thanks for watching commissioner campos: good morning, everyone. welcome to the march 6, 2012 special meeting of the transportation authority. before we begin, want to thank the members of the sfgtv staff. please call item one. >> [roll call]

we have a quorum. commissioner campos: please call item to. >> item 2. revise the authority's funding commitment to the presidio parkway project to fully fund the project and make related changes including amending the authority's 2012 regional improvement program (rip) priorities; accepting an advance of $34 million in surface transportation program/congestion mitigation and air quality improvement funds from the metropolitan transportation commission; amending the prop k strategic plan to program an additional $9,680,000 in prop k funds to the project; and revising the authority's rip commitments. this is an action item. commissioner campos: colleagues, we tried to minimize the number of special meetings, but the timing of this matter was such that a special meeting was required. i will turn it over to our executive director jose moscovich to explain what we're doing and why this action needs to be taken. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

good morning. i will ever know the chair's comments. i appreciate your appreciate -- patients in accommodating another meeting. let me review the item quickly and open it up for questions. the development of this, in may 2010, the california transportation authority approved phase two of the presidio parkway project. that is a public-private partnership, a contractual agreement between the department of transportation and private sector concessionaire to design, build, maintain, operate the entire presidio parkway facility. that is a 30-year agreement. on january 3, 2011, caltrans

awarded the agreement to the selected bidder. their name is the golden link concession air. setting the terms for golden link to design and build phase two of the project and to operate and maintain with a total cost of over 30 years net present value $488 million. as you know, the first phase of the project is being delivered by caltrans in the traditional design and build and is ready to open. subsequent to executing the p3 agreement, caltrans, and today, and ourselves determined some of the planned funding would not be available as originally expected. that is what is in attachment #one, a short -- three items.

$20 million in redirected federal earmarks that were identified by mtc at the time the funding plan was agreed upon, but subsequently did not materialize. then there is $13.2 million in urban partnership funds were expended prior to approval of the p3. essentially, our phase one finding -- funding item. and then a $12.5 million decrease in prop k revenues for the deterioration of the economy, after the funding plan was proposed. in order to achieve have financial closure by april to 2012, when all the funding needs to be committed to the project,

so that the concession there can proceed with the mechanics of the closing, we need commitment from the authority, caltrans, and from the mtc, to close the $53 billion gap. due to the economic recession and financial crisis the state is in, the state is not able to fully cover the shortfall to support the financial close. the failure to reach a financial close will put the state in an even bigger financial bind because they would have to indemnify the current contractors, read advertise the project, likely with delays in construction between a year and a year and half, and significant cost of installation. of course, further delays for the traveling public. it ordered to avoid these cost increases, project delays, if the p3 does not meet a close,

the three parties have agreed to a funding plan which is also in the attachment 1, which includes commitments of $9.60 million from the state highway protection program, $9.60 million from prop k, and then a $34 million amount of federal funds would be advanced by mtc, to be paid in the future, from san francisco shares of the regional improvement program fund. a number of programming-related actions are required to support this proposed funding plan. the first would be to revise the authority's funding commitments to the presidio parkway project, to fully fund the project and make changes to the rip priorities. then we would have to extend the

advance and surface transportation funds from the mtc, to be repaid in future rip's. we would have future commitments, page five of your package. the most noteworthy thing that the $34 million advance but making central subway the top priority for future programming until that commitment is fulfilled, given that we have a funding grant agreement from the federal government. that is almost a billion dollars. and then this retain it would be the next priority on our commitment list. mtc has agreed to this arrangement, by the way. finally, we would have to amend the prop k strategic plan to adjust for the prop k funds in the project. let me clarify. $9.6 million would have to come from a combination of things. a portion of that would be made

up as the economy improves over the period of the project. secondly, a onetime exception to the financing charges we have in the strategic plan which would allow the authority to commit the full amount it originally committed to the project. this is an important point. if we are not able to commit at $9.6 million, we would essentially be unable to capture almost $20 million in state program called state local partnerships which requires a dollar for dollar match from local sales tax funds. we cannot use our share of state funds or any thing else to match that. if we forgo the $9.6 million, we would be creating a much bigger role by becoming an eligible for the state fund. these are the complexities of a project that has 2000 funding

sources helping it. that is the reality of these big budgets. they need many different funding sources in order to materialize. sometimes, we need to deal with the complexities that that creates in getting to the final stretch of these things. the time line is very short on this. as the chair mentioned, mtc is poised to act on this tomorrow had their programming and allocations committee. as well, the transportation commission will release its own recommendations. both the mtc and california transportation commission will be voting in april of this month -- this year. we need to do this today so that they can act later on. that explains the reason for the special meeting today. that is the summary of the item.

it is an action item. i would be happy to answer any questions. i have my staff here to get into the details, if you would like. commissioner campos: thank you for the work you have done on this. i noted there has been a lot of coordination with the mayor's office, mta, as well as other regional partners, like the mtc. commissioner kim? commissioner kim: thank you. when i was curious, if we are recommending to make central subway the second priority for future rip funds, what is currently our first priority? it says the staff recommendation is to make the central subway a second party after the presidio parkway commitment. what is the current order of priority?

>> thank you for the question. the order of priorities is shown on page five of your package. presidio parkway, central subway, and then caltrans downtown extension. but the proposed remaining commitment table is the second one on that page. proposed, revised, remaining commitments. commissioner kim: what is currently the top priority for rip funds? i assume there was a different place before in the recommendation to change it. >> commissioner, presidio parkway is the first priority, as shown on the table. this is simply clarification

that the repayment of funds, $34 million in advance that the mtc is providing, would only happen after the central subway. it is not happening after the local projects. it is just making sure that it is clear the repayment of the $34 million would happen only after the central subway commitments are filled. that project is already under way -- commissioner kim: prioritize after the presidio parkway repayment? >> yes, it does not change the priority of the commitments that the board said originally. we just have this event from the mtc and need to clarify for them, where in our priorities, that payment would come. commissioner kim: it is confirmed this will not affect any of the construction or but will take place for the central subway? >> that is correct. commissioner kim: public transit is a priority for me, or

anything else that we're building for automobiles. i just want to make sure we are not delaying that funding. >> that is absolutely the case. commissioner kimcommissioner cak that is more a question of wording. it is about our commitment to the central subway. that is my understanding. >> that is right. in order for that to be true, the mtc action has to reflect that, too. our commitment to repay them will happen after the central subway is fully taken care of. commissioner campos: great. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any other questions on this item? madam clerk, could we have a recall -- roll-call. >> [roll call]

the item passes. commissioner campos: thank you again for everyone who made this happen. please call item 3. >> introduction of new items. this is it an information item. commissioner campos: any new information, colleagues? is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> may i interject? uto wanted to recognize your help in getting this item sorted through with mtc, as well as commissioner wiener. thank you. commissioner campos: thank you. madam clerk, item four. >> public comment.

commissioner campos: is there anybody that would like to speak publicly on any item on the agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed. item five. >> adjournment. commissioner campos: we are adjourned, thank you.