forward and our timeline to be met, we need to engage in design and construction services team from hudson pacific. the ownership needs to have confidence that the tenant improvement package is something that is approved as well by their tenants before moving forward. it is difficult to do one without the other and not have a serious schedule impact. we would be on hold taking the design to the next level to price this and get it into construction. supervisor kim: one other recommendation i would make is that we would be happy to come back to the board -- >> one other recommendation i would make is that we would be happy to come back to the board to clarify improvements. we know that we have the $61. we can hit the ground running on a fund-raising campaign. i would be happy to come back

and report to this committee or to the full board about how things are going, or at a time certain to provide more information. but as the director said, they are entering the plea linked. -- a intrinsically linked. supervisor kim: i do not feel comfortable with approving tenant improvements at the $75 per square foot. i think we either should have two architectural plans going forward, or you should commit to the plan once the fund -- the money is fund raised. but i do not feel comfortable with the potential alternative, which is increased rent, barred and amortized which seems to cover what seemed to be not necessarily tenant improvements. but i feel comfortable with the lease as a whole. i'm happy to see the work that way into it.

i'm trying to figure out how we can move forward on this with what the property owner has committed to for tenant improvements. >> what we're looking for is approval from the budget and finance committee to borrow the funds from the property manager, if necessary, for the extra dollars. we do not intend to exercise that unless absolutely necessary. we did try to put the language in the least that is not something that we plan to use. if we do have to execute it, if worst-case scenario happened and we actually do need to borrow the $10 from the property managers at the 8% rate, that would have a budget impact of about $45,000 per year that we would have more time to fund raise four. that is what we are hoping to do. we're hoping to get the budget approval to exercise that option, but now that we are

taking the approach to backfill the money that we think we will need to fill that out. chairperson chu: we have to take a break and then we can take public comment before we act on the item in any case. perhaps, we can do is go on to recess for half an hour and then return at 12:45 p.m. and then in the ensuing time, the department of environment can work with us to see what would be a good solution we are not sure whether it is necessary to have that additional $300,000 in additional improvements. i think there is a lack of desire to want to see it amortized over the rent. and to see it fund raised a few years down the line to pay for the amortization of improvements from a few years ago, i think he will have a harder time fund- raising for it than you would in the beginning. let's have a quick conversation offline about that and then we can decide on the item later.

colleagues, if we can, we have already taken the recommendations from the budget analyst with agreement. withh supervisor chu: welcome back to

the budget and finance the full committee meeting. we're just coming back from recess. we want to pick up where we left off, talking about the department of environment lease component. there was an outstanding question around the improvement component that would be amortized through rent for that facilities. we have worked through the department of environment a potential option to consider. perhaps i connects the director of real estate or department of environment to speak to that. >> thank you. what you have before you is a revised resolution asking for the budget and finance committee to approve the proposed lease with one of adjustment. the prior resolution was asking for the budget and finance

committee to authorize department of the environment to receive a loan up to $10 per square foot for tenant improvements. we have struck that from this resolution. we are proposing to move ford with the lease and the dollar's the property manager is offering today. we would like to come back with construction plans, exact costs, and a report on our fund-raising activities and ask for an authorization from the committee to execute on that loan option if needed. that is the resolution before you today. i will see if the director for real estate has anything to add. >> just to expand and add it, by taking this approach, we don't have to amend the lease. this would not authorize me as a

signatory for the city to approve a further expenditure be on the allowance being allowed by the landlord, said that would not require the full board approval if that is necessary. supervisor chu: the document you have provided to us, is it easy enough to point to where it is in the existing document? could you strike out lines 14 through 17 on page two? the items struck from the original resolution -- page one, items 20 and 21. that was struck. on page 2, line 14 through 17

that says the city shall have the right to amortize and the increase to base rent, athat was struck. line 18 and 19 -- to only use the additional allowance of $10 per square foot if it was needed to complete construction of the space. after final costs are determined and only of the full amount as are raised or donated. we have begun the process of obtaining in kind grants and on page 3, a line was added where we are seeking in kind donations above the base allowance. those are the resolutions before you. supervisor chu: thank you. i think this meets the colleagues as to whether -- this

meets as to whether or not the -- this would allow us if we were to move forward to enter into delis and began planning for and getting drawings in place. when that happens, we'll have a much better idea as to whether the extra $300,000 is for additional bells and wrestles -- bells and whistles or for tenant improvements. at this time, we can reconsider whether to put -- whether to adjust leased to accommodate for that. i want to thank the department for coming up with the idea. colleagues, i know we have to take public comment before we take action. that is entered into the record

as the proposed amendment to item number 11. with that, -- i want to thank the department of the environment for your presentation. are there any other questions from the colleagues on this or any part of the budget? thank you for your time and let's move on to the mta budget. >> -- supervisor wiener: i'm going to have to leave to go to the government oversight committee. supervisor chu: supervisor wiener has another piece of legislation he is shepherding through a different committee. he will be back. >> good afternoon. and the director of transportation and i am happy to be here with you to present the budget for the next two fiscal years which was approved by the

mta board a couple of weeks ago on april 17 and transmitted to you about one month ago. i will be sure to cover all district eight related items during a time when supervisor wiener is out of the room. that was a joke. i'm going to walk quickly through some of this because it was what i presented when i came before you in april which was before submitting our budget to the board. i want to reinforce that the framework within which we developed this budget and will be implementing it and all that we do in the next six years is the strategic plan to be effective this coming july 1. it is meant to cover the next three fiscal cycles. in it, all we have identified a new vision state for the agency

as well as specific goals we will use to guide our work under each of these goals. we have specific objectives and measures that we can hold ourselves accountable in you and the public can hold us accountable for the things we have agreed to do as part of this adopted strategic plan. this is the frame within the budget was considered and adopt it and i think you will see references to transit, quality of life and improvements in the agency reflected in the proposals we have in this budget. before jumping into the numbers, it just to touch upon more visible elements and what we are responsible for and what we will be doing in the next couple of

years, the big part of the mta is muni and we are very much focused on improving the reliability. one way we are doing it is an investment in maintenance. we have a lot of infrastructure in the ground and in our vehicles that have not been as well maintained as we wouldn't like it to be over the last generation. we have been involved heavily in the maintenance of this system that tracks the switches and vehicles so that we can improve the liability of the system. at the same time, we are looking at how we can approve the -- improve the efficiency of this system. we are in the midst of the transit effectiveness project.

we are doing a lot of outreach to get feedback on the travel time reduction proposals that will help speed the system. there are other initiatives such as outdoor boarding, which i would like to thank you for approving support on. that was approved by the voters last november. we have good things to look forward to in this cycle. bike and pedestrian safety has been a significant issue. for the board of supervisors, i mention the street's bond which has $50 million for streetscape

improvements. in terms of funding sources, we have been working with the departments of funding to develop the list of projects to implement the bond with a focus of safety. particularly bicycles, that's the fastest growing share and we want to make sure all of the modes can operate safely. including the offices of education in particular on enforcement to make sure people in all modes of traffic are following the rules of the road. in terms of providing taxi

service, we are on the way to achieving transit first policy, considering some significant changes in the regulatory structure of the taxi industry that will be up for consideration on june 5, one week from tuesday. that would potentially reform the way medallions are issued and we do have a necessity study underway now to determine what the right level of taxis is for san francisco. this medallion reform will position us so that when we have the answer on the supply later this fall, we will be able to execute. we're looking at the efficiency in terms of dispatching. when you pick one of them to

call, you might not be accessing the service that has a communication with the cab that could service you fastest. we need some way of getting visibility to all of the taxis on the street available to anyone seeking a taxi. those are some things we are working on to improve taxi service. in terms of parking, we are looking at our whole enforcement regime am looking at restructuring how and when our control officers are deployed. i don't think it has had a systematic look in quite some time. we just yesterday got a draft audit from the comptroller's office that will help us look at other aspects of our enforcement system, but the short answer is that there is opportunity for improvement in how we are currently using and managing

enforcement on the parking side. we will be working to see some improvements there. soon we will be bringing forth their request for proposals for the replacement of parking meters city-wide. within a bad year and a half, we will have all the old meters changed out and all modern leaders that take credit cards and provide higher functionality than the current ones have. that will be consistent with our desire to make it easier to find and pay for parking, which has so far been working if we measure the fact that our leader has been up which is exactly what we would want. we would much rather get the money through the meters and their parking tickets. >> -- supervisor chu: when did you say

it would be implemented completely? >> we are just putting the rfp out now. we expect by the end of the next calendar year that it will be done but we will have a better time line on that. supervisor chu: with regard to the implementation, will they have in regards to the payment options, will there be something to attract utilization? >> you mean the sensors in the ground? we do not have funds are right now for more deployment of that. we have put together a grant proposal that we have been discussing with the u.s. department of transportation. we have outlined and the need their but we are just continuing with the pilot which is about one-quarter of the metered parking spaces and three- quarters of the parking garages.

>supervisor chu: supervisor cohen there is nothing in termsf utilization and in terms of current stocks, we have one third of meters and 3/4 -- >> about three-quarters of the of st. parking, as the current scope of the pilot. supervisor avalos: just a request that when you do the upgrades, they start in district 11 and 10 first. maybe seven. >> the big picture on revenues, the allocations are not changing much, but our revenues, about one-quarter from transit fares, one quarter from parking and

traffic, one quarter from the general fund. but there is an additional now we get from the -- additional now we get from the general fund. about one-third of the funding comes from the general fund pass through authorized by the voters under proposition 8. that is more less the picture. we do anticipate a little bit of growth because ridership is up and i will walk through what some of the other changes are, but i will note the strong health of the economy has been very helpful to us. you can see that general fund baseline is rising pretty steadily. this doesn't count for the latest news and how that would translate into additional

revenues in the next couple of years. a big part of that was our two- year $80 million gap, accomplished in the general fund. the main changes we -- that the board approved in this budget from the current fiscal year, we have an indexing policy for our transit fares tied to a couple of vision "-- a couple of inflation measures that has put us on an automatic cycle of indexing. the fast path will go from $62 this fiscal year to $64 the next year and the discounted pass will go from $21 now to $22 next

year and 23 the following year because of the way the formula works, the cash fare will not change over this fiscal cycle and will remain, and 75 cents for additional fare. we're taking the indexing policy and applying across virtually all of our revenue sources, all fines and fees except for where we are limited in doing that. the cost recovery fees, we increase those to reflect our cost and parking fines, we are indexing as well. the numbers and parentheses, that is for each of the fiscal years. so it is about the same in each fiscal year. in terms of parking, this is an area that has engendered much interest. there are two significant

elements of changes in parking management revenues. first is that there are two different state fees. there are $3 fees the state is attaching to every parking citation in the state. these go into state court house funds. it is how the state is funding the capital programming for their courthouses, including the one here in the hall of justice. we are currently passing through one of those dollars out of the total six. we would be passing through the additional five. we need to pay the state $6 for each ticket. if we don't pass it through to the people getting the citation, we would have to take it out of the operating budget. one of those fees is set to sunset at the end of the first

fiscal year. to the extent that holds and a legislature doesn't extend it, we would drop down the surcharge by $3. we have proposals for metered parking expansion, the first aspect is by time and place. there are some gaps in commercial areas where we currently do not have metered parking. in some cases, we have no managed parking and we would -- these are small areas throughout the city. vistas to reflect any large area or gaps either because land use has changed or they had never been installed. the other one which i recognized is significant is parking meters on sundays. wheat currently accept

important meters with enforcement except on sundays. this would extend that to sunday's but would start at noon instead of in the morning and have for our time limits in recognition of different kinds of activities that happen on sundays. while there is certainly a revenue component of parking on sundays, it is consistent with our transit first policy. our analysis shows parking utilization on sundays throughout the city for the most part is that 100%. it is virtually impossible for people to find parking on sundays. there are parking management

benefits and transit first benefits as well as relatively modest revenue that would come from the meters on sundays. supervisor chu: on the parking meter items, could you break down the value on what they are? >> the pass through is about $5 million per year. sunday enforcement is all will last. we would be implementing this part way through the fiscal year. in the second year, the net benefit is $1.9 million and the balance would be for the parking meters. >> we are taught -- supervisor chu: we are talking about between $900,000 and $1 million the first year and that 5 million state pass through -- that would be 5 million on year

to? >> that is for your one. the budget for yoear two -- supervisor chu: there were concerns about being able to prepay for a longer time not to disrupt service. can you do that for meters that have not been upgraded? >> my understanding is all of our meters can be programmed to enable prepay. that is something we will do. we will be putting together an implementation working group with various stakeholders so we can have an opportunity to hear feedback like that. one of the issues is would -- we would be able to allow for prepayment of meters. if you pull up at 11:00 and will be their past noon, you can feed the meter or pay by phone and

it won't start ticking down the time until noon. people won't have to park, go somewhere and then come back at noon in order to feed the meter. supervisor chu: one of the things we have heard is for some of the new meters, it is relatively simple to program a four hour time limit or two hour time limit, whatever the city determines should be the best marker to set. for existing meters, do you have to manually go and do things to it or change the signs? >> this will require a sign a change and changes to the meters. there is definitely an implementation component that we will have to make changes. we go and make sure that meters and signs are all consistent. if you had only be upgraded meters at the