of april 14 meeting. 7.2,authorizing the executive director to establish a five- firm bench of real estate economics consultants to provide services to tjpa over a five- year period on an as-needed basis, extend current real estate economics bench consultants' contracts until each contract budget is fully utilized, and execute new professional services agreements with any or all firms on the real estate economics bench as long as the additional total compensation under all bench agreements does not exceed $500,000. 7.3 authorizing the executive director to execute license agreements with comcast, level 3, and abovenet to allow each of these telecommunications companies to temporarily relocate their facilities overhead on utility poles owned and installed by the tjpa through tjpa-owned parcels n and n' at no cost to the tjpa, to allow for construction of the transit center. >> is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? >> second. >> all those in favor? suppose?

passes unanimously. let us move now to the regular calendar. >> moving into the regular calendar. item eight. presentation of and public hearing for draft fiscal year 2011-12 capital budget in an amount not to exceed $220,296,000 and draft fy 2011- 12 operating budget in an amount not to exceed $4,239,000. >> sarah will report on this item. >> good morning, directors. this is the presentation of the draft budget for next fiscal year and it is for information only. i am happy to answer any questions. next month, we will bring you the final budget for adoption. it is a proposed $220 million budget for the capital side, $4.2 million on operating side. the largest percentage of the capital budget, 94%, it is for professional and specialized services.

we keep our staff size small and we use consultants and contractors to assist us in moving the program along on schedule and within budget. 94%, $207 million, is for professional and specialized services. the largest bulk of that is for construction, $154 million for construction activities. that will include the completion of all the demolition work in the upcoming fiscal year and continued work on the largest package, the buttress shoring and excavation package. also within that category are $15 million for design spirit that will include completion of construction documents for the transit center. as you just saw, on schedule for bus storage, will be nearly complete for the bus storage facilities as well. moving on to the revenue side, as mentioned in the staff report, we received $850 million

in allocations. because the fiscal year budget is just a slice of the overall program budget, this budget includes just the revenues that we anticipate needing for staff -- for the upcoming fiscal year. on the operating side, $4.2 million proposed in the budget. this would cover the operations, expenditures associated with the temper terminal. most of which are funded by an operating grant and also lease revenue from greyhound. if we award an advertising contract, then there would presumably be small revenue to supplement that as well. i am happy to answer any specific questions. >> i have one. are we not expected to sell any land next year? i do not see land sales included as part of revenues. >> at this time, we have not included funds for that in the

upcoming fiscal year. if the schedule ships, we would amend the budget to include those funds. what you will see in the planned revenue part of this section it is a revenue category. that could include land sales. if we were to have land sales close in the upcoming fiscal year, it would move from planned to committed. >> at ac transit, we had been concerned about this land sale and what about the really is for that. >> ok. is there a motion to receive this? all those in favor? opposed? >> although this was a public hearing [inaudible] item nine. authorizing the executive

director to execute a contract modification with evans brothers for additional construction services. [inaudible] >> steve will report on this item. >> good morning again. this is a change order for modification for ebi, who is doing a demolition. the majority, the two components. $238,000 for the removal of unforeseen contaminated soil that was found under what used to call the humped area on the crescent in the central terminal. that had to be hauled off for special handling. the other large component of

this is the 979 dows and dollars for the demolition of the eminent domain buildings, the four buildings. we hope -- that is the portion that is adding the 60 days to the overall contract, as i said in the construction report. we are not extending the current demolition work past the current and the date of june 6. the other portions of the change order are made up of various unforeseen conditions and other minor changes, including building a ramp to access mission work and other minor hazardous material that needed removal, changes like that. if there any questions. >> any questions? >> no members of the public have indicated they want to address you. >> ok. motion to authorize this

contract and vacation? second? all those in favor? opposed passes unanimously. >> item 9 is groups. that moves you to next item. item 10. approving an amendment to contract no. 08-04 authorizing webcor/obayashi joint venture to award a trade subcontract to pass electric as the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $650,000. [inaudible] >> good morning, directors. the item before you today is a contract that will be awarded as a subcontract to the contract with webcor/obayashi for construction of the transit center. this is to provide a temporary

power connections. the transit center construction site spans four city blocks and we are going to have five points of service connection for temporary power that will be utilized during the course of construction facilities. that is the scope of services under this contract. this was bid as a one of 1% sbe participation subcontract and passed electric, the most responsive bidder is an espy, and their construction team is 100% sbe. i can take any questions you have on the scope of the contract or selection process. >> any questions? >> this is an area, as you know, that i have great concerns about, awarding contracts to s be, dbe's. i want to know the participation

with tjpa with webcor/obayashi when these contracts are being selected. are they 100% making sure? i would not want to see webcor/obayashi b just a team maker. >> no, we are partisan bidding with them in the pre qualification process, the receipt of bids, review of bid documentation. all of that is done with tjpa staff and webcor/obayashi staff in conjunction. >> the second question is, is there tension that exists, when we are dealing with small business, dbe's, big sbe's vs. small sbe's, and whether, the competition between the two of them and whether we make it available to small sbe's to be

able to compete for these jobs. >> we do recognize multiple listings of sbes. the first is the city of san francisco small business listing as well as the state of california mgsa small business listings. they have different thresholds, the san francisco threshold being the lowest for what constitutes a small business, but it is open to all of those three categories of small businesses. we do not have any additional preferences -- in san francisco, they have what they call small and micro businesses, but we recognize all of the small businesses equally. >> it would be nice if we could, somehow, add to the threshold to

allow small businesses -- small -- to compete and have access to those jobs from webcor. >> i could ask sarah to speak to this more broadly, but i think one of the difficulties we would have been in that is, right now we are not allowed to give any geographic preferences because we are a federal project. the smaller scale businesses, san francisco hrc listings -- if we were to have a separate category for those listings, that would be a de facto geographic preference. that is why we treat the san francisco hrc listings equally with state listings. >> i do not follow that with the

demographics. if you open it, you open it to everybody. >> we do have it open for everybody. we include everybody. >> i understand, but it is the threshold that excludes allow these small businesses, -- a lot of these small businesses. maybe we could lower the threshold to accommodate smaller firms that otherwise would not have access. >> it is my understanding, that since we are using san francisco and the state, it includes all threshold? >> correct. san francisco's human rights commission certification is the smallest threshold. the businesses you are talking about, lower revenues, less than 50 employees. if we were to say a particular

package was set aside only for those smaller sbes, we would, by default, be setting aside work for a local business schoopool. only san francisco certification meets those smaller threshold's. >> there are always obstacles to try to get into this area of sbes, dbes. it is frustrating. not just here, but in ac transit and everywhere. >> a motion to award this contract? second? all those in favor say aye. passes unanimously. >> no members of the public have

indicated they want to speak. item 11. approving a resolution authorizing the executive director to submit an application for statewide park program (proposition 84) grant funds for transbay city park. >> good morning. this item we are adding for authorization to apply for a state park grant program. it was authorized under prop 84 and they have recently begun a solicitation process. these are due april 1. we're looking for a 2 $5 million for a grant for the city parks, a rooftop park. the approval authorization is attached to your item. >> is there a motion to approve the resolution? >> second. >> all those in favor? opposed? passes unanimously. >> item 11 has passed without any members of the public

wishing to address you. item 12. annual review of board policy no. 009, investment policy, and approval of minor changes to the policy. >> sarah will be reporting on this one. >> under our investment policy, you are required to review the policy every year. we are proposing just minor changes for your review this year. our investment policy continues to have the same three objectives that any governmental investment policy should have. first and foremost, safety of the principal. and then liquidity, access to the funds, in order to pay the contractor is when we need to pay them, yields being a less important of the three objectives. very minor changes in this version of the policy are to remove references from a staff position that we no longer have and to remove references where

we discuss what we do in practice. practices may change over time and we will report to you what our investment practices are. we do come to you on a quarterly basis with our investment report and our practice right now is to hold our cash for short-term obligations and our u.s. bank checking account and to hold the balance in the city and county equity treasurers' polol which gives us diversification and access to the funds on a very short notice basis, without having to actively manage the investment ourselves. happy to answer any questions. >> are there any questions? is there a motion to approve the review with the minor changes? all those in favor? opposed? passes unanimously. >> item 12 is approved without any members of the public wishing to address you. item 13. approving the updated initial

project report dated may 12, 2011 and authorizing the executive director to modify the ab 1171 cooperative agreement with the metropolitan transportation commission as necessary, for the rescission of ab 1171 bridge toll funds in the amount of $76,024,000. >> in this item we have is a rescission of 7 $6 million from the $134 million that was allocated to us in june. that was an allegation by mtc to allow us to move forward with our project in august to authorize contracts at that time. this was before we knew we would have the brand in place. at that time, when the authorized that amount of funding, we did say that they would come back with a recision based on the $400 million, when we received it, identification

of eligible expenditures and what not. that point has come when we have actually done so. the grant is in place. we have identified those costs that are eligible. so we have -- mtc has asked us to ask the board to revise the initial product report to resend the funds. we will able to go back to the mtc for the balance of those funds, the 7 $6 million available to us, and we plan to do that in 18 months. we will be speak -- seeking reallocation of those funds. >> are there any questions? is there a motion to approve the updated project report and to authorize the executive director to authorize changes to ab1771? approved. all those in favor? opposed? passes unanimously. >> item 13 has been approved

without any member of the public wishing to address you on that item. you are scheduled to go into closed session at this point on the calendar. i have not received any indication that a member of the public wants to speak to you about items on the list. about items on the list. >> ok. >> as to the closed session item, real property negotiators return the property of 85 natoma, the board directors unanimous -- unanimously passes an agreement [inaudible]

$740,000. >> thank you. with that, this meeting is adjourned. both