commission. in 2006, the goal is to fund projects to improve mobility for bay area residents coming out of collaborative planning processes, and in proving a range of transportation choices for low-income residents. mtc has identified what it calls communities of concern, a geographic areas they have identified across the region that have concentrations of low income, minority populations, and they're now looking at other disadvantage factors such as low car ownership rates, limited english banking and things like that. this is a list of seven unidentified communities. for the lifeline program, mtc does want to target communities of concern, but apply lessons learned from serving low-income communities.

this is just a map showing the different communities of concern. >lifeline is a relatively new program. there have been two cycles to date. both were selected for this election management agency, which the authorities served that role in san francisco. mta approves it for the whole region. in 2011, both of those cycles work evaluated and made a series of recommendation they incorporated. one of the major recommendations was included a new fund that source that allow us to fund a bike and pet projects. as you know, low income communities have this as a really high priority. one of the other major changes they made was to assign approximately half of the lifeline -- proposition 1b state

funds into the property owners. the other half going to the congestion management agency similar to prior cycles. for those of you that have been through this cycle before, it is a very challenging grant program. with multiple funding sources and fluctuating levels. it is important to know your programming testaments, since the final levels are dependent on the tradition bill reauthorization and things like that. so this is one quick slide on the upcoming action you will be taking in april and may with the congestion management agency or the authority county control portion of the lifeline fund. we out of a total of 5.3 million in the program -- we will have a total of 5.3 million in the

program. the transportation funds are being set aside as discussions continue about the youth past program. we did issue a competitive call for progress. we will be bringing back, a series of stock recommendations for the funding of the $1.2 million portion and make. we have received applications and are working with the evaluation panel right now to put together recommendations. >> so this shows that what the subject of today's action is, what we're getting from the regional transit operators. they develop their priorities. mtc did require concur rents. they are going around to the counties and requesting them to review the list. they submitted to us by february 15. they will be able to act as funds starting in the next two

fiscal years. they have to submit the project this by april 2011. this is the deadline to submit our list to them, which is why we are going first. this is a quick snapshot of the funds available to the regional operators, as well as muni. some relief to us for holding the lifeline project aside, they have preferred a life line priorities until that is resolved. we should get -- we should do that next month and a larger presentation. there is a lot more detail on all of the regional remaining transgendered operator proposals in attachment three to the memo, page 52. bart is the only of operators that is proposing direct projects within san francisco. 2.1 million of bicycle improvements listed here. the remainder of operators are proposing a combination of

systemwide improvements throughout the sisters benefiting low-income riders and regular riders -- throughout the system benefiting low-income writers and regular riders. this will complete installation on the entire fleet of the devices. cold and get proposal is for communications and information systems project. with that, at the with the par bart, golden gate lifeline property so we can forward that by the april 11 deadline. we will be back over the next two months with more lifeline programming action. with that, i am happy to answer any questions you have. here is the contact information for members of the public. commissioner ofavalos: thank

you. i am a bit like when supporter. this is still a possibility within the context of the concurrence. very good we can go to public comment. >> just a quick question on the proposed programming, and the together on the bart project. would they have the obligation to maintain the improvements they put in, because they often make station improvements and a couple of years later they fall apart and they do not seem to maintain that appear yet on particular on the finding, but also as it relates to the bicycle projects and some of the other items that are included for the regional operators, i am wondering what the late its requirement would be for the grant recipients. as i understand this, this is a regional program, so it is not

subject to the regional programs. commissioner avalos: thank you. >> todd morgan is available to into that question. -- to answer that question. >> todd morgan with bart. the answer is yes, the improvements will be on the property. there will be owned by bart. they will be paid for by state dollars. the state also has an interest that those assets that are paid for with their funds be maintained and have a useful life of the teen years or more. it is an absolute yes on that. >> while you were here, there is part of the funding will go for finding in the park? to g>> >> aa large portion.

there has been discussion about putting up signs edge on the boxes, either side of tunisa. that would provide information. it has been lagging for a long time. if you are able to talk about what the progress is on that. can any of the funding help move that along? >> you will see what is in the list at $1 million. we have been coordinated with sfmta on ongoing study for balboa. between the agencies we have agreed, especially on bart properties that they would take responsibility for and install. it will be real time, as well

as metal signs. the real-time information would be 511 type of information. >> we have a timeline for that? this has been decades in the making. >> i can tell you we're coordinating. this money is depend on state on sales. there is a state on sale april 9. we hope prop 1b will get some of the money as it is allocated to the many needs around the state. we should proceeds this summer. there is the procurements in place to do cited already. this balboa and other stations would be part of an ongoing for the follow-up procurement scandal to go to the board in december. provided we have the state money

by then, the cash from the bond sales, than the procurements schedule is to award a contract around december and start installation after that. >commissioner avalos: thank you. i have been told about schedules in the past and have been very delayed. i have a great deal of displeasure about how long it has taken to get what should be an amenity that everyone should have in the southern part of san francisco, and we get passed over every time. i figure while you are here, we should say that. >> ok. >commissioner avalos: we will close public comment and have a motion to approve this item we will take that without objection. madam clerk, if you could call

item no. 9. >> draft proposition aa strategic plan development schedule and approach. this is an information item. >> we are bringing this as an information item to provide you with an update on the schedule and approach to develop the fur strategic plan for proposition aa. we are drawn largely on the structure of the prop k program. this will include sections on revenues and expenditures, project prioritization and administration. in november of 2010, san francisco voters approved proposition aa which had a real -- vehicle registration fee. it established three programmatic categories that were shown at the bottom of attachment one that begins on page 58. the third one is transit

reliability and mobility. the expenditure plan expect includes three guiding principles. i want to highlight the key differences between these principles and principles we find in propep k. they get their demographic distribution and they both seek to ensure transparency. projects must have a clear relationship to those paying the fee. at other one is they can only be used to fund design and construction and priority will be given to projects it could be initiated within 12 months. prop k can be designed and does not have a specific time requirement. >commissioner avalos: is that local? >> that was a decision made through the expenditure plan. any public agency may apply for the bonds.

they place an emphasis on projects with complete elements, and finally they have far fewer categories. it is partly due to the size of annual revenue. for prop aa, 5 million. for prop k, 7 7 million. the overall 30-year projections for prop aa revenue is about $150 million. revenue collection here and send francisco began at the dmv and february 2011. after paying the initial feet and the sanford says go department 11 these, we began building capital reserve. today, with revenues collected, we of 3.2 million. this chart shows monthly revenue to date. the project is what gets us to 5 million per year. the variable star green line is what we've seen. it is a bit more variable than

what we would have been dissipated. -- and what we have anticipated. the schedule, which is an attachment to on page 60, shows the optimistic tie line for the development of the strategic plan from here on out. we plan to issue a call for projects to inform the strategic plan and assistance in developing the privatization program. our goal is to have five years' worth of projects. based on the initial sponsor our reach, we think it is unlikely we will be able to program of five years' worth of revenue. we're looking to strike a balance between projects that are ready to go today and a year or two with developing pipeline projects that developed a clear pryor's station process. it is through the process we will be continuing to look for public input.

we can share details as we move forward, and we plan to bring the draft criteria to this committee next month. the of prioritization criteria will be dependent on response to the call from sponsors. finally, we have been in contact with a number of public agencies we normally do not interact with as often, including department of public health, department of wrecks and parrec and parks. we have been able to identify projects that would be good for the fund, and understand the process to deliver transportation projects that are in place. we of been in contact with more traditional projects to identify potential projects. with that, i can take questions. we have representatives from a

couple of the sponsored agencies i have mentioned. >> ok. any comments or questions? commissioner avalos: we will go to public comment first. >> and i the only person who does not work for an agency? i was not in favor of the prop delay program having these multiple categories, because i thought it will lead to this sort of bureaucracy in terms of project applications and developing a strategic plan and expanding funds on administration that i thought could go to actual projects. it is what it is. i would hope that staff can streamline the the application and review process so that it can actually go to dpw, mta and

other eligible agencies. as i read the report, it suggests this would go for high impact projects that are low cost. perhaps those resurfacing projects that are single streets that cannot easily get into a long 10-block stretch but has a street that has a deteriorated road where it would seem appropriate for that. some of the more near-term improvements at mta, and perhaps some way finding signs and other pedestrian improvements at potentially a variety of public agencies. again, i would ask if the improvement funded here will be maintained by the agencies. i would hope so. i would hopes that would insure that as a condition of receiving the fund. as that asked for input and

guidance from the committee about our reach, i think this would be an opportunity to look to others who have been involved with the authority in the past to do some outreach. i hope that is helpful, and this year questions, the cute. >> any other member of the public that would like to comment? cnn, we will close public comment this is an information item. i expect we have a plan coming forward. -- seeing none, we will close public comments this is an information item. there was a person that was possibly going to present? not here? ok. we can go on to the last item. item number 10, please. to the introduction of new items. commissioner avalos: 80 new

items to present? public comment for this. we will close public comment on item number 10. item number 11. public comment. commissioner avalos: we will close public comment. item no. 12. we are returned. thank you very much. -- we are adjourned.