three teams. of those teams, the panel is recommending arup north america as the award. that team demonstrated the ability to provide creative engineering solutions, strong expertise in intermodal transactions come and brought a strong design to the project. also, strong experience with the caltran approval process and strong planning expertise. the team has an underutilized disadvantage bridges addition rate of 22%, which exceeded our goal of 12%. there is a representative here to answer any questions if there are any. we're seeking recommendation for a two-year consulting contract. i can answer any questions at this time. commissioner wiener: colleagues, any questions or comments?

we will open it up to public comment. i am sorry, commissioner commissioner chiu: . -- commissioner chiu: . . commissioner chiu: this will help to improve transit along that area in corridor. i am wondering if we are making sure as we are taking a look at these, are we taking opportunity to look at any overlaps that may inteimpact area? >> we will interact with them to see how this would have synergies with the recommendation. there is obviously some question about how you handle bus service, especially if you move light rail to the other side of the street. we will look at that. commissioner wiener: if there are no other questions or comments, we will go to public comment. any member of the public that wishes to comment?

seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner wiener: colleagues, can we do that without objection? that will be the order. >> item number six, recommend executing an amendment to increase the interior architectural contract agreement with gensler by 168,8762 total amount not to exceed $206,000.500 for additional interior architectural, acoustical come and audiovisual consulting services for the authority workspace. this is an action item. >> back in october 2011 i brought before the board option for the authority to accept the $750,000 incentive fee determining office contracts at 100 vaness, and bringing to the

committee a 13-year work space leased with hudson up 1455 market street -- at 1455 market street. we have negotiated the contract back in december, and now we're looking at planning office move. we are anticipating opposite of to be in july 2012. with the new lease contract we are allowed to have 1.7 million in terms of improvements. a tenant improvements will cover architectural fees, construction, and minutes and anything related to the office moves. one of the first contracts a bringing before you is architectural contracts. we initially entered into a contract with gensler to start a pre-planning phase. now we are bringing back the remaining part of the contract to include this thematic documents and other phases of rrequired for the office move.

you have acoustical and audiovisual terms included. w witwith that, i like to remind the committee this contract will be paid for by hudson specific, the new landlord, for the office move. none of the of fees will be covered by the authority fees at all. this was brought to the committee back in january and received a unanimous motion of support. with that, i would like to recommend an amendment to the current contract with gensler and to include additional services and consulting fees. commissioner wiener: think you very much. colleagues, any questions or comments? -- thank you very much. public comment is closed. is there a motion? to forward the recommendation?

that will be the order. >> item number seven, recommend authorizing the executive director to substitute the credit facility for the 200 million commercial paper program to enter into a new credit and or liquidity facility agreement with top-rate bank come in to negotiate agreement terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> cynthia fong. what i have before you is a request to substitute the to several million dollar commercial line of credit for the commercial paper program back in 2004 the authority initiated $150,000 of commercial paper. the commercial paper is to fund all of the ongoing projects, prop k program supplies. the reason i bring this item before you today is with the

recent fiscal problems in greece, italy, france, in germany, two of the three rating agencies, moody's and standard and poor's have notified as they may be downgraded our credit rating based on the line of credit agreement we have with a german banks. with this information we took opportunity to issue an rfp and received six responses from various american and japanese banks. japanese banks partnered with american banks. each of these offered a three- year term with fees which are currently half of what the authority is paying now. the authority is praying -- paying approximately $200 million for a $200,000 line of credit. banks are offering fees that

would cut the cost in half right now. we are in preliminary negotiations of the final terms with banks. once the terms are fully negotiated, we plan to select the best advantage to the authority and best fees and best credit rating in line of credit supply. this item was brought before the committee last month, and there was unanimous vote of the motion of support. we initiate that it would end -- we anticipate it would end in march 2012 and satisfy standard and poor's and moody's requirement to not downgrade the authorities credit rating. commissioner wiener: thank you for the presentation. any questions or comments? commissioner chiu: just a request to provide information to the committee with regards to what that stream of cash flows

are. i know we have a commercial paper program that you are suggesting, but what is the savings that will be anticipated? you are saying the fees are half of what the cost are. i would like to see that in the future. >> that will not be a problem. commissioner wiener: any further comments or questions? public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. do we of a motion to forward this with recommendation? can we do that without objection? that will be the order. >> no. 8, recommend approval of the 2012 state and federal legislative program. this is an action item. >> commissioners, executive director.

the proposed legislative agenda is in your packets, starting on page 29. i will try to be very brief about this in consideration of the hour. the detailed work program starts on page 30. we have a focus this year, as always, on the state legislative program. the state budget reform process has had a number of negative affect on the transportation program. it has affected the reliability and availability of funds. ahead -- it has also affected the process ability of new funds for the transportation. -- it has also affected the possibility of new funds. this does not show signs of

letting up. the efforts this year will continue to be to protect transportation funding, and to oppose any takings or our win borrowings related to transportation funding from a dedicated funding, that somehow or another has been borrowed or diverted to other users in the general fund at the state level. the main reason for that is that it is very difficult to plan for large infrastructure projects if we do not know we have a reliable source of funding, even though one exists and is dedicated in theory to the projects. it is also very difficult to retrieve our leveraged goals which the local sales tax program if we do not have access to those state and federal funds that we assumed at the time when the program was put to the oe voters.

we also will be actively supporting local, especially regional initiatives, related to new funding sources. one that comes to mind with all of the local -- one that comes to mind is the gas tax. this will come before this body of those issues, but obviously those initiatives are needed in order to meet our funding goals for the capital program. in addition to that, we will continue to advocate for priority projects for san francisco under propositions 1a and 1b to get the funding as originally programmed. again, those big projects, especially those that have been promised, have been counted in the funding plans on those revenues to be able to make --

to be able to move forward for project development phases. and talking about transbay, central subway. -- i am talking about transbay, central subway. we will continue to advocate for the release of those funds. a high-speed reaail funds, the connectivity funds have been vetoed twice by two different governors in terms of distribution to recipients by formula that have been specified early on in the process. that has had an effect, not just on the project, but on the program that has had to supply the funds to make sure the project can't contin continue mg forward. there are a number of activities we see coming up. as you all know, there has been a significant amount of

activity, even in the bay area, with the mayor's interest in the topic, but we also have a significant amount of activity going on in san francisco with the legislature. the legislature is getting ready to consider the next version of the draft business plan proposed by the high-speed rail authority, and will continue to advocate for the investment of high-speed drill funds into a starter segment that we call fast start in the san francisco bay area, in particular on the peninsula corridor between the transbay terminal and this station in san jose. we're talking about the extension into downtown from for thinking and separations along the way. in terms of related topics, there is the advocacy on increase flexibility on project delivery. the idea there is more than one

way to deliver projects, and the focus should be on on-time delivery, reduction of risk, on- budget delivery, so that the electric can support revenue- generation measures for transportation, and also for the case of cost reduction and scheduled certainty. we have come as guidance from this body, to continue on the implementation measures related to climate change, and also, as it relates to how climate change or communities may shift the discussion about regional governments into any of the to discussions that involve changes in representation in and governors in the region. our legislative advocate from

sacramento is here. he will be able to give you more detail on any of these things as you wish. on the federal program, i want to touch lightly on the fact that we're still looking at the six-year transportation act. you have all been following the developments in washington. we have at this point of marked up bill in the house that was announced, but we do not know if that is going to make it to the finish line. when you boil it right down, there are couple of factors that continue to be the stumbling blocks to agreement, and one of them is the origin of any additional funding that is needed in order to make the bill hold, because we continue to have a position on any new revenues, and on the distribution side, there is the

late-breaking but very significant issue of taking money away from transit operations, and also from bicycle and pedestrian projects. it is having a tremendous affect on the ability of congress to have a productive conversation on this topic. i have predicted to you before that we will probably not need a transportation service act until after the presidential election. i think if we see one in the next month or so, it will be a miracle. i continue to believe we will see low efforts until after the presidential election. one of the things we will continue to advocate for is the tipia program. we have a number of people that agree with our motion in that sense in washington. the house bill had increased the program to $1 billion, which is very, very good. the other topic that we are very

interested in a course is expedited project delivery through public/private partnership. any method that would maintain eligibility for reimbursement, and at the same time give us more freedom of the local level to get projects finished quickly. that is our legislative program for the year. there is a matrix of specific bills at the state level, and i would invite to marc watts to give quick points on that. commissioner wiener: one thing i do not see is ceqa the form of the state level. i know ceqa and some of the issues are rounded top pretty dramatic impact on transportation projects, and i am very much of the view that transportation agencies should be taking a lead in that

conversation on how to take a lead on that without necessarily delaying and increasing cost. i am sure at some point you been involved in those conversations, but i would encourage the agency to be at the table. >> we are not as involved, but we have been a leader in that topic as well. -- not just involved, but we've been a leader in that topic as well. the most important topic has been the main metric for the valuation of impacts on the transportation system. that is a topic where the highre have already been statewe repercussions from it. we have a great deal of interest in sacramento on how this effort is going to turn out. yes, absolutely. in addition to that, we are

involved with the group that brings together the transportation authorities, the sales tax authorities around the state, in an effort to engage caltrans especially on product delivery time lines and ways in which we can have ceqa interpretation to get projects done much for quickly. thank you for the comment. -- get done much more quickly. commissioners, as i said, marc watts is here to talk about the specific legislation that is pending before the legislature in sacramento. >> thank you. marc watts, on behalf of smith, what, and martina's. -- smith, watts, martiniz.

ez. commissioner wiener: this is technically item nine. if the clerk to call item no. 9. >> state and federal legislative update. we are on item number 9. >> i think it was highlighted on the matrix, a footnote that list the number of measures we were watching carefully last year that have been dispensed with. the recommendation was to delete those from the matrix going forward. they were either approved by the governor or fail to make it through the legislature by january 31. that is the record of those bills. a new measure that we are taking a position on or recommending a position on is found on page 7. it is aba19 in deals with bike ways and caltrans.

author has struggled in allowing the county to have approval on class four bikeways. i think he is finally hit on something. we are recommending support. the bill did make it out of the state assembly by january 31, so it is still a viable measure, and it will be moving to the senate. two other bills i want to bring to your attention. one is directly to your point about ceqa reform. a little history real quickly. last session there was focus on legislation to facilitate farmers field, the nfl project in southern california. what they came up with was a host of a modest improvements in the timing and guarantees of how to process ceqa documents. assembly member fuehr but that

might be a way to approach reform for transit. i attended a meeting at his request this week, and he wants to take a little bit different approach. he wants to look at actual administrative processing elements that could be speeded up or eliminated without waiving or doing any damage at all to the underlying premise of ceqa. he is looking at the administrative elements, and we will also take a close look at some of the judicial release elements. commissioner wiener: i think there are major process issues, but also the broader issue of public transportation projects in pedestrian projects -- and pedestrian projects are inherently beneficial to the environment. i think there is a unique perspective that we're trying to

improve the environment, and it is ironic when this makes it more expensive and longer to do. >> i will be mindful to look for those opportunities and make sure we represent those perspectives in that discussion. the last bill i want to bring to your attention, possibly taking a position on later in the year, the speakers bill. right now it is a place holder measure. it would did his update the cap and trade auction revenues that will be flowing this summer potentially under the card cap and trade process. this was set up an allocation process for the revenues. the governor intends half of the revenue backfills from the general fund, and has also signaled willingness to have sustainable transit investments be funded from this source. the speaker is interested in that as well. we will be watching this very closely. my partner and i have been

engaged in a series of conversations. we're trying to come up with the allocation process related to that. there will be a lot of work to do on this bill this year. with that, i would conclude my remarks. i am recommending support on that one measure. commissioner wiener: colleagues, any questions or comments on item eight or nine? we will open it up to public comment on items 8 and 9. seeing one, public comment is closed. -- seeininng none. that will be the order. item 10. >> item 10, prevent -- preliminary fiscal year 2012- 2013 annual budget and work program.

this is an information item. >> good afternoon, commissioner. cynthia fong. due to the sake of time, and to the fact that this is the first preview before the committee, i will freeze by this slides pretty fast. i will take part of the first presentation, in the authority executive director will walk you through the authority annual work program. i should also note you typically see the budget in april of each fiscal year, but this year i will take maternity leave time in april and bring you before -- bring the budget before you this month in anticipation of approval. commissioner wiener: congratulations. >> thank you. i would like to let you know this item starts on -- in your packet. you have attached ment, which is

year 2013 annual budget. you have attached it bhment b, e budget plan. and the analysis of how we came to the numbers. of the nexn the next slide is ae chart. it is about 83% here. on the next slide, i would like to bring to your attention the sales tax revenue and how it has recovered. there is an all-time high in fiscal year 2007-2008. we're slowly recovering back in fiscal year 2012-2013. the next is expenditures for the transportation authority. capital project expenditures make of the bulk of the

authority's expenditures. it is 94%. personnel is only 33 percent. these are established positions established back in 2007. i would like to know we have debt service cost of 2.5 million. this is a cost to maintain the current commercial paper program, and we're also including a 2950 million dollar debt and bond issuance. with that, i will turn it over to jose to walk you through the annual work program. >> commissioners, the description of the work program starts on page 52 of your packet. i am only going to touch on the highlights in your power point presentation, starting with the slide #8.

we have four sections. planning section, capital section, and programming. we are looking at a full year with allocation request for prop k amendments to the by-your prioritization programs. the strategic plan for prop k. we are dealing also with funding strategies of support of the projects, central subway, transbay project, and also the allocation of funds for clean air and the new transportation improvement, known as a prop aa, which was approved by the voters

in november the year before last. the other area of focus of policy and programming is state and federal funding. the entire process of the state and local partnerships, as well as the block grant program. the sustainable community strategy provides a bridge book to read this section and the planning section to collaborate on that strategy -- provide a bridge between at this section in the planning section to collaborate on that strategy. the project section has a significant task just with the oversight of the program categories, and in addition to that, providing either support or lead role on major projects like the parkway and mp