minutes of the october 25, 2011 meeting. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: any discussion? the seeing none. approval. second. public comments. seeing none, public comment is closed. roll call, please. >> commissioner at the lows. commissioner campos. commissioner issue. " -- commissioner carmen chu. commissioner:. commissioner elsbernd. commissioner farrell. commissioner kim. commissioner mark. commissioner mirkarimi. commissioner winner. it is passed. supervisor mirkarimi: please read item number three and four. >> item number 3, chairs report. item number four, executive director's report. these are information items. supervisor mirkarimi: we have had interesting is in the

transportation field this month. on november 1, the california high speed rail authority released its business plan. the main piece of news is that there's more than a doubling of the total price tag of the system, which is averaging $100 billion. i think everyone expected that the price tag would be revised. but the magnitude of the increase has been at definitely noticed. the schedule was also significantly revised videos and disappointed to see that we're now looking at a much longer time line in implementation of the downtown extension, which would not get to happen until after 2030. i do not think san francisco can stand for that kind of strategy when we're the only city in california that is actually building a high-speed rail terminal. i am referring to the transbay terminal. i know that the legislature now has 60 days to deliberate on the business plan prevent -- presented by the high-speed rail authority to decide either to support a return several billion

dollars of federal funds given to california for this purpose last year. the believed it is crucial for san francisco to advocate for changes in the plan that make the implementation of high-speed rail into the transbay terminal a priority much sooner than 2030, obviously, especially when so much local funding has been going into this project. i understand that commissioners wiener and candidates are working on this with the mayor's office -- and campos are working on this with the mayor's office. this should be a major priority for the next four weeks and then new year. the other big piece of the news with the action last wednesday by the environment and public works committee the u.s. senate, chaired by senator barbara boxer, approving a two-year reauthorization of the surface transportation act, which is now going to be named map, map 21, which i think stands for moving ahead for progress in the 21st century. this is a bill that would

continue the current level funding for two years understand that not all the funding has been identified for it yet. it is also not clear the level of support. in the senate the senate bill was approved in a bipartisan vote. i expect the executive director has more details on that. this bodes well for the start of the conversation. that might give us a multi-year bill. it is clear that it may not go beyond two years. this concludes my report. mr. executive director, please -- >> good morning, commissioners. my report is on your desks. i want to highlight just a few things. i do not really have more details on the issue of the two- year reauthorization bill, other than to say this is yeoman's work on the part of senator boxer to try to get a bill and create some stability for funding for the transportation sector in the next couple of

years. it is clear that we have gone from a six-rebel 20-year bill, because the resource issue, the revenue issue is still unresolved. in fact, even the senate bill has a $12 billion hole, and that is more than 10% of the total funding for those two years. i think you can count on a fight of some sort in the house to try to get to a similar level of commitment for a two-year bill, even for a two-year bill. and the local level, when we commit to voters the sales tax, a 30-year plan, we expect that the federal level, there will be a little -- a level of commitment that would allow us to leverage the funds that the locals are willing to commit to. so the two-year effort is better than nothing, certainly, especially at this time of economic hardship. but we need multi-year commitments to be able to engage

in multi-your initiatives, like the high-speed rail initiative and other things we're doing. even some of the programs that require multi-year funding. we will hope for the best in that area and continue to encourage congress to do the right thing. i wanted to point out a few things that are going on, that went on this month related to funding for projects. we had a series of meetings with mcc to try to sort of strategy for the big projects under construction. the presidio parkway, central subway, and the transbay project it all of them are experiencing some level of impacts from the slowdown in the economy and the pace of the liver of state and federal funds. we're doing the due diligence necessary, especially sorting out the weekend provided bridge financing for these projects

that the commitments that the state and federal governments have made in years past do not materialize in the timeline that was originally promised, which is a distinct possibility, especially with the issue of delays with the state bonds and so on. we have had productive meetings. i will keep you posted. we have not really changed anything as far as our commitment to those priorities. but we're simply trying to get some clarity about how the ntc will bill to help us with those issues. the authority is committed in helping to commit as much as possible. there has been considerable work in progress on the regional transportation plan. several of the have been involved in the directly, especially the ntc commissioners. i would point out that the earlier this month, a draft result was released on the performance assessment. we found several san francisco

priorities that did very well. of course, this is sweepstakes for future funding. one of them, of course, is the effect of this project. we also saw the bart metro project that will increase frequency of services to downtown san francisco scored very well. and the initial pricing initiatives in san francisco also did very well, of course. i would note that both commissioner campos and commissioner reno made comments about the need to further take into account, in the evaluation of both the end of the door projects and the program might alternatives, this is the commitment to housing supply, a way to reward what local jurisdictions are doing.

and the quality of targets need to be more closely included in the evaluation that is done. and results released for the rtp next month. i think that will give us an opportunity for an interesting discussion about that before the planned moves to next year's steps toward adoption. some wanted to also point out that the san francisco transportation plannin is making progress, and we have had more briefings of our advisory committee and other groups. we're looking now at some things that will probably not get as much attention in the plan. these are subjects that we intend to govern in a more comprehensive way this time. there's more information on our web site on the transportation

plan. there is the lifeline transportation program change, which is highlighted here because of its significance. the lifeline transportation program funds have flowed from mtc to the condition management agencies and the different counties. the mtc is now proposing a change which would actually increase the amount of funding that goes to the counties, but it would direct a large amount to the transit operators, sfmta, and also increase the amount coming to the authority. we're talking about revenues of $11.7 million going to mta and up to $5.4 million coming to the authority. this is funding intended to deal with increasing taxes and mobility for low-income

communities, and we have already had quite a bit of involvement with the program in the past. you can expect the requisite projects and the actions of the plans and programs committee in december, prior to the issuance considering some of the funding going to the program that commissioner campos has been spearheading. van ness brt released its eir/eis draft on november 4. the comment period closes on december 19. prior to that, there'll be a public hearing on november 30 at the holiday inn, golden gateway, 1500 men ness avenue. this is all included on our website, but of course the public is encouraged to attend the public hearing and to provide comments.

several channels are available for that. geary brt is also making progress. i wanted to point out, as a segue from the chair's remarks about high-speed rail, there was a session on high-speed rail at the focus on the future conference happening right now in san francisco, and i was intending that this morning. a member of the high speed rail authority board clarified the schedule for comment on the business plan that is out there now, that was released on november 1. the idea is that the authority, the high-speed rail authority, will take comments at a hearing today in palo alto and then on december 6 in san francisco. then they will consider incorporating all of those comments and directing the mine some fashion.

then at that yuri one, are the first week of february, the intention of the meeting to approve the revised plan that might incorporate those comments. only after that, the 60-day timespan, will the legislature kick in. so there's time to organize commons, even beyond the two hearings that are already scheduled. i think that is time that is welcome to, because we probably need to make some additional comments on that. finally, i wanted to announce that i am pleased to report that we have received two grants in san francisco from the value pricing program at the federal level. one grant for $1.5 million is going to a joint venture of the sfmta and the city car share for electric bike sharing and car

sharing demonstration. $480,000 them into the of 34 parking pricing in regulation study, which is going to be helpful for parking-based pricing options to fall on the environmental studies in the city. the last thing is that caltrans has done a pre-award audit of the authority, and we have a clean audit report. there are several items on the report, and i would be happy to answer questions about them. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. i wanted to make one general comment. one of the things that supervisor wiener and i have been working very diligently since we were appointed to the ntc was making sure that the funding issuance and other decisions are being made at the mtc and that we continue to speak with one voice.

i think that we have managed to do that. i think it is especially important with some of the projects, especially those that perhaps did not receive the kind of rating that they should have, that we continue to speak with one voice. at this point, i want to thank all of the different agencies. the transportation authority, certainly, but also the mta, the mayor's office, who has worked very hard to make sure that that happens, and i think it is important, especially as funding becomes more limited, that we are strategic and how we approach these projects. so thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. any other comments? seeing none, public comment, please, on either one of the reports. seeing none, public comment is closed to this is an action item. madam clerk, please read the next item. >> item 5, increase the authorized amount for the non- federal portion of the memorandum of agreement with the treasure island developer about 30 by $1 million, to a loan

obligation amount not to exceed $10,287,000 to complete preliminary engineering and design for the i-80/yerba buena hylan interchange improvement project. deferred to retain a date by two years. supervisor mirkarimi: discussion? the seeing none. public comment? seeing none. i think the house is changed. it has not. may we take the same house, san call? very good. next item. >> award a consultant contract to kimley-horn and associates in an amount not to exceed $250,000 before program management and technical support of the van ness and brt program with an option to extend for two additional years. supervisor mirkarimi: discussion? public comment? seeing none, public, disclosed it is in house, col. next item. >> three. robbers would surge of the citizens advisory committee for a two-year term. this is an action item.

-- reappoint robert salatin. discussion? >> public comment? take this without objection. some lived. next item. >> item a, appropriate up to $126,827 for the 19th avenue transit corridor investment study, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule, and in the transportation/land use coronation five-year prioritization program. action item. supervisor mirkarimi: discussion? public comment? and seeing none. take this without objection but also moved. clark, please read item number nine. we will skip this. then we will turn back. >> i will remind the last item 9 to report on the limited scope performance audit of the sentences the municipal transportation agency. phase ii. action item. supervisor mirkarimi: we will return back to this. please read item number 10. >> introduction to new items.

information item. supervisor mirkarimi: is there any introduction to new items? supervisor wiener: thank you. i am calling the hearing today relating to high-speed rail been also requesting that it occurred with the plans and programs committee in december. as the director and commissioner campos have noted, we have had very significant opportunity and challenge on our hands to make sure that we have effective high-speed rail to transbay terminal and to make sure that that entire route is completed and that we have an effect of high-speed rail system. of course, this era of limited transportation funds, we need to make sure that we are completely coordinated and on top of it, making sure that, as commissioner campos noted, that

we are speaking with one voice in terms of the absolute critical nature of completing the entire high-speed rail route and not leaving any portion of bit behind. and making sure that the transbay terminal is able to be what we all know it can be and want it to be. to do that, we need to make sure that all of the agency's within san francisco that are involved, that we're working together, that we are well-coordinated. so that is the focus of the hearing request, and it is to ask the staff, the mayor's office, the transbay joint powers authority, planning department, the sfmta, department of public works, the redevelopment agency, and other impacted agencies, the port as

well, to talk about how we're going to do the coronation and making sure that we're really working together on this visionary and critical jesper station project. i look forward to the conversation but i think it is going to be very productive. i am committed for the long run to making sure this is successful. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, supervisor wiener. colleagues, any further items for this introduction of new items? any public comment on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk, please read the next item but a >> item 11, public comment. supervisor mirkarimi: opportunity for public comments, should you desire. seeing none, public comment is closed. as i said earlier, we will recess until noon, so when the director joins us -- unless

there is any other business we want to take care of before now. ok, very good. week shall good afternoon. madam clerk, we have an open item number nine at. we recessed until we could be joined by the mta director. commissioner campos, would you like to introduce this item? commissioner campos: thank you for taking your time to be here. and i know he had a prior meeting. think you for your flexibility in coming to speak with us. for those of you that were here when this item was first requested and for those of you that are new to the board, i

want to simply put this in some context. last year i requested a management, operational audit of the mta. at the time that the audit was requested, the mta had not been subject to a management operations audit in 14 years. as of best practice under our rules under the board of supervisors, we want agencies to undergo of management performance of it, at least every eight years. -- we want agencies to undergo management performances at least every eight years. what we have before you is the second phase of the audit. the first phase was conducted by the office of budget and legislative analyst. with respect to the second phase

of the audit, we engaged cgr management consultants to conduct audit, and from my perspective the timing of the of it makes a great deal of sense. we have new leadership of the mta, and the director of transportation, someone who has a proven track record of making sure our agencies are following best practices. i know making sure we have the most affected management possible is a priority for mr. reiskin. i think of it that focuses on how the mta is managing capital projects provide the timely footprint for mr. reiskin on how to improve this agency. i also want to thank the leadership of the transportation authority, the chair for creamii

and the members. i think it is important that we work together to improve the way we do things i look forward to a similar performance of it being conducted of the county transportation authority so that we can also learn how we can improve and that area. the last thing that i would say before i turn it over to cgr management consultants for their presentation, is i do think there are many lessons to be learned in the 19 recommendations that are made by this autumn are recommendations that need to be taken seriously. we have heard repeatedly how there are limited resources that the mta has available. this audit point out that as important -- as important as it is to get additional resources, the big problem is we're not doing enough with the resources we have a. we have findings that are

sobering and point to significant need for improvement. there are significant delays in the major projects to the tune of 592 days. we're talking about tens of millions of dollars that could be saved. even though we're talking about capital funding, it is clear when these projects go over budget, it does impact operational budget of the organization. while we do have limited resources, we can do a much better job with the resources we have. with that, i'd turn it over to c turn it over to cgr so they can do their presentation. >> thank you, commissioner and chairman. >> my name is keith kenneth. >> if you will and told us, we

will do a little bit of trading back and forth as we go through the presentation. supervisor campos gave a good synopsis of what the motivating factors were for the audit. what you see on this green hair is the mission that was put into the request for proposal that was issued to which we responded. and along with that mission were questions in several areas, and these are acted -- answer directly in the report in section 3. we used these as a handout in our interviews -- use thesso wed

communicate exactly what our mission has been peer yen the timetable -- i would like to make note of the fact that we started in the end of september/october ain 2010. we completed the first round of the report on march 16 of 2011. in keeping with this collaborative approach of sharing our mission with the mta we at that point gave them a look at -- recommendations we have come up with at that time, most of which carry through to

the final report. they circulated that and gave us some feedback on what the recommendations were, which was very helpful in preparing our subsequent drafts of the report. methodology. and it we're trying to an audit triangulate between what the agency says are the capital process procedures, which is called here on this slide stated practices, what the actual practices are as evidenced by the results achieved, and by what we learned from interviews

and in doing things like flow charting and using other diagnostic tools. we also reduced -- referred to generally accepted good practice. supervisor campos used the term of best practice of the agencies like the project management institute, f ta, which has a project -- handbook of project management refer to these themselves as generally accepted good practices that should be adopted to get away from the idea that any particular agency has to use them. that they should go through and sift out the ones that fit their situation. positive findings.

and we had good cooperation. and we had interim report to you in november. -- we had an interim report to you in november. we have problems that caused a delay, but those were addressed, for those part there was a lot of cooperation and openness from the agency. there were 19 recommendations -- there are more varied in the report, but these are the key ones -- more buried in the report, but these are the key ones. we offered two rounds of review. the first round produced 60 -- 76 comments, which are in appendix 8. with the finalized report we got either concurrence's