there, then the national park service came. now we have the presidio plus. doyle drive and the other opportunities, through the state and caltrans, raise unique difficulties. they come when small businesses do not get the orientation, do not get the support so that they can participate in those endeavors. supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor mar: is there anyone else from the public? >seeing no one, public comment is closed. thank you for your great work. this is really helpful to look at. but i do think that we have to do better in meeting the goals

for disadvantaged businesses. but i know that you are already looking at strategies. is there a motion? without objection, thank you, everyone. please call the next item. >> item #4. recommend amending the adopted fiscal year 2010/11 budget to increase revenues by $16,509,843, decrease expenditures by $49,268,862 and decrease other financing sources by $152,787,500 for a total net decrease in fund balance of $87,008,795. this is an action item. supervisor mar: it is on page 18. we have the deputy director for finance administration. cynthia? >> what i have before you, every year are around this time we take stock of our revenue trends. we are recognizing new plants

and taking a look at the unforeseen expenditures from the budget that we put together last year. this is on page 19 of your package. on page 23 we have a cable, what we are proposing to increase and decrease, and we would like to see the proposed amendment budget be after rate change item. i can walk you through the changes we have for the budget amendments. first, a new grant for a city car share. increasing revenues by 285,000 by november -- revenues by november for the presidio parkway project.

as you recall, this came before the committee last march. we also have the central subway project, where we are increasing revenue to be collected. we anticipate it being used in the last fiscal year. mta was able to find other funding sources for the central subway project. we also have the street lamps, decreasing 2.6 million. caltrans has been working on much larger projects in the area. you will see this on the next item. prop aa, as you all know, we were citizen approved for regional vehicle registration fees. we are anticipating $684,000 in revenue to be collected.

we also have a $23.5 million in revenue to add to this budget. this is an obligation from the power authority, who happened to receive an award of funds for the transit. funding our cash flow, i will allocate that again in -- at a future date when needed. we are increasing programs and initiatives by $30 million mainly due to projects and radio replacement. you can see that there is also the presidio parkway project. the swap that we made with central subway last march. you have $75,000 for the fta program.

you can see vehicle registration fees year, $332,000. removing the $340 million debt issue as anticipated last year, with the increase of $16.5 million in revenue this year, there will be no need to issue the debt for this fiscal year, 2011. with it that, we are seeking a fiscal amendment. supervisor elsbernd: in terms of decreased expenditures, what is that affecting? he mentioned a swap. is there a decrease in a project going forward? >> last year we spend more time. -- spent more time.

last year we were still working with estimated numbers. after taking invoices into account, we are increasing our voices right now. it is more like a timing difference. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. supervisor mar: any other questions? let's open this for public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. move forward without objection. thank you. please call the next item. >> item #5,preliminary fiscal year 2011/12 annual budget and work program. this is an information item. supervisor mar: i think that we have missed phong again. >> yes. i have a short power point slide

for you, i can walk you through the different components. and you will get a second look at the budget next month. we will have the opportunity to review the budget with a full month's meeting, seeing this committee in may. the board will also have the opportunity. so, if with the start on the power point. -- so, we will start on the power point. the annual budget includes projection of sales tax revenue, federal, state, and regional graph revenues, investment income, administration costs, and financing dead purposes.

the budget package includes four components. page 32 starts the fiscal year 2011-2012 annual program. here you have the five functional levels of the authority. the parking program, capital project planning, finance, and administration. page 41, you have line-item details. a much more detailed version of attachment a. page 43, you have a detailed line item description of each of the defense items for the annual budget.

we have a pie chart for you here. pegging down the different sources of revenue. you can see that the lightest source is our sales tax revenue. we expect to collect $72 million in the next fiscal year. the second largest is the revenue for bridge tolls of the presidio parkway project. the next largest fees of revenue is the federal funding grant for the ybi improvement project for the san francisco transportation plan and electrification project. the next source, we have interest earnings of 1.2%, representing $1.2 million in

revenue for the fiscal year. the next chart that we have, very historical, showing you the history of sales tax revenue. starting in 2004 we collected 68 million revenues. we had an all-time high in 2007, collecting again in 2008-2009, but collecting plastic in revenues. supervisor mar: that is including the creep upwar?

>> the next slide that we have is the fiscal year 2011-2012 expenditures. 90% is for capital projects and expenditures. the past pay projects, they are sf -- pedestrian, bicycle programs. the debt service expenditures represents the fine surface of the other personnel expenditures, which are equivalent to the 42nd authority. $2.3 million. it says that $1.4 million is needed for operating expenses when office supplies, a contract, printing, anything

that you need to print off is included. what program includes overseeing the prop k sales tax measure program? we also served in that function for san francisco, acting as the local manager for the tsa funds program. this year the administrator florida new cop program. in case you apply for strategic plan, the past vehicle license for vehicle registration fees ,tfea programs, monitoring regional funding revenue coming through. moving on to the capital projects program, our main

project will be led by the interchange improvement project. we are taking the lead in san francisco on the california high-speed rail project. the second project is a market street project working under transportation plans and various other projects within san francisco. the technology services division is our section that provides modeling support. it provides modeling services for other agencies and private sector uses. working on the demand model, they provide a i.t. development. unless we have the finance administration section, budget development, obviously we take care of the budget development every fiscal year.

taking care of the billing, accounting, lbe program, the human resources function, and the paper program management. with that, let me remind you that this is an information item. we are here to seek any items from you for the budget. you will be seeing this budget for a final look at next month's meeting. supervisor mar: thank you, colleagues. are there any questions? thank you for such great detail in each of the five areas. really well done. if there are no other questions, is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing no one, public comment is close. thank you for the informational items. please call the next item. >> federal legislature, action

item. supervisor mar: taking the long walk? >> i apologize, usually i said in the front row. we are in the middle of legislation considering bills these days. your matrix has been updated with a significant number of new bills. out of them a but like to draw your attention to four -- out of them, i would like to draw your attention to four. the first is 8076 in the second is sb72, capping the expenditure on high-speed rail 18 bonds, essentially bringing the program to a halt. we have suggested a post-

position employment fact. the first was heard yesterday and killed. i think that we can see the prognosis for the bill, sb22. i have three bills that we are recommending support for, the first is ab133, and i am sorry that i neglected to tell you which page these are on. ab133 is on page 3 of your matrix. it is a technical bill that opens the door for the high- speed rail authority to use federal funds that are allocated to the high speed rail authority for project purposes. there was a bill last year that did that, as well as a few other things, that were not successful. this year is to streamline high- speed authorization for access to federal funds received. we recommend support for that. in addition, this one deals

with high-speed rail authority, in encouraging them to consider the impact on california jobs as they move forward on contracts. it does not prescribe a process. it will have force of law as a statutory section. they will be mandated to consider and develop the process to look for ways to enhance job development in the process they are embarking on. finally, ab 1041. this would allow the city of san francisco to continue to use video enforcement of traffic by a land -- in the lanes for transit use. so, that would continue and

existing programs sponsored by the city and county. we felt that our support would assist books city representatives. supervisor mar: what was the number on that one? >> ab1041, page 11. sorry. supervisor mar: there was another, ab485, where you are recommending a watch on the local planning village transit development business. >> in essence it will allow transit village lot to have access to infrastructure development statute authority. it would open the requirements under the infrastructure development authority acts for a majority of the people to tender the feed.

lending that authority to the transit village act. and i thought that i would complete with a bit of an update on 8057. barry rafik, a great outpouring of support -- very rough, but a great outpouring of support from your delegation. they walked into the room and sat down to testify. the opposition witness testified against the bill in strong terms. he was joined by the assembly member. it became a very vigorous discussion. ultimately, the bill passed out. that committee had been -- they had a number of members that resided entirely within santa clara county.

going in, we have a feel for how that might turn out. the recommendation to the management here, and the city and county representatives, is that as this bill continues through the assembly and goes through appropriations, we need to jump ahead and start working the senate transportation committee, so they do not wait for that activity. that committee is not welcoming for northern california and has very few representatives, but does have knowledgeable chairman. i think that he will give us a fair fight. we have our work cut out for us on this measure. we thought that we had some sympathy going in the committee in terms of reaching consensus in the legislature. ntc was very vigorous in its

support for the bill and were able to convince the folks that it was an isolated pocket of resistance within the region. so, that was all that took. supervisor elsbernd: in terms of ultimate outcome and the prognosis? >> the best place to make a stand -- make a stand is senate trans. i know that the executive director is working with the mayor's office on trying to quantify some of the impact in terms of programming decisions that are at risk on a note -- on an ongoing basis, embellishing our case. i think that it is the place to make our stand. unfortunately, the population center in the state favors the south and most of the committees reflect that. supervisor cohen: in terms of -- supervisor elsbernd: in terms of

timing, how do you see it going through? >> june, possibly july. it might well be -- referred, as it was here, the policy -- it might well be double-referred, as it was here. after the summer recess there is only a few short weeks. it will be fast and furious once they come back from july. supervisor mar: thank you very much. >> if you have any other questions, i will answer them. supervisor mar: this is an information item calling for an action item. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. move forward with a positive

recommendation. next item? >> introduction of new items. and information item. supervisor mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. please call the next item. >> item #8, public comment. supervisor mar: are there any members of the public that would like to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. please call the next item. >> item #9, adjournment. supervisor mar: thank you for coming out today.

>> welcome to "culture wire." i'm here with james lee, and exhibiting artist, and we will have a chat today about the body of work you are presenting. after you left the military, what prompted you to go back to a place where the u.s. is engaged in military action? >> it is interesting. the population of afghanistan is around 29 million, and there's probably no more than 80,000 u.s. soldiers serving in afghanistan right now, but if you look at the stories that come out, you think the numbers

are completely reversed. all the stories are about americans, and you see almost no images of stories about the afghan people themselves, so if you look at the dominant representational paradigm uc today, it is all about foreign soldiers. my idea was to try incurred counted to that a popularized narrative and focus on images and stories that really reflect that lived experience of conflict through the eyes of the afghan people. >> you are exhibiting with three other photographers. it is true all three of them have really focused in the areas where a lot of u.s. and allied forces are seeing action, are actually involved in combat, so your story is different than theirs. what does it mean to show your body of work along side of the stories that probably are more familiar? what kind of juxtaposition does that create for you as an

artist? >> i think the strength of bringing the two different stories together is i think there is a real danger in focusing only on surface similarities between conflicts. when people look at a body of work and say that they see in this conflict photography, and it reminds them of somalia or iraq, i think that is dangerous because i think there are very unique elements to each conflict, and if you do not focus on the distinctions, you start to create a broader, watered-down topic, which is armed conflict, so i think it is important that when we focus on conflict, we make sure we do not just generalize, but we allow specific places and voices and people to be heard and we do not make these generalized assumptions about what conflict is like. >> the other photographers in the show, what is local, and the others are from new york and new delhi. what do you like about some of their work? >> in a big fan of the fact

that he approaches photography from a non-traditional point of view. he also cunner has a mixed view of cameras themselves. he calls them toys. >> he uses these cameras that one might assume our toys, but he also says all the toy cameras are cameras, so it does not really matter to him what he is using to take the images as long as he is getting the images he wants. and because they are taken with these film cameras, they have a very different feel than the other pictures in the show. one of the things i want to talk about is that lindsey's body of work is running down one side of the hall, and it is all about women in afghanistan and how they serve and their special interactions with civilian women and communities, which is the special role that women soldiers play in afghanistan. across from eric copeland's

work, which is extremely masculine and black and white and very aggressive -- what do you think about that juxtaposition between their two bodies of work? >> i like lindsey's contribution to the exhibit. she shoots in color, like i do, so it is great to see more color. she has a gift for capturing distinct moments that balance the conflict that these women are facing did today, but also very intimate, very feminine moments. she has one where a female soldier is shaving her legs at the beginning of her day, and it is kind of an odd thing to consider, but, obviously, it happens every day, but most people do not think about the challenges that face women in these types of environments where they continue to be feminine, continue to be women, but they also serve a vital role in afghanistan. she allows viewers to come in and see those kinds of intimate moments you might not normally think about. >> to our viewers, and actually

the curator of the show. one of the things i was interested in with your work and with the other bodies of work i selected was that you are presenting a real human perspective. each of you zeroes in on individuals, and the kind of sensitive, intimate, or private moments. >> if you look at most people's lives today and the way they spend their lives, it is probably not that different from what goes on on some of these larger for an operating basis. they have cafeterias. they have internet cafes. they have laundromats. they have their own spaces where they read, play video games. it is really like a small, microcosm of what they might find back in the united states. >> what do you hope that viewers take away from seeing your body of work or the exhibition as a whole? >> i think it is important for people to question how much we do or do not know about afghanistan, but conflict in general. general. too often today, i think we see