l. just a comment, the assembly transportation committee is not represented well by the bay area, with one person. susan from contra costa county. we will have to look for allies

in other areas who probably don't care about this battle or concern. so it will be more difficult and i can report that amiano is on this. he started charting out the game plan to go after the bill and make changes that are needed. your delegation is on top of this. but the bill is not set. >> mr. chair. this is a signifigant policy issue, clearly. one i am sure will get a lot of debate. i am aware that commissioner wiener introduced a resolution opposing the change. i do not know, but i -- mark is

not able to assure you this bill will not be moving fast. i wouldn't do my job if i didn't suggest you want to take another position on the bill. this month. in which case, you would want to make the move today. and there is some place to start from in terms of a position. and so that the delegation has a clear signal, not just from the supervisors but the authority, so this could be modified based on what happens. at this point, that is what seems to be the prudent course of action. >> we don't have this on the legislative update.

is it appropriate to take action > >> it could be the item 3 action, to oppose the change. >> the bill has not been introduced? >> it has been. i do not really know what kind of schedule this will be on. but this is not the most likely scenario it could be an urgency bill. but there is no assurance it won't move quickly. i think you should be on record. you can -- i can take tethe action to the full authority or you can modify item three to include language related to that. it is your pleasure.

>> commissioner mar, i will make that motion. >> is there any objection? we should make that so it has been moved. we would like that added with number three. the legislative program. one following question. do you have a crystal ball? >> normally, the hearings would be in late march. they were introduced in december and it didn't do anything, and it passed the 30-day period.

they have a bill ready to go. we will get back to the transportation committee for the policy bill hearings. this is typically early to mid march, when most bills are ready. if history is guidance, it would be mid-march. there is a quick set between now and that time. there is no appetite and until they get past march 7, it will foster ill will. i think it would be a bad play to try to go fast. but i wouldn't set it aside.

mid-march is when we look at the bill. >> the only thing i would ask, given the timeline between our meetings, you gain knowledge that is moving faster. can you keep us updated, as a committee and the body as a whole. >> i will be coordinating with the lobbying folks. >> thank you. if there are no other questions, we open to public comment. is there anyone here? seeing none, it is closed. so, can we have a motion on item three, the approval of the 2011 state and federal legislative program?

and without objection? so we will move this forward. >> next item? >> the authorization of the director -- an action item. >> mrs. laford has more on the efleet project. >> anna laford with the transportation authority. this is the result of an action the board took in november. adopting a resolution of local support. this project recieved a grant of federal congestion managment funds. city car share had to partner

with a public agency. the scope of this project is outlined on page 20 of the packet. city car share will deply and purchase 12 full-battery vehicles, 12 hybrid, and 12 neighborhood with 12 chargers. the cost is $2.4 million. theose above and beyond will be provided by city car share. we will make sure it follows all the guidelines from the state

department of transportation to administer federal grants. and an agency for these funds. the entire contract, 1.7 million, would be funded by the grant. the award is based on the funds flowing. >> the city car share gives the local match funds. >> correct. and they will be used by 2012. i can answer any questions. >> can you give us teh numbers -- the numbers and the chargers? >> a total of 29 electric vehicles. 24 chargers installed at 12

locations. these are in high-use areas. and let's see. ucsf < we, we have two location. >> the chargers are currently -- >> for electric vehicles, i don't know. >> so this expands it to 12 other locations. >> right. for the car share program. >> any questions? cohen? >> thank you.

they will be hi in high- density areas. is mission bay what you are talking about? >> i will let amy answer these questions. she can give you an overview of the locations planned and designated, to date. >> i am amy from city car share. this will be downtown san francisco and parks of berkley. 12 locations will be here. we have two locations at mission bay campus. >> with the criteria you used for this location --

>> part of the grant wanted to focus on priority development, outlining the east of san francisco and the west central areas of east bay. >> eastern neighborhood? >> eastern bay is the primary location, and the bay view district. that is part of the grant. the other part is partners to install the technology. >> i want to encourage you, to think about the deep south and visitation valley, executive park area. both of which are project areas. in need of transportation and

often just left and unconsidered. but there are many high-density projects that will be coming. you are scoping and i am just planting the seeds to take root and bear fruit. >> i can do that for you. >> any other questions? >> thank you. >> i just wanted to reinforce the signifigance of this investment, that will make the electric car more viable in the eyes of the regular consumer. the beauty of the combination of the short-term rental of the city car share, so that, to the user, who will be taking the car

a few hours, there is no risk. it is a trip to ikea or the trip to wherever, you need something you can't cary ory on muni. you are not making any investment, but you want to experience how reliable it is. you can get -- with the best charges, we will recharge to 80% in a half-hour. it is a great way to chip away at the myths of how viable this technology is. we have a history of being early adapters and pushing technology we think can work. demonstrating it works. on a more policy fairness

basis, in the region and ultimately the country, we want to make sure the technology will not leave the urban core behind. we have many dwelling swithout garages. -- dwellings without garages. you have people who charge in their garage, they may bypass a number of families without a garage. it doesn't mean the technology can't work. we can make lemonade and do this through shared cars. other technologies need to be looked at. and we will have a chance to find money to put into that.

as far as this is concerned, let's make the right investment in demonstrating how this works for us. in doing that ,, we will lead by example to improve the chance of adopting this technology. >> this will help popularize the new electric vehicles ,hittin, g the market in 2011. the nissan leaf is supposed to be able to travel several hundred miles, and previously, this was more limited. the $2.4 million project gives us -- hopefully, people get more used to this.

the longer distances people can travel. >> i don't know i've heard of one that can do several hundred, but i have heard a hundred miles. given the distribution of trips. there is a great piece of evidence. the commute has stayed at a half hour. several people have longer distances ,longe, longer times,t there are shorter trips. the early adoption tailors it to the trips with a very appropriate technology. as you can see, this is a rich topic. the conversation is ongoing.

>> just so you understand, this is our local portion. where does the funding come from? i apologize for not asking. >> i will let the city car share do that. a number of years ago, the authority did provide a service grant. commissioner lena was the proponant -- proponent of that. we invested in a company that was a trailblazer who have done a lot of good, and are engaged in the technology issue once again. they can talk about their own

bottom line. >> thank you. amy? >> hi. i can speak generally. we are a nonprofit. but most funds are self- sufficient. we got to that point that we can support most of our operations with our revenue. we do have some grants for special projects. we are hoping this grant will help us add more electric vehicles. we have had our own funding to support this. >> we have support from the city of san francisco, as well as the other cities in our early years. >> i know about city car share.

as we think about funding and other opportunities. it was just terriffic. we know this was not a pass through on our angle. >> cohen has a question. >> how do you compete? there is a for-profit, the zip car. how do you compete with for- profit? >> as a local non-profit, we keep it as low as possible and we can be the low-cost leader. we distinguish ourselves as a local, and we feel we can locate as many locations through san francisco and provide different programs, we have an access

program as well as other programs for reduced prices and distinguish ourselves in different ways. >> what is the outreach you do? >> the different developments, we work with residents of those communities. and we are also working with -- looking for new partners. one in east bay. a big part of this grant is outreach and commmunication. learning about outreach of car- sharing in general, but also, this program. we want to try to educate the current residents. >> the fear is an electric

vehicle running out and not knowing about the charging stations. more generally, it is critical for the success. what kind of efforts will you make so this will succeed? >> we are in the planning stages for the outreach we will be doing. we will have focused mailers. the partnerships to reach low-income families or neighborhood groups. it is mostly between partnerships. >> other questions? thank you so much. let's open this up for public comment. does anyone wish to speak? it is closed. colleagues, can we move it

forward? >> i second that. >> we move it forward without objection. >> item six, it is the report of the six months ending december 31 . >> i am cynthia fong, with more on our financial position. as for the first six months, we have $115.1 million in cash and investments. 90% in the treasury poo. -- pool. this is a liability equal to $230 million. for the first six months we