fund balance of 45.9, which is better than ours. hours for the city will be $3 million, at the end of this year, our general fund reserve, but after you net out what is required to stay in a 42% level among other things, the amount of money you have to program is 29.1 for the next year. >> right. >> ok. finally, on the other options, you have laid out on slide 11, you talk about different revenue-generating efforts. one of the ones that was interesting to me was the -- two of them were the real estate leases and medical recovery. i guess i do not know what it would be. is that for medical services that the school district provides? >> eligible students that are reimbursable. them and medical services currently provided on the school site for individuals who are

eligible. we currently do not build? >> we bill, but there's a lot of potential output to maximize it further. >> that is great. for the real-estate leases, we have the same issue in the city, which is we have party across the city, and there are sometimes opportunities to leave it to certain folks, and sometimes, it is a conscious effort to say yes or no to particular vendors or service providers. do you think that will provide any relief in the short term, or will it be the fact that there are a lot of facilities that would need a lot of work and repair before it actually could be rented? >> i have not really been very closely involved in this period could commissioner norton address that? >> i did not think there is anything immediate that we have in the hopper, but there are

certain properties that always come up. it is actually right adjacent to the campus, so that is one that we do not have a use for. it needs a tremendous amount of work, but if we could get sf state to buy it, that would be good for us, although i do not know if they have the money to do it. there are options like that that we have talked about for a long time. i do not think there is anything that will provide as immediate relief in the next couple of years. >> thank you. >> i think that there is 3 that i would cite. there's also two other properties, 1950 mission, and the other is 1155 page street. i would echo what commissioner norton pointed out, which is i would not see anything immediately happening, but we

are actively looking at those properties for development. and moving forward with an rfp sometime in the near future. i'm not sure the exact timing, but those big ones some point out. we want to repeat what the superintendent has said, which is that we are reluctant to put anything out there at fire sale prices. i think that considering all the options, whether it be a sale or a lease, and then also keeping in mind that we do not really know what the future is going to hold in terms of enrollment. five years ago, we would not have said that we were still expecting a decrease in, and we would never have said we would be opening a kindergarten, and lo and behold, we did. things change very quickly, so there is a real reluctance to dispose of any property without very careful consideration. >> right, and just to clarify, my point was not to get rid of property to sell it. it was really if there are shorter term leases or other opportunities that were available, but even that might be a challenge if the facility

needs to be brought to a level where it would be leasable. >> and if i may, not only are those properties not develop, but even estimated on the ground lease, like 1950 mission, the proposal would be for about $500,000 we would get annually for our ground lease. that is $500,000, which is nowhere near helping us. >> i have one question that relates to this particular topic. i also see as a revenue- generating effort to increase attendance rate. i wonder -- what is the strategy around increasing attendance rate? >> part of our reorganization into our area zone has been also to focus on having a full-time

attendance liaison community coordinator assigned with each of our areas zones. they have come on board this year, maybe one or two vacancies, but they pretty much will be on board, and that is their mission, to call every day, make every effort possible, work with school principals to make sure that they are falling through with the kids' attendance and reaching out to the community in terms of excused absences being not acceptable. other than, besides the child's educational interests in mind, there is this other fallout of not being able to capture the revenue for any child that is

not present in the classroom. >> how much money are we losing on an annual basis when a student is not in class? >> we have averaged about 95% or leased in the last three years that i can recollect, and even a 1% by attendance -- both -- bump in attendance translates to about $2 million or $3 million roughly. if we increased by 1%, that would be an increase of 500 ada, and roughly with funding of $500 per, that is -- quickly, somebody, do the math. it is about -- i'm sorry, what?

>> here is a calculated. $4,500 multiplied by 500. in that ballpark. >> where are we with our attendance? 65%? 95, and site. >> 95% on average. >> ok, so we need to tackle and bring in that outstanding 5%, the outstanding 5% could be somewhere between -- $10 million or $15 million? >> 1% is about $2 million. 5% would be close to $10 million, correct.

>> thank you. >> just add to that, i just actually went out to one of the superintendent zones and had a meeting with the attendance liaison there, and she is finding great success because she not only works with the executive in the superintendent zone, she is from the community and knows the community, and that is one of the caveat is we have asked, and i think they are actually trying to get funding for her to work over the summer time where parents are less stressed about the day-to-day getting to the child to school but can be more amenable to a conversation about how we can help get the child to school, so just on that particular topic. i wanted to mention that, but really, i wanted to address my comments are around the uesf and advocacy and be very clear -- it is not our local legislators who are at fault.

that advocate incredibly long andadvocate, long and hard around educational issues. it is those of us who are not in the area with the understanding -- we know how important to the committee legislation as. if i was to say something -- it would be to those listening, and watching in the audience. talk to your relatives and friends, in california, to speak to the local legislators. those people have not come up through education, in their legislative and political past, did not get this. they did not have the tax extensions. the burden all across the state

of california, they throw up their hands. i cannot understand how this could possibly be. i ask you to go to your relatives and friends, and to address the legislators. address the people who are there. did this the other way though -- the with the other legislators to. >> another any other comments? >> i appreciate you have done, with the hard work of overseeing the budget, with a year or so of difficulty. it makes me so angry to see our children being shortchanged this way.

at the state level and the federal level as well. we are in three wars, and the $40 billion that was cut from the national budget, there was no cut military spending, no discussion about getting out of afghanistan, and who knows what will happen with india, and the other bases that we have all around the world. this is where the state of our society is. we are not caring about children and we need to. i will be supporting barack obama for his reelection. he came to san francisco a few weeks ago, and he left here about $10 million richer than when he got here. we have money here and this is

going to the political process that is not able to bring the money down to the local level. i have children and a lot of the people in this room have children, and this is just mind- boggling. we have to live with this. my hat goes off to all of you, who are struggling with this. it is very difficult to feel hopeful, but we are doing this for our children. >> if i may respond. i appreciate you sending this. this really struck a chord with me about hope. the very first time in the budget meeting, it was -- hope is not a strategy.

we cannot depend on us. we have to speak with the vote, and i wanted to speak to that. >> thank you for such a lively discussion and thank you for making this presentation. are there any members of the public who wish to make a comment? public comment is closed. can you read the other item on the agenda? >> that is everything. >> this meeting is adjourned. thank you all.

>> a good morning, everyone, and welcome to the regular meeting of the transportation authority finance. erica ching is our clerk. i would like to thank bob and bill from sfgtv pfor providing access to this meeting. >> this is an actuioion item. >> any correction to the

minutes? is there anyone from the public wishing to speak? public comment is closed. any comment? we move it forward without objection. ms. ching, can you call the next item? >> the 2012 annual budget and work program. >> this is cynthia fong. >> good morning, commissioners. yes or the deputy director of finance and administration. why have before you starts with the fiscal year annual budget. this budget was brought to you at the preliminary stage for the information in. they have not received any changes from last month, and i have a short power.

presentation for you to recap what we saw in the budget. as you may recall, the budget includes six different pieces. we have the tax revenue and a federal state and regional revenue, the capital expenditures operating with the service costs. this package includes four components, and the first attachment is the high-level executive version with the rigid with the comparison to fiscal year 1011. you have the annual work plan, and this breaks down into each of the five sections that the authority will indicate what we plan on working on next year. you have a line item detail,

listing all the different federal and state and regional type revenues, and this shows what we will be spending for the fiscal year. you also have a line item description, with revenues and expenditures. we have a pie chart that is here on the power point presentation. this is what we will be receiving and what we anticipate to receive in terms of revenue, and the majority of the revenues come from this, we expect 68.5% in the coming year. the next largest source of revenue -- this is the part where project, that brings in

about 20% of the revenue, amounting to $20.6 million. >> this is entirely the parkway? >> a good majority of this. >> 20 million of that is this. >> as we watch the calamity that is sacramento will not have to worry about this, because this is largely one project. >> the next largest source of income in the federal grant revenue -- this is 5.9%, with these consistent projects. . this represents about 3.8 million, as is 877,000.

on the next slide, we have a view of the different expenditures, and we also have a part indicating the amount of sales tax revenue in this program. as you can see in the first fiscal year, we have received the half year of sales tax revenue, with the all-time high received in fiscal year 2007. this was down to 68.2 million and the seed is creeping up to about $2 million. the next slide, we have the expenditures we anticipate for fiscal year 2012.

90% of the entire budget will go to the capital project expenditures, and this represents a few of the larger projects such as the central subway project, the presidio park or project, the other projects on the radio communications systems, the different street improvements and expenditures. the largest amount of expenditures for this service, we anticipate 300 million with the bond issue in 2012. we have always included the potential that issue and we anticipate using this as long as the funding agencies are in need of further projects.

we also have personal expenditures, of 3.4%, and there have been no changes to the prior year salaries, in alignment with the cost of living. we have the non-personal expenditures, of $3.2 million of the entire budget, consisting of the operating cost for rent, the legal fees, anything that is needed to maintain the front office. next i have slides for the work program, and since i have already gone through this in the last month, i would like to offer questions for any of the commissioners task, for

collaboration or detail on any of the projects. >> i have one question. of the capital project expenditures, what percentage of the major projects -- what percentage of these projects would be like the three or four big ones? >> most of the money going for those is for those projects. >> be no worse and francisco is that, in terms of if we can fill the requested capital contributions? and how much they will be purchasing? >> just the capital. >> these contributions -- we're working on this with a mass transit authority.

we are responsible for matching the capital grants, but since this has been in place we have been trying to use this offset and we're getting to the place where with the tough financial years that we have had, we're running out of funding. i think that we will be able to get very close, trying to mix and match the share with the eligibility issues. the bottom line is that we got pretty close to what they can actually provide for the capital budget. i think this is the order of 4- $6 million. >> if you can keep me up to date, i will appreciate this. >> and are there other questions? >> i have one question and maybe will cover this later.

to be clear, in terms of the projects being proposed right now, is there any money allocated in the budget for the fort mason tunnel extension? this is a project we have been talking about a lot in my district. i just want to be clear about where the funding -- the lack of funding is one of the biggest issues and i want to see where you are with this. >> we will pass the question over to maria. >> let me introduce myself. i am the chief deputy. the fort mason tunnel is not included in the plan. we have not been approached about something like this. the extension does have about $5 billion in the infrastructure plan, however, this would be included in the five-year program for the system.

this is a larger category that names this project. when this last program came before the committee last year, after the previous commissioner, alioto-pier did not want to include this, i think the expenditure plan so that we could provide the remaining funding, until there is a larger funding plan in place. >> this is earmarked wherever. >> i know that one of the other projects -- i was wondering in the next year, about the expenditures on those projects. >> this is 1-$3 million that will be spent. the planning division in the

coming fiscal year, if there was any more budget we could bring this to you back and around january or march. >> and other any other questions? please continue. >> if there are no further questions on the authority, i would like to say that we are seeking approval for the fiscal year 2011-2012 from this committee. >> we will open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public who wish to speak? seeing none, we will close public, and can we move this forward without objection? thank you. please call the next item. >> said in federal legislative update. this is an information item. -- state and federal legislative update. this is an informational item. >> the legislative update this

month. >> i wanted to just give you what was going on with respect to the recommended legislation for washington. we're in the midst of the legislative session. many of these bills will be taken to this file, and the senate will take up a new system and the assembly will take this off on the 27th. you will see a lot of this, with the bills that will make it onto the floor. this to pass $8 million, with $13 billion in new cuts, and we

have been revising this. this will be a purely cut budget, where the governor will propose 12-$13 billion in cuts across the state. and the other proposed budgets that we are looking at. this will bring along the same ideas that the governor proposed earlier this year. this is with respect to tax increases. we do not see the support for the republicans and the majority -- this is the revenue generating budget. one of the concerns that thinking may be interested in is the protection that we receive under the budget and the transportation. this will go back to the

legislature, and we are protected with those funds. with proposition 22, the super majority is now protected. we do not need that to be able to do this by the legislature. we are protected by those funds. and moving forward, looking at the no budget situation, the results of the budget -- that would essentially run out of cash. they definitely have to see what happens at this time. right now, this is one of the scenarios that we have, no budget.