and quite a few that said na. i was wondering why we would not have goals on some contracts. >> the ones noted as not applicable are the artists, as well as our lease. we would not have a goal on police, and of course all of intergovernment agreement with the city agencies do not have told on them. i>> for the ones that have goals that are not being met, -- >> the urs has a 30% goal. actuals are 15%. there is a person transportation project. there are some of those numbers that look like utility relocation. six% actual. those are on the d be side. >> those are availability

advisory's we put out with the rfp. we cannot have goals on the dbe side. where we are only up 15%, they are at 44% on that side, once you look at folks they are employing from the certifications. parsons is really just on a task quarter basis supporting the designs and the dtx design is on hold while we pursue funding. they are not subcontracting out any work right now, which is why there was not a cold place on term at 3. the availability on the dbe side is an advisory, and they are much higher on the sbe side.

>> if you can refresh my memory, can you explain of what dbe advisory is, and what is the goal. >> because of the western states decision, we raised a completely neutral program, as i believe mta does as well. we cannot place contra rebels on dbe participation. >> why are there zero goals? >> those were all in place before we implemented the program. we started placing tolls on contracts would be implemented the sbe program in 2009. and all of these contracts are in place before the sbe program was implemented. there was not the way to go back and put vocal on contracts already in place >> why weren't

they included in the original contract? take a we did not have a contract when they were originally entered into. we implemented the program in 2009, after we brought the contract to the board. that is when we implemented the program. >> no. i am surprised. >> that is correct. >> i understand, but i am surprised we did not ask for that in the beginning. >> we did not have a program before 2009. >> the numbers from this project have been really good it throughout the whole thing, but i was surprised there was no program before 2009. >> you are right, our numbers have been really good. when you look at the overall numbers, we're doing tremendously well on the project. even with othe dbe's.

>> you will see in the next quarterly report, the percentages awarded will go up, because on the regular calendar you have items for the construction management for best storage, and they will be achieving 74% sbe. any other questions? >> that concludes my report. supervisor kim: item number six, public comment. >> we have todd williams. >supervisor kim: any other members of the public, please do come up. >> good morning. todd williams, a representative of local 22. i wanted to inform the public of what carpenters are doing with

the partnership and john o'connell high school has a carpentry program class, and that we have had contractors and donate materials and machinery to get more exposure to students and use hands-on tools, and we are are reaching to other contractors to get a little bit more. the class is well-grounded. one thing we're very excited about is i have contacted the manager at the apprenticeships school, and we have been meeting next week with john o'connell to see about getting a direct entry program once they graduate the class to go into carpentry and would have a direct entry into the carpenter ship program. it is something we're starting with this task will come and we want to see if we can start it with others. -- it is something we're

starting with at this high school, and we want to see if we can start it with others. speaking with our manager -- we're hoping to get direct management for those interested in the project. in speaking with the manager, the apprenticeships who does the direct entry project, she is working with transportation and just gave me a little bit of information about the grant that would work very well. and so we can bring more females in and hopefully get them onto the transbay project. a lot of good things we're trying to do with carpenter local 22. the director, which most of you might be familiar with, she is spearheading this with my guidance and the apprenticeship school. hopefully we can come back in the next meeting to see if we

can say we have a direct entry program through the high school into the partners apprenticeship program. things we're working on, and hopefully to make this project very successful. supervisor kim: any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. please move to item no. 7. >> we will move to the consent calendar worked all items will be considered routine and acted upon by a single vote. there will be no separate discussion of those items and was a member of the board or the public's request. your items are 7.1, proving that minutes of february 9, 2012 meeting. 7.2, approving a resolution stating that the calpers normal member contributions are repaid by the employer shall be reported to the calpers as

additional compensation. 7.3, approving the second them into the interim agreement with the san francisco planning department to increase the compensation. supervisor kim: thank you. two board members want to sever any of these items? -- do for members want to sever any of these items? we will take a roll call vote. [calling roll] >5 ayes. the consent calendar is approved. item #8, authorizing the executive director to execute a professional services agreement with the towns and management to provide construction management services for the bus storage facility for an amount not to exceed 1,250,000 and at three- year term, with the option to extend the term for an

additional two years. supervisor kim: we have a representative from towns and management here as well -- townsend management here as well. in >> we have gone through a very lengthy process to get our cm for the bus storage. it is three parts, pre- construction services, the services, and construction management services. we have representatives of townsend management to help answer any questions. i am available if you have any. we have a 74% sbe goal for this contract that is in the agreement. supervisor kim: any questions on item number eight? director riskein. : the staff report was very clear. can you give us background on

what the project itself is, the construction management services will be overseeing. -- director reiskin. >> off the bus storage facility has been part of the phase 1 project location. it is between second and third, stillman and perry street under the west approach upper and lower decks. the purpose of the project is up for best storag for bus storage. so when they come in in the morning to have a place to reside and do not waste gas or fuel it is more than just excavation. we need the west approached were positioning parking space as a connection to the future bus ramp system, sound walls, and

various neighborhood improvement so there is and our mental negotiations so the residents -- the residents and businesses in the area, which may be impacted by the construction of the future bus operations mid-day. any more detailed questions i can answer for the construction portion? >> can you help us understand the construction costs? >> we have estimated roughly, prior to the 65% cd's, which will be completed by mid-summer will be 100% construction documents by the end of this year. we have a little bit over $20 million estimated right now. it is because we have several retaining wall structures excavation.

two-thirds of the site will be excavated. to-5 feet will be heavy pavement for the bus vehicles. -- 2-5 feet will be heavy pavement for the bus vehicles. we have a very large bridge structure over second street, which will carry the buses. the whole site is surrounded by sound walls. ifurther, we will have some security controls, and minor street improvements and sidewalks. that is the brunt of the scoping. >> the schedule for the work? >> we plan to bid by early 2013.

it is a 15-18-month construction schedule. we will work hand in hand with caltrans because it is underneath the western approach, along with other members of the city family. >> you made reference, and the contractor should know this is an area that had a lot of construction disruption from the bay bridge approach, and caltrans did a lot of our reach in working with the neighbors. and i know they are very eager for this project to get done. we want to make sure we are very sensitive to the continued disruption from -- that this project will bring. i know they have been eager.

we will need to be extra careful with out reach and making sure folks know when things are happening. this is something funded an overall phase one of the budget? >> phase one, yes. >> as part of our reach, we have been fortunate to pass the baton in terms of the was the approach project, and have had a lot of lessons learned for the west approach our reach an for interacting and working with the community. we are taking those lessons learned that to heart, and the design team had a couple of designed tracks in which we have gone the communities in put and to design, and we hope to show them a lot of the mitigation factors, especially the lion -- landscaping and a sound wall features.

supervisor kim: any other questions, directors? a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> no members of the public have indicated they want to address you on this item. with that, we will vote. [calling roll] 5 ayes. item 8 is approved. supervisor kim: any other items? seeing none, meeting is adjourned.

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]