making sure that they are prioritizing everything. supervisor wiener: supervisor mar: -- -- supervisor chiu: -- supervisor chu: i want to understand of this project is in any jeopardy for not moving forward. can you explain that process? >> the initial process deadline was missed. what happens is all the projects in the region will go through process of reviewing them and getting them done by april 30. if the project is in by april 30, it will be toward the bottom end.

in they can take two to three months for them to do the review. getting them to move it up, once it is submitted before april 30, it is generally safe to say it is moving forward. supervisor chu: being at the end, does that mean it is in jeopardy, or that it just gets review later on? >> reviewed later. supervisor chu: in terms of timeline? >> this is a bit confusing. this is like the tax deadline. everyone turning in the project late, there is a real time crunch. if i were a betting person i would say that this had a chance to make it through, but there is still a slight risk. supervisor chu: can you explain to me where it was the ball was dropped them up >> yes, and we

have staff here. there are four major regions -- major reasons for that. one with the addition of the new bicycle facilities. there had to be extra design in the conceptual section to make sure it was put in. the project manager on the switch left, so they had to reassign the project manager. also, the mta street division, which is not managing this project, reorganized to the geographic team. finally, there was a bit of a breakdown between the mta in anddpw -- and dpw.

because the project managers had switched, this project was not high enough on the list to get a designer moving in time to meet the deadline. we have discussed the deadline with mtc and they have a manager ready to go on the project, ready to move forward in the next week or two to put the package together. that piece is all set. everything is moving forward to meet the deadline at this point. supervisor chu: the issues that we are seeing here, can the mta address them? between the dropping of the ball and we design, we missed a deadline?

it was finally successful and now we potentially have a project in jeopardy. >> paulo, commissioners. then summarized the dynamics for the well, and they were brought over from another section. although this was a bit of a scramble, we have learned a lot about these safe house to school projects. now that the project has fallen steadily into the final program

project manager, we are well positioned to move forward. supervisor chu: who knows when the next reorganization might be, but we could see other projects that will fall through the cracks again. how does the m.t.a. plan to deal with these issues and a large structural changes? >> this is something that has been done for all staff. that information is helpful for people to gain understanding of what the various metals are. there has been a great sharing of information amongst all staff and we continue to work with finance representatives in

terms of the redundancy out there. we all understand these projects much better. it is more working with local systems, folks at caltrans, the various players. this will present the sort of crises. supervisor chu: you mentioned this during this a front to scroll program, but there will be other program plots of money that will be coming forward that similarly had different kinds of deadlines and enemies they work with. is there a way that the mta is going to deal with this structurally ballot deadlines in grant money to be fulfilled to meet certain milestones? >> definitely. the level of understanding in all projects is improving and i

think that it is developing into a relationship in a continuing a relationship of finance and transportation. we are pretty in those processes. supervisor chu: did you want to answer? >> good morning, supervisors. in the grant procurement manager. our ability to secure federal highway loans has not been typical for your said house school grants. we have been good at giving grants. we started with 2, 6, 12, 15, we of probably up to 25 of those grants. the process involved, as mike has talked about, is a completely different way of giving grants, but it is also the way that the projects have to get pounded. we are all kind of moving each other up the learning curve to

get these projects funded moving forward. i am kind of looking at it in terms of a bull's-eye. the managers are aware of the deadline, but we need to be more aware of them and working into a schedule like this that starts happening -- stopped happening,. . supervisor chu: it might be appropriate for this one, or plans and programs, to understand how the mta is internally managing these deadlines. we have seen two in the most recent month and it is causing us a lot of heartburn. we do not want to see money that we have received fall to the wayside. so, this is just the latest example and never the do not want to see any future once. >> i second that, commissioner. that is an excellent request.

the federal highway has been administering grants for a long time and they are constantly changing. we know that there are many more fun programs than we used to have in the past. given what happened recently, while i think that things happening here should not be happening, the region is also struggling a little bit. for mta is the biggest recipient, but the other sponsors have had kickoff meetings with finance staff and project managers to go over the deadlines with regular check-in. we want to make sure that no one drops the ball and we are always aware of the deadline. caltrans has been a painful checklist to turn the packages into real concrete meetings with project manager finance staff on track. supervisor chu: thank you.

>> very quickly, i wanted to let the committee know that probably in the fall of 2012 we will see another request for this project to do the local match portion for construction and funds. we will see a final design at that point with updates on a specific design. we will be meeting with the commissioner's office in early april to operate around the staff of the project. supervisor wiener: any comments or questions? is there any public comment on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. is there a motion? is that a typo? this is just an information item?

no action is required. thank you. we will now go back to item no. 6. >> #6. recommend amendment of the adopted fiscal year 2011/12 budget to increase revenues by $39,451,841, increase expenditures by $30,104,501, and decrease other financing sources by $122,420,000 for a total net decrease in fund balance of $113,072,660. halthis is an action item. >> cynthia, finance and administration. this starts on page 23 of your packet. before you you have an amendment to the fiscal year 2011-2012 budget. each year between december and april we take stock of all of the new grants and any changes that may have happened during the year, or any unforeseen expenditures that may have popped up. we take a look at the current budget and we compare those numbers within the

transportation authority and adjusts the budget accordingly. if you take a look on page 28 and page 30, on page 28 we have a detailed listing of the changes we like to make for revenues, expenditures, and other financing sources, and on page 30 we have the results of these changes. i would like to walk you through the results on page 28. just so that you will get an understanding on the changes we're making. under revenue, there has been a delay of funding and the cmac programming for our brands. -- car grants. there has been a timing difference, a temperature difference regarding the final report and decelerated spending

in these programs referring to the next fiscal year. we also have a handful of new programs, from the federal state planning research project all of the way down to the federal balboa park station. those are all new rounds with funding that we received four grants after it was completed last may. next, we have the stateab1 ab11. we are in phase one of the project and we anticipate completion by june 30 with an additional $36 million in revenues and expenditures to be completed this fiscal year. next, we have more grants, more grants that have either been spent in the last fiscal year, or more grants them -- that we will be spending in this fiscal year. coming from a line item down to

the regional development authority spending. we also have $146,000 that we are adding to to the designation that has been accepted to run the transportation island transportation program. that item was approved back in october 2011. as we are going down the schedule, we have other avenues. a large revenue projects that consists of $707,000 a dpw because -- for dpw and the federal highway administration emergency release grant for a great highway project. we also have some refunds from projects like tjpa . below that, we have the $750,000

addition to the budget. the $2.5 million that we will be receiving to move to the new building at market street. telling them the list, we still have expenditures. unfortunately, most of the revenues is the bit -- vehicle registration fee. it should cost about $10 for the people of san francisco. there has been a delay in the expenditures in the 2011 crop b expenditures ap -- roprop d expenditures. going down lower, to the debt service, we are removing the $300 million anticipated bond issuance. we do not anticipate any need to

issue the bond because of lower capital spending from project sponsors and a delay in accepting sales tax reimbursement. i will receive the emotional support from the vote. in terms of fiscal impact, we're looking at the amendment -- an amendment of expenditures by $30.1 million, decreasing other financing sources by $113 million. with that, i would like to recommend an amendment to the adopted fiscal year 2012 budget. supervisor wiener: colleagues, questions? comments? seeing no one, any public comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed.

can we do that without objection? that will be the order. number seven? >> #7. recommend authorizing the executive director to execute annual contract renewals with city and county of san francisco departments, exercise contract options for various annual professional services, in an amount not to exceed $1,766,716, and modify contract terms and conditions. >> commissioner, this is another and you will i am bringing before you he's our regular, the authority think we should be outsourced, rather than in sourced, but the degree of specialization playing in impact.

and i will take a few minutes to walk you through the sixth contract. we would like to enter into another contract with them for 60 death dollars m that to enter into a contract to continue videotaping the program in the board meetings, that project would be for the seven but are there any other laboratory and we have had them work on projects like the presidio parkway, the nine -- 19th avenue

project, and another one in the gary with two monitors that the city uses for their annual audit, increasing that amount by $149,180. the next contract that i have is for an arrest and associates, and to provide consulting services. we anticipate that they would continue to provide a sense with workforce development programs and small business campaigns and

this is the final renewal option for $95,000 and how may tip of the work on this in a court or except in traffic? this is for whenever we need help with this. before i forget, this item was brought before the cec on february 22. in terms of a fiscal impact, the total is equal to $1.7 million. it would be funded by a variety of sources, including prop k from various city departments and agencies and a grant funding required from federal and regional. with that, i am available the

contract by mentioned >> continuing with the existing firms in the said the -- what was it? [unintelligible] what exactly is barbary coast doing? >> let me turn this over to the direction of planning. >> commissioner, they help us with overall communications for the entire agency and on specific pilot support. at the moment, more of their work is being utilized for the release of the dropped environmental impact report that they helped to set an outreach briefing for, identifying key

target groups in meanings for us, providing translation for focused group support. we asked them to help us with house of the blind. for geary, we will be briefing you shortly on that, but there has not been a lot of assistance going forward for the next month, and that will be gearing up. supervisor wiener: you also mentions the been about tep? >> it is the countywide transportation plan, for which there is outreach in support as well. supervisor wiener: any other comments or questions? right. any public comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion? >> so moved. supervisor wiener: without objection, that will be the

order. we will now go to item no. 8. >> item #8. recommend adoption of the proposed fiscal year 2012/13 annual budget and work program. >> this item is the fiscal year 2012-2013 budget. as you may wrote -- remember, this was brought to the fore last month. we went through a full presentation. i have the presentation again, but for the sake of time i would like to point out some of the key items in the budget. remember, this is their second look when this item would be up for action. [feedback] >> the budget for the revenue is $92.7 million for fiscal year 2013.

by stephen c., sales tax makes up the bulk of revenue budgets, 83.5%. this estimate is in line with what the controller's office has for revenues. federal funding source represents 8% of our budget and consist of $4.1 million in federal funds for the yerba buena island project. that is an island i just mentioned for the budget, and we will be shifting expenditures from fiscal year 2011-2012 to fiscal year 2012-2013. the next such a source is the vehicle registration fee. this would be the third year of the program, second year of full revenue collection.

we anticipate $4.8 million of that represents 5.2%. the remaining parts of the budget in terms of revenue are less than 2%. city regional grants and program funding have interest earnings of 1.1% and state grant funding of 0.7%, and other revenues were 0.3%. on the next slide, i wanted to highlight the 10-year recap of sales revenues. back in fiscal year 2003-2004, collections were at $64 million. we hit an all-time high in 2007- 2008 with almost $80 million of revenue collection for sales tax. we had a bit in fiscal year 2009-2010 -- a dip. we are slowly climbing back up, and we anticipate a collection of $77.5 million in sales tax revenue for fiscal year 2012-

2013. on our next slide, i would like to point out the different types of expenditures we have anticipated. total expenditures for the year will amount to $170 million. the largest bulk of expenditures represents 94.1%. this is $160.5 million for capital projects, consisting of large projects like the presidio parkway, transbay terminal, central subway, the radio communications system, and as you heard today, the better market street project. the next largest amount of expenditures we plan to incur is 3.2% for personal cost. the amount we have estimated has not changed from previous years. salaries have not increased at all. the salary structure was

established back in fiscal year 2007. the only change to this is really the cost of living and benefits. the other two small percentages we have relate to debt service of 1.5%. this is the cost to keep our commercial paper program. we also have 1.2% for our non- personnel expenditures, and that relates to office supplies, our equipment, our audit services budget, our legal services budget. one item i should add is we also anticipate a $295 million bond issue in late spring of fiscal year 2013. we will reevaluate the need for a bond at the midyear budget of the net. if it was needed, it would be brought before and finance committee for approval before any more exploring could be established.

with that, i do not want to take up any more of your time. i know the item was before you last month with a full presentation. more than happy to take questions on the rest of the fiscal year 2012-2013 budget, any questions related to the community work program. commissioner weiner: any questions, colleagues? is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? commissioner campos: so move. >> second. commissioner weiner: can we take that without objection? that will be the order. item nine. >> good afternoon, commissioners. deputy director for policy and program authority. going to give you a quick to protect of the surface transportation bill reauthorization status and dates on the federal side.

our legislative advocate will come up and give information on the bills we are presenting today. the senate is currently in session right now adjusting for actually participating in a vote-a-thon. the current extension expires on march 31 of 2012, said the countdown has really begun to see if there will be another continuing resolution that will get us through the end of the current federal fiscal year or that will give reauthorization before any election in the fall. the current structure of the house bill retains the basic funding levels. the bill might pass in the senate as currently being proposed to be amended, but it is unlikely to pass in the house.