authority and i will be presenting the item that begins on page 17 of your package. the transportation authority has the services of a project management oversight consultant, retaining them for a number of years for a variety of major capital projects. particularly with regard to monitoring expenditures of prop k funds. the original contract to sfgov.orto [unintelligible] was awarded in 2008 and we are requesting approval of the second one year extension in the amount of $1 million, bringing the total contract value to $5,474,000. i will mention that they are a 100% minority-owned firm,

including a number of subcontractors that provide specialized expertise for these firms and business enterprises, small business enterprises to our under-represented business enterprises and for our of locally owned business enterprises. three of them are owned by women, the other is owned by asian-pacific. there are 12 women in the position of authority in principle parameters. supervisor mar: thank you for being so specific and concrete. >> one of the owners of the firm is available to answer questions. supervisor kim: i had a quick question about what the folsom

st. would trample -- folsom street ramp realignment is. >> it involves moving the off ramp from interstate 80 to accommodate the new trends bay project. this project is actually funded by the san francisco redevelopment agency. this is a service to them. supervisor kim: which is it? of all i could not figure it out. >> it is the first exit off the bay bridge. supervisor kim: changing the touchdown to wear? >> moving at one block over on folsom boulevard. supervisor kim: where is the new location going to be? sorry, did not know the answer to that. >> i will ask lisa to give you the specific answer as to the st. location.

>> local consultant 230. this is a project to at theta as the lead on -- that the ta has the lead on. currently it comes off the freeway and curves toward full some to terminate at a tea intersection. how do i describe it? excuse me for one second. may i have a piece of paper from here? [inaudible] >> he is a registered civil engineer with the state of

california. [laughter] >> [inaudible] so, the purpose of this project is to eliminate this and have the ramp -- a supervisor kim: turned that way -- -- supervisor kim: turn that way. got it. thank you for the demonstration. [laughter] >> [inaudible] supervisor cohen: at which closure? >> good morning, commissioners.

this is to support the candlestick interchange project with caltrans. it has brought up issues where there is a configuration on the northbound being placed very closely between the paul avenue off ramps, considering closing that off, we have utilize the sub-consultants to investigate that question. including conferring with community members. the answer was no. it was not an acceptable option to the city. northbound on 101. that is the position and we are continuing to have conversations about alternative ways to ensure the safety of that. >> thank you.

it looks like the largest item on the list is the island interchange improvement, which we heard great presentations about in previous meetings. thank you for being so thorough. supervisor mar: is there anyone from the public that like to speak? if there is -- a [inaudible] >> supervisor mar: ok. it is mr. [unintelligible] >> so, earlier i was talking to a gentleman that i have known for a long time. mr. [unintelligible] [inaudible] [unintelligible] okay. i have known him for a long time. this is what is happening. when you go north on 101, as you

get off the ramp that was created so that huge trucks could take the old bayshore, going on curtis street. they are not doing that, they want to do that but most of them are outside and they have no clear idea where the authority -- i do not know if that is reflected in the dpx, but the problem is that if you get three or four of these huge rigs on third street, with a light rail, that is the suggestion. so, i hear all of these things about the folsom ramp going to the pleasure island. i know that some mention has

been made about it and it has not been made clear to the public. yes, we consult the people in the area. you know what i hear? that community development corporations are going to make sure -- i will make sure that this information required by the comptroller's office and of the contract in office, so that some of these so-called absences -- they come to me and i explain, i do not want their money. really. it just makes me annoyed, you know? so that they can come to my house and i give them everything? so that we discuss relevant issues? this is a mess. this ramp was created and it is very convoluted to get on base

share -- bayshore. you make this right, look at these rigs, taking the bay shore around the land on third street. i know some other areas where congestion is caused. i will put that in writing and send it to you, the jack. taking it to a better place. thank you very much. supervisor mar: any other public comments? and we are again on the second year public option. the second year option for three year extensions. can we move this forward without objection? thank you. please call the next item. >> item #6. state and federal legislative update.

>> members, please to be here today. the first time in i do not know how long that we have a state budget that was enacted on time. it was very nice coming across the hill. i would like to draw your attention quickly. we had two bills to take positions on. the first is on page 10 of the matrix. this is a bill that on the surface does not look like it does much, but is intended to be a rescue vehicle in the budget process. proposition activity funding in the budget, some of that money would be available in the formula for this agency and the central subway project. however, the governor vetoed the funding for anything that was not available for positive train control.

working with bart and the assembly members office, we will use this as a vehicle. we have asked you to adopt the support position to give you maximum flexibility when we get moving in negotiations with the governor's office. the second bill is s.b. 582 on page 22 of the matrix. it is a commuter benefit program, a program that was sponsored by mtc. it had a little rough sledding. it provides program guidance to transportation agencies and gives them some ability to adopt ordinances to enact commuter policies within their region. southern california got their back up and almost derailed the bill. they have been deleted from the bill, so it applies basically to everywhere in the state except for southern california.

mtc has asked for a support position, and we've made the same recommendation here. we recommended adding one bill to the matrix to follow. it just came to light in the last two weeks. a proposal by caltrans on page 15. in essence, the state, as you get close to the middle of the third quarter of a fiscal year, the state transportation department has two challenges. one is are they spending all the federal aid in a timely manner? if not, they risk losing it. the other challenge is they watch the other states, and of other states fall through, historically, california has been there to pick up some of that federal aid and supplement projects with it. what caltrans is recommending in this bill, they're recommending that they be granted the authority to either spend some of the federal aid by loaning it

to a prop 1b-funded project or in the converse, if some other states do cough up some of their obligational authority for federal aid that we are able to grab it by moving into a prop 1b project when the allegation comes on at a later date, they be repaid, and the state would either have preserved their funding base or gained additional resources during that particular fiscal year. it is a smart idea. there are some wrinkles in it. mtc is studying closely. some of the agencies are worried about federal money because it does touch locally controlled federal money, too. we recommended watch, and will be working with the senate appropriations committee to tighten up the applicability. there are two bills. i tried to report on them each

time i am here. the first is s.b. 223. this is the vlf catch-up bill. it has been amended to scope itself down to apply only to the city and county of san francisco, so the availability up to the full prior to% is limited only to you, if the bill is signed. going forward, it requires a 2/3 vote of the board, the legislative body, and a majority vote of the people. i think he has format did it in a way to do two things -- one to meet the governors need to have a vote of the people on taxes, and second, to avoid having an overwhelming opposition. i know automobile manufacturers and some other tax groups have been opposed to it because a state wide applicability.

supervisor mar: mr. watson, looks like it takes a 2/3 of the county transportation authority members and a majority vote of the ballot. >> the general fund purpose, so it would be the county board of supervisors. in your role as supervisors, you would have that opportunity. >> what is the timing on that in your estimation at this point? >> he has met all the time lines and is in good shape. the legislature recesses' thursday until august 15. when they come back, he will have four weeks to get it out of the assembly. after that point, august 15 will be the -- not august 15, september 15 -- whatever the friday is closest to the 15th -- for legislative action, and the governor would have 30 days to act on it.

the latest, probably the fail- safe way to look at it is mid- october. this could be enacted. supervisor mar: ok. please continue. >> a.b. 57 is what we watch very carefully. the chairman of the transportation committee became a surprising ally to san francisco. he is very uncertain about the approach in the bill and convinced him to put the bill over to next year. i think the action on this bill, when the legislature reconvenes in january, our recommendation is to work diligently with mtc and try to come up with a structure that represents a true regional compromise rather than let the legislature back and around in sacramento. finally, last time i mentioned

something like 20 high-speed rail authority bills. there are still several out there, but it has whittled down to two key bills. they both do relatively the same thing. the reorganized the high-speed rail authority function within state government. the first is a.b. 145 found on page 3. we have a watch position on this one. it would create a department of high-speed trains and transfer the functions of the high-speed rail authority. it would retain authority for political guidance, said the structure would be similar in concept to caltrans and ctc. s.b. 517 by senator lowenthal, page 22 of the matrix, simply places the high-speed rail authority under the secretary of transportation and then in both cases, both bills, dissolves the

authority board, requiring new appointments by the speaker pro tem and the governor, the governor appointees to be subject to senate confirmation, which they were not previously. in both cases, they require that the members have certain expertise -- lock, financing, high-speed -- a list of expertise. my only political observation is the legislature is intent on reforming the authority. they will do one or the other of these or some combination of this. i'm not sure how it will turn out. he has taken ownership in my view of the project, and, you know, the focus in the administration to date has been on the budget, and they have not had a lot of time to analyze and spend time understanding the complexities of the issues

swimming around. so it will be interesting to see how these bills fare when he gets a chance to take a look at them. if you want a brief report, there's a couple of activities in the state budget related to transportation. supervisor mar: yes, briefly. >> the key thing accomplished was not in the june 29 budget bill. it took place earlier when we re-enacted the fuel tax swap and protected $2.5 billion. more recently, as the budget went through a couple of generations towards the end of june, there were a couple of highlights. first, the governor did sign the budget bill. that included total appropriations in excess of $3 billion. that is very important because the first step to putting an allocation on the project is you have to have the appropriation. the second step is you need assurance that you have a bond

sale coming up. once you have that, the ctc can then make allocations. the first step has been accomplished by the governor proving that budget item. disappointing -- i alluded to this -- proposition 1a connectivity. we work hard to put $264 million, which would have fully funded the amount needed in the fiscal year for connectivity funding, including the funding for central subway, but the governor took a page -- -- took a page from the prior governor and whittled that down, and it is only available for train control systems that improve the safety of commuter trains. last thing -- minor detail, but it will end up costing all the transportation agency's. project initiation document. those are important documents required by the ctc.

customarily over the years, going back to the early 1900's, the state took a position that was a partner with these folks, with the counties that are going to make investments on their system, and the state stepped up and funded this project initiation document. the governor says they can no longer afford that, so he has severed the reimbursable authority. as a result, project on the system that any local self-help entity is going to fund will require that entity to fund the initiation documents. with that, i will bring my presentation to a close. supervisor mar: thank you. ." >> i know that we are late, so i will be super brief on this.

on a.b. 57, i had quite a bit of activity on this bill in sacramento, and they were coordinated with the mayor's office and senator lyndon's office. the bottom line is we have communicated with the mayor's office about the need to take the bull by the horns and have this discussion about regional representation now, not as an emergency in january when the thing comes back up. my goal, and i think it is a shared goal with the mayor's office, is that we get to january with a solution that we can bring to the legislature. there is no question that there can be different ways to ensure good representation for everybody in the bay area. it does not have to be what mr. bill is proposing, but ignoring the issue is not productive to

either, so we are going to have that discussion, and all of you in one capacity or another will be involved, especially those of you who are on regional entities at this point. it is an overdue discussion, and we are committed to having it and being as constructive as we can so we can present a solution to the legislature. that is on that issue. the other thing i wanted to mention was there has been a flurry of activity at the federal level on the issue of the reauthorization of the six- year transportation act. and congressman mike, who is the chair of the house transportation infrastructure committee, is putting out full press court on the idea of a new bill, a new act, although we have not seen all the details. but let me tell you, i will reiterate my prediction that we are not going to have a surface transportation act approved by congress probably until after

the presidential elections because the republican side of the aisle is not interested in any kind of new revenue generation for transportation infrastructure. what we are left with is a bill that would essentially provide less money than what we have today. on top of that, laced with value judgments about many of the programs that were essentially multi modal gains that happened during the clinton administration and even during the first bush administration, related to things like bicycle facilities, transit and accessibility in general, those issues are now being described as hitchhikers to the original purpose of the highway trust fund, which is the main source of funding, and, of course, there is a great deal of disagreement on the democratic side of the aisle as to the appropriateness of that characterization and to the

tendency to see only card- related improvements as improvements that are worthy of funding in a time of crisis. we think it is exactly the other way around. so it is a debate that is essentially breaking on ideological lines. unfortunately, i do not think that that will lead to a compromise bill anytime soon. >> -- supervisor mar: mr. watts mentioned the disappointing budget news. was it the prop 1a connectivity funds, how it impacts the central subway? i'm just wondering what is the impact on our ability to fund the central subway. >> it is a statewide proposition, but the governor's action is simply to postpone the moment when that money would be available. fortunately, it will not have an immediate impact on the project as long as the money materializes next year. we understand that the governor's action has to do with rick compensations he is

getting from the department of finance related to the state to actually issue that and so on. even though we think it is an unfortunate position, we understand that it is part of the circumstances the governor is dealing with as far as the state budget, and we expect that there will be a revisiting of that topic and hopefully a better set of news next time around. for now, there is no change to the suggestion of the central subway funding plan. what we are looking at potentially is a cash flow issue. project will continue to be eligible and it will get the money. the question is when. supervisor mar: thank you. colleagues, no other questions? members of the public that would like to be heard? seeing none, we will close public comment. this is an information item only, i believe, so there is no action on this item. can we move this forward without objection? thank you. last item? >> item 7, investment report for

the quarter ending june 30, 2011. this is an information item. >> thank you. deputy director for finance administration. this is your quarterly update of our investment report. typically, we bring this item with a quarterly accounting report. since we are right here in right now, the entire city is closing its books, and we will have a final statement during the fall of 2011. as of june 30, the authority has $133.5 million in its various banking accounts. approximately 75% of those funds are with the city and county pool. the remaining 25% sits in four different operation accounts and in a money-market fund in deutsche bank. also in the month of june, we received our first two checks for our proposition aa funds.

we opened a new account. we are currently at a balance of $240,000, and we hope that will reach up to the projected $5 million once we have a full cycle of the funding. in addition, the authority is in position where we have enough funds to pay our debts over the next six months. we also are meeting all requirements of the government authority's investment policy. with that, again, this is an information item, but i'm more than happy to answer any of your questions. supervisor mar: seeing no questions, is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. could you please call the next item? >> item 8, introduction of new items. supervisor mar: there are no other items. is there anyone from the public would like to comment? public comment is closed. >> item 9, public comment.

supervisor mar: and one from the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. thank you, everyone, for being here. the meeting is adjourned.