or would be dealing with someone injured on the job. that would be managing the staff. but the person performing the supervisory role in being in charge at night and on weekends really requires -- a 24-hour setting records to have one person in that capacity around the clock. it has to be four people or more on the 24-hour, seven day week basis. if you include those individuals in the percentage of management, you can get to a 28% number. but if you look at those as working supervisors, it becomes a definition of who they are and what they're doing. i do not agree with the 28% factor. it is a function of who they are and what they do. i would say that the management -- to buy were talking management, to me, it would be someone -- if i were talking management, to me, it would be someone managing security. it might be working monday through friday but having a larger responsibility for

managing security. working supervisors or functioning in the field, as well as performing that function -- a would not call it management. >> i exactly agree with what he is saying. this is the same issue that we discussed with the question of 71 versus 63 fte's. those steps are in supervisory roles, but they're working on the floor. if you were to eliminate those positions, he would not be eliminating and management function. you would be eliminating a security function. so they are providing a direct security function. that is the issue that we discussed in response to your question earlier. and certainly, there would not be a 28% management ratio -- a 28% management ratio would be unacceptable for any city

function of this nature, and that would not be something that would be included in the operation. supervisor chiu: i appreciate the good discussion over the spill over the next 12 to 24 hours, i would like to see if there's anything we can do -- i predicted discussion over this bill over the next 12 to 24 hours, i would like to see if there's anything we can do. we have to ensure that we have real security and safety on our wards. i will continue to push toward that. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. we have acted on at the department's recommendations -- the budget analysts recommendations for the department. i want to thank ms. garcia for coming and presenting the budget. of course, we will continue dialogue around the prop j issue. next department is the human services agency.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the director of the human services agency. we have worked with the budget analyst office over the last week and have come to agreement on the recommendations. supervisor chu: great. mr. rose, which elect to articulate those? >> -- would you like to articulate those? >> the total recommended reductions are $816,232. there's also a close out from under expended encumbrances of $134,055. together, the recommendations resulting in a savings of $950,287, of which $488,210 are savings to the general fund. supervisor chu: thank you. and the department is in agreement with the project close out as well?

>> we are. supervisor chu: thank you. given that there is agreement for both, can we did this without objection? that will be the case. thank you very much for being here. ok, colleagues, we have a number of items that are outstanding. we have gone through the departments. if i can ask for a few motions to be made -- items number one and two, we will be recessing this meeting to coincide with the remainder of the budget for tomorrow. but item one and two will be recessed until tomorrow. however, items three and four are the aao and the aso for the enterprise departments, which we heard in may. we need to take a motion to combine both of those items into the full budget of one and two. can we entertain a motion to combine items two and three to items one and two? we have a motion. we had a second. without objection. ok. we have items number 7, 8, and 10 which were dispensed with

already. items number 5 and 6, these were items we made amendments to previously because of state regulations around noticing for fees. we have to open these specific two items of public comment. i want to do that now. items number 5 and 6, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on these items, 5 and 6? this is public works, a temporary street occupancy fee and the admin code for the public administrator. we will close public comment on these two items. colleagues, can we take a motion to send these items out to the full board? ok, we have got a motion by supervisor mirkarimi. seconded by supervisor cohen. we will do that without objection on july 12. ok. there is item number nine, which is declaring the city's

intention to appropriate the available rainy day reserve funds to the unified school district. i believe we intended to schedule this earlier, but it fell off the list. i wanted to make sure that we get this forward. i believe supervisor kim as amended -- has an amendment to make or some comments. supervisor kim: thank you. i have an amendment. this is at the suggestion of supervisor mar, who pointed out that in our layoff list from the school districts, there also paraprofessionals and child development staff. i wanted to a knowledge of that list. i distributed copies of the amendment. it is a change to the 3rd whereas. the school district will suffer a loss of revenue and it will need to notice layoffs of teachers, principals, administrators, paraprofessionals, and child development staff and due to these cuts. supervisor chu: thank you.

there is a motion to amend the resolution to include paraprofessionals and child development staff to read the third whereas clause. we have a motion. can we take that without objection? we will do that without objection in these amendments would still allow us to move the item for to the full board, correct? great. so, colleagues, given the amended legislation, can we have a motion to send this out to the full board? ok, we will do that. motion made by supervisor mirkarimi. a second by supervisor kim. we will do that without objection. i believe the only remaining items we have on the agenda are items number one, two, and again, three in four have been incorporated into one and two, and item number 11, which is the prop j. can we take a motion to recess until tomorrow at 1:00? ok, we have a motion to recess this board meeting to 1:00 tomorrow.

thank you very much. we will do that without objection. commissioner campos: good morning everyone and welcome to do in 212011 meeting of the san francisco county transportation authority plans and programs committee. i am david campos, the chair of

the committee. i am joined by committee vice chair carmen chu as well as john avalos, commissioner david chiu, scott wiener. the clerk of the committee is erika cheng. we want to thank the following members of sfgtv staff for covering the meeting, mark and illon. please call item two. >> ifitem 2. approve the minutes of the may 17, 2011 meeting. this is an action item. commissioner campos: we have been joined by david chiu. we have the minutes of the meeting. before we take any action, let me ask members of the public if they would like to speak on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues?

seconded by commissioner avalos. can we take that without objection? without objection. please call item three. >> item 3. citizens advisory committee report. this is an information item. >> good morning mr. -- good morning, mr. chairman. i was appointed to the committee last year. i have been asked by our new chairman davis to make a report on four important items that are before your committee and that have been reviewed by the citizens of 53 committee. those items are items 5, 7 -- 5, 6, and 7. but i will make my comments quickly on five, six, and seven to say the cac voted 7-2 to recommend your committee

approved a fiscal year 2011-2012 clean air program projects. we did set for our workers to reasons without approval of the tdm management public proprietorship, which is referred to under item eight as the shuttle program. primarily for procedural reasons. we wanted to consider the funding at the same time that we've reviewed the sar. it was discussed separately on our agenda, as it is yours. during our conversation, two members opposed. the item with regard to the shuttle, public-private partnership, was ultimately passed and is before you today

in this agenda item. item six on your agenda is the allocation of $25 million in prop k funds. the the cac reviewed and recommended this allocation with the conditions. that passed unanimously. we previously review the item that as information items with a lengthy discussion on eligibility and evaluation criteria. the item engendered a lengthy discussion on the merits and specifics of the bicycle safety classes with concerns expressed about the limited out reached among non-english speaking residents, questions about the merit of the bike to work program marketing. the bicycle coalition spoke about the success of the bike to

work day with a 50% increase in bicycle trips due to the fund advocacy and out rich. i think ms. martin expressed a on a going concern of the cac for more quantitative information on bicycle-related outreach. item seven, the allocation of $1.25 million in prop k funds for six projects and the appropriation of $70,000 in prop k funds for planning and implementation of the integrated travel partnership there that was also on the agenda. the cac recommended the allocation of $1.2 million for your committee for these projects, but again for procedural reasons, we excluded the $78,000 from the public partner shot -- public-private partnership. the allocation for the tdm shuttle proposal, which has a long history -- where the cac

ultimately passed on a split vote -- and is included here. item eight before you, the cac -- i want to say the cac approved the strategic analysis report based on shuttle services. but as i mentioned previously, the proposed partnership has a long history with the cac and was rejected and returned to staff in 2010 because of insufficient information. perhaps less than a handful of proposals that the cac has returned to staff with conditions because it simply was not considered ready for prime time. this reflects the report did not return to the cac supporting documentation showing the need for the project, verification of an actual partnership with sun for support among private sponsors, and the lack of a

business plan and demonstrated the administrative and planning costs could be sustained from the high fees, to impose on corporate sponsors. it passed on a split vote of 6-2 at a meeting in may and is before you for approval. at the same time, by separate motion, the cac approved the related funding before you in the other projects today. specifically, let me mention the concerns of the cac, including some of those who voted for the measure, were primarily that these shuttles are provided by san francisco companies who have initiated the shuttle service for their employees to facilitate commuting to corporate facilities outside of san francisco. they fill a gap in services that address is a private need, but we did not feel at the time we are initially rejected the proposal, that it filled a public need regarding safety or

reliability, the environment, or service gaps. the sar before you reflects two public opinion surveys that shows no significant public support. you can see it reflects anecdotal perceptions by less than 1% of survey respondents, suggesting there is no significant opinion supporting the proposal. third, private shuttles are already regulated by state and city agencies. most of the problems that were considered, parking location, air quality, safety, etc. brought no further compelling thabenefit. lastly, the sar suggested that this was a voluntary public- private partnership. yet, the private sponsors shuttles did not demonstrate a commitment to partner with the

authorities or even to write a letter of support for the proposal. last, the program concept proposed to cover costs for fees on shuttles in order to be self sustaining without much thought given to the consequences of the fees and how they could affect employers. staff now has the recommendation to use public funds to cover start up, administrative and planning costs. because the earlier question were not addressed by the sar, and number of cac members voted with the stated expectation that the program would provide the substitute information that would inform a path forward. the cac discussion suggested that your committee might wish to identify conditions for approval that would allow you to evaluate it at a later date, whether or not the program should become an ongoing, institutionalized function of

the authority. with that, mr. chairman, that concludes my reports. commissioner campos: thank you. colleagues, do we have any questions for the cac? no questions. thank you very much for your presentation and for your great work. widener open this up or public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, -- yes, please. >> i am the community government affairs manager at google. i have been working with the mta on shuttle issues. one thing i would like to point out, as you're looking at this report, shuttle program's saved thousands of tons of co2 a day. the google shuttle program specifically -- there are other corporations that have them -- 30.8 tons are saved a day from

google shuttles running as opposed to cars. per year, these saved 7,500 tons of carbon. per day, over 133,000 vehicle miles traveled are saved. i have some additional information i can provide you. before there is any regulation, i want you to understand the benefit of these shuttles, not only to the community, but to the environment. commissioner campos: thank you. i know there will be a more robust discussion as that item comes forward. is there any other member of the public that the bike to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. please call item 4. >> item 4. recommend appointment of two members to the citizens advisory committee. this is an action item. >> this item start on page 19 of your packet. it is an item to recommend appointment of two members to

fill the vacancies on the citizen advisory committee. the authority is an 11-member citizen advisory committee. authority staff nor cac make recommendations as to appointments to that body. that is done to the plans and programs committee and ultimately the authority board. two requirements for cac members is that they beat san francisco residents and that they appear before this committee to talk to bet their interest and qualifications to serve on the committee. the two vacancies we have right now are both from term expectations. first from rosie west and another, jackie sacks. miss saxby is here to speak to her reappointment. i understand ms. west is also interested in being reappointed. she was planning to be here today, but i do not see her. commissioner campos: thank you. why don't we hear from this sex -miss sacks.

good morning. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is jackie sacks. i have been involved with the transportation authority since the passage of prop. b in 1989. i was once of 56 individuals tht brought it. i was appointed to the cac in 1997. i am up for my eight reappointment. i have gone this far and i want to continue serving. i feel, with the background that i have, with what has been going on in the city, being disabled,

i can definitely contribute a lot to the committee. there are some of meetings where i am very vocal, some meetings when i inquired, but when i have a point to make, people listen. commissioner campos: ms. sachs, thank you for your ongoing service an interest in continuing to serve. we are very aware of the good work you have done. when you do have a point to make, it is important to listen. i know that is one of the reasons the district's supervisor has recommended your appointment as well. is there any other applicant who is here to speak on their application? let's open this up to members of the public. seeing none, public comment is

closed. we have two points before us. i know ms. west could not be here. i understand she is being recommended by the district 11 supervisor as well. commissioner avalos? commissioner avalos: actually, i would like to postpone reappointment for one month and then look at other options. commissioner campos: ok. why don't we just move forward with respect to ms. sachs. if we could get a motion -- motion by carmen chu. seconded by david chiu. without objection. thank you. please call the next item. again, thank you, ms. sachs. >> item 5. recommend approval of the fiscal year 2011/2012 transportation

fund for clean air program of projects. this is an action item. >> good morning committee members. i will be presenting the fiscal year 11-12 programs and projects. i will start with a brief overview of the tsa process and our fiscal or 12 process and get into recommendations including some short descriptions of the progress we are recommended for funding and those that we are not recommended for funding. i can take questions on the project or process at any time. we have many representatives from agencies who can answer any questions that you might have in mind.

>> i would not normally use that type -- [laughter] i will switch to the overhead. the goal of the program has not changed. essentially improving air quality. in terms of how the revenue comes, there is a $4 surcharge on all vehicles in the county. 40% of that comes back to the county. this year, the amount available is equal to this annual revenue from the $4 surcharge and an interest from recently completed projects. we have just over $1 million this year. you can see the key dates in our program this year. this is the most oversubscribe to the program has been. in part, that shows the need for local match funds.

the next slide shows how we screen projects for eligibility to ensure they meet the air district cost effectiveness threshold. project types, zero emissions, anything related to bike and transportation. the second tier are shuttle operations project. the third tier are vehicles operations. the fourth is anything else unintelligible. of the things that we look at our past product delivery by sponsors, pass property valuation. we take a look at that when applicants come and year to year. we want to strengthen those kinds of evaluation measures each year as well. this is a broad overview of our funding recommendations this year. these printers are presented in more detail in the packet.

that starts on page 31. you can see the projects we are recommending for funding this year. we are recommending funding 6 projects and three we are recommending for partial funding. they have asterisks next to them. the first one on the list is the department of the environment emergency ride home program. this provides a free or low-cost ride home for employees to use alternative modes to get to work. this project will match $18,000 in prop k project funds from the fiscal years 11-12, 12-13. the electric vehicles charging station project.

this would install two charging stations in san francisco. one would be in a parking crunch and the other would be at the san francisco international airport. this complements sfmta's recent batteries swap pilot project. i am going to skip over the third project listed, the san francisco integrated tdm project. next is the regional bike sharing project. this will deploy 1000 bikes at up to 100 stations along the peninsula corridor. half of those bicycles will be located in san francisco. the funds here are used, sfmta match, to the bay area climate change program. next is the department of the environment employer benefit out rich program.

this will continue to average two communities. similar to emergency ride home, this has been supported since 2005. $125,000 program to in prop k funds to match. the department of the environment solar and electrical charging station project. that will provide access for a parking spots. this is one of the projects we are recommending partially funding. the project as submitted exceeded the air district cost effectiveness threshold. after working with staff, we were to the application to the maximum amount, $28,000, so that is what we're recommending. the department of the informant's bike fleet program. this discontinued the program as well as a user survey and evaluation of the et