this is a simple line drawing encasing all the guard in a modernized cents, providing for shop buildings along the lower line. to the right is the main administration building. there are warehouse facilities to the north of this. this is consolidating and paving this whole area. it is partly unpaved and full of potholes. it is dusty in summer and muddy in winter. this is a challenge in place to work. this is a shot of what we actually displayed at the sunol event in september of some visions for the alameda creek watershed center. we envision the three buildings that would be off to the left of the temple. there would include a classroom, meeting room, and interpretive facility.

this should be something people could use for educational purposes, for making purposes for us, for other public agencies, and for folks in the local area, learning about our facilities and using them as community access. we are working on trying to define those interested needs out there in the area. lastly, the moccasin compound. this is a view over moccasin reservoir. the dominant feature there is the old power house, the brick- colored building to the center right of the photograph. to the left is the current administration building. to the far left is the old power -- is the new powerhouse. these are vintage facilities. the old power house was built in the 30's. the new power house was built in the '60s. this is a quick over head of the existing moccasin facilities.

this was the original company town there. there are lots of buildings spread over this area. the ones that are labeled are part of the operation. there are many smaller buildings that are not labeled. those are cottages that in some cases are rented out to employees and in some cases are empty. the ec and number of powerhouse facilities, a number of shops on the lower part, surveyors, artie -- rt, engineers, and other things in this area. our objectives are office space consolidation. the we are looking at reuse of the old power house. this is an issue we talked about in the budget. this has been sitting there for a long time. there have been desires to do something or not with it. i will show you the status right now of it. it is time to come to grips with that. modernization of our shop and

security improvements. right now, it is fairly easy to get into moccasin. we need to get better control. we have to eliminate health and safety issues in the compound. there is an exterior shot of the old powerhouse. you can see a little bit that some of the beautiful glass window there is broken from rocks. it is a mature building. you can see the paint flaking off. there are issues with mold and other problems we have to deal with with this building. this is a shot of the old power house when it was a powerhouse. that basic image is one where there is lots of light that comes in from these large windows on either end of the building and along the upper stories. this is a very open, like space. in talking with the bureau of architecture, there is great opportunity to do something very constructive with the space internally. that very old, thick wall --

they do not build them like they used to. this one has some energy and vintages we might want, going forward. >> is its seismically sound? >> one of the things that needs to be done with the old powerhouse is structural upgrades, because it is in a position now where it could collapse, if we just let it sit there. i would not put an exact date on it. if there is a seismic event or just sheer old age, like some of us get that way over time. this is what it is currently used for, which is storage of large pieces of equipment that are used in the moccasin effort. that is something we need to provide for. it is a function. but that huge space is underutilized. we just have to come to grips with the cost of doing this. right now, our administration facilities are spread throughout the compound.

the idea of consolidating them in here, where we have built structural supports around the edge of the building, it might be like the ferry building. it is a good possibility. we have a number of modular buildings there, some of which are 30 years old. they have issues where they are in the middle of starting to have some structural problems. the idea of consolidation is very attractive here. we have some different things we can do. here it shows red text and black text. the first option is building a new administration building. the existing at fenestration building is like a slightly converted old hotel. the offices there are very small. it is kind of a rabbit warren. one option is to build a new administration building with a

worker support facilities. the other option is to do something in the old power house, where it would consolidate administration functions and workers support facility to make sure that function is consolidated in a constructive way. we are looking at the costs. now, it costs more money to convert the old power house. one of the things i have requested of the engineers is an energy use comparison over a 50 year life. if you use an older building like that, i think chances are good that we would have lower energy costs. nobody has done that analysis yet. that is information we are looking for right now. in total, we are looking at some significant dollars here for facilities, but i think that are well worth it. we are talking about a place where half the water enterprise works. these are people who are out there making the system work. they need to make sure we are

providing an efficient, sa places to work. there are schedules laid out there. we currently meet on a biweekly basis to make sure these are staying on track. even as it is, we are talking two to three years out on an optimistic schedule before we can start construction. we are in the midst of environmental review for millbrae yard and engineering for all three facilities. we have a contract for environmental review for moccasin. completion of construction would be five to six years out. one of the things are looking at is opportunities to save some of these through cash flow, staff accommodation, and a work point of view to come up with the best schedule for all this. we believe these are really important projects to move forward with. i will be happy to answer any

questions regarding them. vice president moran: i spent a fair amount of time looking at this and i think you have certainly laid out the case for why these facilities need some attention. i know moccasin in particular is one that we have always regarded as historic and quaint. but the fact is that the staff requirements there have outstripped the facilities that are there. that said, the thing that gives me some concern is at the same time we are asking prepares for a whole lot of money to take care of the system as a whole,

spending a lot of money on administrative facilities has the wrong field to it. i think both of those are facts, and one does not contravene the other. where that leads me is that i would be -- you have some discussion here about the phasing. you mentioned there are pluses and minuses for stretching it project out. i would like to see an implementation plan that does in fact stretch things out. you may want to bring back more than one implementation plan so we can take a look at that. there are some facilities that -- the pictures we saw during the budget presentation make it very clear that there are some things we just plain not need to deal with and sooner is better than later. there are other facilities that are in pretty good shape. that are not sufficient for growth.

they can probably be used better in a different way. but those are things that are lower on the priority list. i would like to see the program -- and implementation plan that stretches that out over some time so the annual contribution is not a huge, and we can get the parties -- let the priorities work themselves out as we go forward. >> we would be happy to do obviously whenever you would like. the think part of it is that we have started discussions about these facilities so often and they have always been pushed to the back. we can phase in the construction. in many cases, the financing would be phased in so there would not be a hit in a year for these. they would be paid off over 30 or 40-year bond lives. whether it happened in 2016 or 2019, the real cost would be

through 2014. we can get back with phasing, but it is not going to change the rate in any given year by anything like the total amounts here, because you would be stretching it out over the full bond life. vice president moran: and i am not suggesting we fundamentally put off this issue again. it has been put off a very long time and we need to do with it. getting started on it is a good thing to do. i think that may turn out the resource over sometime would make some sense. i would like to take a look at what that would look like. >> any other? president vietor: other comments? vice president moran: is this an action item? >> it is not. the next item, item 12, is an action item. vice president moran: the

environmental work for the other two is already funded? >> that was approved and funded last year, about april 2010. at the time, we had moccasin up, but there was only one bidder and it was not a satisfactory bid, so we send that out again. vice president moran: we haven't called that item yet, but i have no problem proceeding with that. that actually is a place where we can look at some alternatives and deal with some of the phasing issues. president vietor: if there is no public comment on item 11 -- i am sorry. please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have a public comment regarding the communications and re-branding proposal. is now inappropriate time or do away to the end? president vietor: i hate to make you wait longer than you have, so go ahead. >> my name is joseph christie.

i am a san francisco resident. i wanted to address some of the concerns commissioner thorez -- torres was raising. you did raise some valid concerns regarding economics. we are in a tough time. it would be wrong to spend a lot of resources and wisely. but with that said, as a ratepayer, when i hear sfpuc i do not know what that means. i think it is important for ratepayers to know what they are paying for. for me to hear water, power, and sewer associated with that, it makes it much more clear. with regard to costs, it appears the costs of already been spent. it also appears that, based on the presentation, the design was received during an interview

process. so maybe it was free or at very low cost. maybe not. regardless, the point is that the costs have been spent with regards to design. if new cards are going to be issued, they are going to have to be issued regardless. if it is the case that business cards are very expensive to print because of this gold logo, maybe a redesign will actually save money if business cards can be printed in house. let's see, what else. in conclusion, i am right pair and it is great to know what i am paying for. i think the brand does that successfully by incorporating water, power, and sewer. i think that redesigning it further will cost more money. i think that postponing it misses out on an opportunity to

help communicate the sfpuc brand. sfpuc does a lot of wonderful things and people do not know for the most part what it is. thank you. vice president moran: just to be clear, i do not think this gentleman works for us. [laughter] we welcome comments. >> the comment on the item you were actually on. this is very difficult for me to speak to. i am concerned about the cost and the money. but many of the facilities have not changed since i worked for the department 20 years ago, and it is time. commissioner moran is right. what i would ask, given the sensitivity about spending money, is that you keep

commissioner torres. provide a simple explanation to the public so they can understand why this is necessary now. the employees need efficient, safe places to work. safety is a concern, just like the seismic condition was a concern. that is easy to get behind. we have been to budget cuts. everyone has been to budget cuts. i was not here for your budget hearings. it is hard to justify in these times. to the extent we can make this simple for people to understand, that would be very appreciated. president vietor: i think with this communication strategy project that if we can come up with a series of explanations that are easily accessible and simple for the public to understand on the special financial pieces, but also the effect it might have on the rate payer or the user, it would be helpful. and guess that is a challenge

for the communications team. anything else on number 11? >> item 12, a discussion of possible action to approve the selection of esa+orionjv, awarding been -- awarding the hetch hetchy-funded facilities upgrade to complete an environmental impact report for the moccasin facilities. president vietor: any comments? questions? all those in favor? opposed? thank you. next item. >> the next item is hour closed session. if you would allow me to call for any public comment on any closed session item.

we have no speaker cards. there does not seem to be any public speakers. the next item is motion on whether to assert attorney- client privilege regarding matters listed below as conference with legal counsel. may we have a motion? president vietor: all those in favor? i will -- >> i will read the items. 15 -- threat to public services or facilities. 16, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation parian 17, conference of legal counsel, existing litigation, da ren kuang et al.

if you could now move into a closed session. president vietor: >> closed session husband concluded. there was no action on item 15. items 16 and 17 were settled. next item. can i receive a motion to not disclose the discussion? all in favor? any other additional business from commissioners? hearing none, the meeting is adjourned.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor mar: good morning, everyone. this is the finance committee of the sentences county transportation authority. our clerk is arabericka cheng. could you please call item no. 2? >> this is an action item. approval of minutes of the february 8, 2011 meeting. supervisor mar: is there anyone

from the public that would like to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. let's move forward without objection. please call item no. 3. >> report on the tel trained fiscal crisis. supervisor mar: this hearing was called by commissioner elsbernd. supervisor ksupervisor elsberndk you. let's go straight to staff. i do not know that we need much of an introduction. you do a pretty fine introduction. >> good morning, commissioners. i am the deputy ceo for cal train. i would like to walk you briefly through what is going on. i am going to talk about tell train service and a little bit about what the hell train is,

the history of the partners contribution, san francisco, santrans, and the county transportation authority. laying out our next steps. caltrans is a 77 mile route from san francisco to gilroy. we are over 40,000 people per day riding that train. we have 32 stations in 19 cities and currently run 86 trains per day, 22 of which are very popular. on the weekend we run 36 trains and are running a pilot for peak service in 2009. caltrans has been through a series of changes.

through those changes, we have seen service increases leading to wider ship increases. funded from the farebox and three member agencies, continuing to face the uncertainty with state funding. santrans has a structural deficit. in fiscal year 2011 they reduced production -- introduced a reduction. they are continuing to propose contributions to fiscal year 2012. so, with the uncertainty for one of the partners, cal train already had a structural issue. they do not have dedicated or stable funding sources. in 2010 and 2011, service was reduced to help with the budget.

we continued to rely on one time funds. our current contract is with amtrak, bringing change to the system. this is a writer should graf in what you see if the bust of 2003 and 2004, then writer ship -- ridership growing again. i think that the 2011 projection is very conservative and i expect it to be higher than that.

in 2009 the cost recovery came over the fare box. looking at caltrain, you can see that we are right in line or on the upper end of our peers. something that everyone always asks, are you lean? cal train has no dedicated employees in the play sce of santrans. this slide is a measure of efficiency, operating expenses being fairly low compared to others.

just to speak to the member agencies in san francisco, they provide contributions to the joint powers agreement. that agreement was put into being in 1992 when the service transferred to the joint powers board. each member subsidizes the operating budget based on each county's peak hours. the county in which you lived was the county that reflected the contribution to cal train. 2009, we froze member contributions based on the partners proposition. there was a two-step production proposed in agency contributions. we were able to solve our 2011

issue with a fund swap. this slide looks at member agency contributions to the operations of tal train. you will notice that it is about 40% from santa clara, 20% with rough percentages from san francisco. if the partners match the contribution from santrans, bta would pay 4.7 and san francisco would contribute 2.1. this slide looks different based on the proposed reduction in santrans contribution to the caltrans operation, decreasing from $35 million per year to $11 million per year. the operating budget is about $12 million per year. looking at the 2012 budget, with

current service levels, we would be looking at a projected deficit of $30 million. we put together a different schedule of a train that almost balances the budget, but not quite. we have been through a process discussing that schedule. another question that gets asked, have you taken appropriate measures with your support for the system? we have pieces of 40 fte that work for the train. staff salary has been frozen. furloughs have been implemented. in 2009 we increased fares and laid off staff. we increased fares again in 2010.