and there is a cost associated with that, and if we want to slip a pipe into that conflict, that and people, who pays for that? >> you mean for power? >> for recycled water and wastewater right now. for power, we paid for a new submarine cable to treasure island. we are paying caltrans as part of that. again, when they moved the east end, it was in line with where the other cable was. we have a new cable. there are costs associated with the project that we have been incurring for years, and now, we have to decide as an entity how we go forward and recover those costs. use our rate payers, or to the developer. them that if we wanted to push the envelope and a distributed project on treasure island, that would provide power for all of treasure island, so when you have been tapping into is, we would manage it. >> right here and as far as when

you ask a question for feasibility study, what it would take, there is a dedicated 46 acres that the puc would own, or in a long-term lease with haida -- with tida. we could use that if it were not on the actual building. so there are options that we have there. >> thank you. than anything else? then adjust the oversight. >> great. thank you very much. >> i have a question. homeless or disadvantaged persons fell 25% -- fell 25% of all jobs. >> back into the additional

slides in there. >> do you happen to have a slide number? >> sustainability assets, right? >> down and in the left-hand corner. >> right, so one of the other documents that would be attached to the development agreement is a job and equal opportunity program. as part of that, 25% of all jobs would be set aside for formerly homeless individuals. we have a separate agreement between tida and the treasure island homeless development initiative. a primary component of that plan is a housing component, but it also has a job training component and economic opportunities, so that is a policy goal that we would fill 25% of all jobs through our

partnership with them, but we would also work with the office of work force development arm to bring folks -- formerly homeless folks to the job portion. and and maybe i'm not hearing clearly, but you are saying 25% of all the jobs? >> right. then let it just seems like pie in the sky. dam it to expect that work force is available and trained and ready to be accessed. but that is the goal. >> ok. commissioner courtney. commissioner courtney: i agree. perhaps we should try to develop on what disadvantaged -- >> we can provide some specifics

and bring this information back to you to lay out a little bit more broadly what the components of the job program are, just so you have a fuller understanding. i personally have not worked on that plan. there are others in our office that have, and we can bring them to the presentation and provide information to you in advance. >> it may be safe to assume just for today's meeting that when we have had these discussions before, we had used a map of the city and county, and in particular areas within particular zip codes. these folks qualify based on their income. maybe we are kind of lumping in the homeless and disadvantaged together. it is still pretty ambitious, but i would like to see more information on that as well. >> we can provide definition on that. delaware the cost to have the

problem of labor training program? >> there is about 400, depending on the ethnic flows, but about 400 or 500 students, and they will remain. >> so there is no proposed remodel or infrastructure development for that center? >> that is correct. >> it is a wholly federally operated center? >> correct. >> any other comments? thank you very much. next item please. are there any public comments on this item? >> we have no speaker cards. >> good afternoon. we would like to really discuss this proposal, but i wanted to make sure you all know that many of us are concerned about the obligations that the puc is

taking on. as i personally listen to this discussion, i would encourage you to look carefully at this jobs and equal opportunity agreement. it could be that the puc is getting into something -- it could be that this thing is not financially sustainable with provisions that are in excess. i do not know if that is where you need to look, but i am concerned about the level of affordability in all of these programs, which i know san francisco loves dearly, but in a situation like this with our extensive and long-term obligations that you are assuming, you want to make sure that there is going to be a viable plan here, and i do not see it. housing, as a development plan -- it does not seem like the best opportunity here, but i know we are too late for that

discussion. my advice would be to look carefully at the other agreements that the city is making. because it is going to obligate the puc if they cannot recoup their money. good luck. >> thank you. we always appreciate the input from our citizens advisory committee, so any more detail or concern that you have, we would love to hear that as you proceed. thank you. any other public comment? next item please. >> item 11, discussion and possible action to improve and other less the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the department of the environment and municipal transportation agency to install 27 electrical vehicle charging stations in 13 city-owned rogers for public use -- garages for public use. >> thank you.

manager of administration and budget power. the mou before you formalizes the roles and responsibilities among the sfpuc, department of environment, an invisible transportation agency. these charging stations will be publicly acceptable throughout 13 city own garages. the charges are provided to the city free of charge through 2013. the facilities are customers of the power enterprise, and they pay the enterprise rate. approximately a range of facilities between 12 cents and 18 cents per kilowatt hour. during the term of the program, the power provided to the public

for the charging sessions will be free, but the power enterprise will recover that cost through the facilities themselves. mta for example. beginning mid-year, the host agencies, including sfpuc, department of the environment, and municipal transportation, including others will be working together to develop more clarified rules about responsibility of ownership of the facility for the chargers, maintenance costs for future, to 2013, and we will -- we at the agency will collect the data from those chargers -- public chargers. we will be collecting the usage. we will be collecting the profile, when they use it, time of use. the emission savings.

the fuel savings. and mainly the performance of the chargers. looking forward to future technologies with charging stations. with that, and happy to answer any questions. >> i just want to be clear -- the puc would pay for the installation of the charging station, and we provide the staffing and maintenance, and we provide the power? but the power gets recouped because the facilities would be paying the puc basically market rate. 15 cents approximately. even if it is a general fund facility? >> the first question, the charging stations themselves, and that is coming from a grant. >> that is correct. charging stations are being given to the city through a grant. >> so our portion is to pay for

the installation by having our staff to the work. >> right. >> and the only stations you are coming up with now our enterprise funds. >> correct. garages are all enterprise customers today. >> that makes it easy. than any other questions or comments on this item? is there a motion to adopt? >> so move. >> second. >> public comment? >> we have no speaker cards. >> hearing none, the motion carries. thank you very much. >> the next item is closed session. are there any public comments, or shall we call for any public comments on any item in the closed session? >> any public comment on a closed session? hearing none, please continue. >> we can entertain a motion to discuss the matter is listed within the conference of legal counsel. >> is there a motion?

all those in favor? opposed? >> if you would give me one moment to read the two items. sorry. threat to public services or facilities, consultation with chief of security, conference of legal counsel pursuant to litigation, tadhge conway v. city and >> we are back now held a closed session. item 14, there was no action. item 15 was settled.

>> would you like a motion to disclose or not disclose? commissioner vietor: yes, is there a motion to not disclose? >> so world. >> second. commissioner vietor: all those in favor? motion carries. next item. >> [inaudible] commissioner vietor: no, no new business. hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. thank you.

it begins innocently enough-- you don't return a phone call; you break a date at the last minute-- but, in fact, it's the beginning of a pattern, and soon, your friend with mental illness realizes you're avoiding them, but what if you knew that your friendship was the key to their recovery? would you still lock them out of your life? [doorknob rattles]

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor mar: good morning, everyone. welcome to the regular meeting of the transportation authority finance committee. my name is eric mar, chair of the committee. ericka chang is our clerk, i would like to thank sfc tv for providing access to this meeting. -- sfgtv for providing access to this meeting. first item? >> review items from previous

meeting. supervisor mar: without objection. please call item no. 3. >> recommend exercising the first one-year option of the professional services contract with pendergast & associates by $275,000, to a total amount not to exceed $875,000, to provide disadvantaged business enterprise/small business enterprise consulting services for the presidio parkway project and authorization for the executive director to negotiate contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning, chairman, members of the committee. i am the director for capital projects. we will be presenting the item on page nine of her packet. july of 2009 the authority entered into a contract with pander raft -- pendergrafast and

associates for the small business advantage program. this was not a happy record of small disadvantaged statewide contracts in the past. there was a stronger desire by the authority to make sure that there were opportunities and that those opportunities were fairly promoted, particularly to those based in san francisco. i have a presentation that i will start with momentarily that provides a brief overview of the results so far of the contract. the authority is recommending extending the contract by one year, exercising the options anticipated originally to both continue to work for an additional year as well as expand the scope of work to include some unique activities in a public private partnership that is being used for phase two

of the implementation of the project. this new contract in methodology gives us an opportunity to expand beyond the low on innovation in this area. -- expand the envelope on innovation in this area. we have results today, as well as innovations that we are looking at another p3 -- under the p3 arrangement and the scope of the extension. the current program has a number of goals. specifically the implementation of numerical goals identified for the project, for small businesses and disadvantaged businesses. also to engage in a level about reached that will provide comfort in confidence to this community.

that there were opportunities for them and that they would be able to participate during this implementation. to participate in the process of matching local and disadvantaged small businesses within the various contracts. the work program consists of a number of tasks identified here. basically, it is the promotion of and participation of small businesses through a series of activities. more or less a conventional outreach activities consisting of workshops and conferences. very aggressive monitoring and data collection programs. perhaps one of the most useful functions is the consultants have been actively engaged and analyzed the prime contracts. identifying specific small and

disadvantaged businesses that have the capability of performing that work with prime contractors to ease the burden on the prime contractor. there have been a number of organizations that have participated in various out reache and coordination efforts lifted here -- listed here. the california department transportation, state services, and a host of other agencies have worked with us to implement the program. some of the major outreach efforts that have occurred, contract 3 and contract four were the two three large contracts implemented in 2009, 2010, to begin construction on

doyle drive. including more than 100 firms that participated. the mega-construction connection conference was a citywide event that involved every agency in the city to bring together prime contractors and small and disadvantaged businesses. we have been running our own certification exercise that allows businesses currently registered as local businesses in san francisco to be certified as a california small business. we did that through real-time workshops in the city. funds were eligible for state, city, and federally funded projects. pendergrast has been very effective in putting together a

peer to peer network. one of the challenges was programs run by bureaucracies. the information that ultimately gets to the field is oftentimes met with skepticism. the peer to peer program encourages firms that have been successful on winning work with major projects to interact with their peers. we have used youtube and a number of other networking media in order to allowed the small businesses that have been successful to tell their story, explaining their successes so that others can emulate. the program was picked up by the federal highway administration and was carried on their web site for about six months. they considered it a wonderful example of local program being

implemented locally to achieve national goals. the efforts on precipitation in this day death are based on contracts from the american reinvestment and recovery act program. it has only been 2% for disadvantaged businesses throughout the state. this is not a particularly impressive number. we have been able to do much better on the blow dry project -- doyle drive project so far and we expect to continue doing so one face to -- on phase two. contract two, again the goal has been a much higher level of achievement and we have seen on national contracts. from even the 25% goal

established at the beginning. contract 3 is one of the major construction contracts for phase one. 60% of the goal has been achieved for this project, for under-represented disadvantaged businesses -- which is a federal designation -- 7.4%. supervisor mar: can you explain why you think we are not meeting the goal for the disadvantaged business enterprises? we are slightly under 4 contract two, significantly 4 contract 1. what are the reasons for that? >> i think that we are meeting the goal. for contract one -- supervisor mar: for the small -- >> these of the disadvantaged businesses. supervisor mar: if you could

repeat the goals for the disadvantaged businesses. >> in most cases it has to do with the nature of the work and the availability of disadvantaged businesses to do the work. contract one, as i mentioned, is an environmental contract. it involves a lot of plant collection and nursery activities. it just turns out there are not that many firms doing that business in san francisco, disadvantaged businesses, that can do that work. there are a number of small businesses that can do the work and we are pleased that we were able to achieve those numbers. we are continuing to push hard on the disadvantaged business side. but is a challenge. looking at contract four, under- utilized business goals for this contract, we are generally

on track and expect to meet goals by the time it is completed. phase two is being done as a public-private partnership. it is a different contract in format that has given us an opportunity to create what we think is an innovative program for small and disadvantaged business participation. unlike a typical construction contract, we are requiring the preparation of a very detailed work plans for the participation of small and disadvantaged businesses. with a whole host about -- and other programs. -- out of reach -- of out reach and other programs. in a public-private partnership

, there is a regime of non- compliance that the contractor suffers if they fail to meet performance criteria on the contract. in a means of providing incentives, we are actually consenting the contractor by providing offset regimes for these non-compliance points. ultimately, there is a financial incentive to the contractor to be much more aggressive in including small and disadvantaged businesses in the program. the structure of the contract allows a great deal more flexibility in implementing the program. it is being implemented in cooperation with caltrans and the federal highway administration. goals of 25% for small

businesses and 5% for under- utilized or disadvantaged businesses. there are a number of activities that will be included in the work under face to. specifically what is considered the un-bundling of activities that can be broken apart, specifically identified for small and disadvantaged businesses with continuing assistance for certification, as well as assisting in doing technical analysis of the work and mentoring and managing their programs going forward. monthly contact is important to make sure that the goals are stipulated at the beginning of the project are actually being met. the extension of the contract will allow for a number of activities, including promotion