percentage of apprentice practice? >>they have between 5% to 9%. >> i would need to consult with steve and give you a better update next month. i am sorry. >> it would be helpful to not just understand why, but what we are doing to get these out to at least 20% where they are supposed to be. >> absolutely. braques and do we know on the trade by trade on the previous -- >> and do we know on the trade by trade, on the previous like, how this shakes out? are there trades that are drawing more from the outside of the bay area, or is it fairly even? >> the operating engineers is where we are trying more from outside of the bay area. part of that is becko, the

buttress subcontractor, they have a core team that they have moved around the country with their equipment. but also, a total number of operating engineers we have on the job is greater than we would see on a typical project because of the amount of heavy equipment that we have. >> i think there is a slight distance fortunate amount there. -- of heavy equipment that we have. i think there's a slight disproportionate amount there. but we can give you trade by trade both local and non-local. >> thank you. with respect to the recycling efforts, we are doing really great. we have an 81% rate based on tonnage. that means to date, 14,000 t out of 15,000 t of materials have been recycled out of the project. that is a great diversion rate. we have been recycling asphalt,

concrete, cardboard, lumber. we are doing really great on the recycling fraud. and this is all going toward meeting the lead requirements. as a reminder, we are going to get a goal lead on the project. that concludes my report. >> moving on to the next item, which is public comment. i see we have one card. mr. jim patrik. if anyone else would like to speak at public comment, please come up. >> i have two topics to discuss. i recently saw this report that i have a little bit of that just come out in april. -- came out in april. the district improvements. it is the first peek into the notion of the route and how it will play itself out. as i read it, the members --

melarus tax will be up to 5% of the district. that is very expensive. this is going to put affordable housing at a disadvantage, office tactic -- office tenants leasing at a different -- a disadvantage and others as well. the property values will not quite double, but very close to that. property tax is about 1% and we're going to add another half a percent to the value of the property. this is very expensive. i suggest you need to look at this. item number two, which is of real concern, we might be able to -- we might be building a park that no one can get to, much as a bridge to nowhere. when i say that, there's only one viable entrance to the park. if we budget for more entrances to the park, based on this report i see here, but they will

not occur until the next phase. i believe the budgeting items, to get access to the park, and make a real, a viable entity should be in the construction phase of the park. the timing of the budgeting and the paying for these things is incorrect we need access to the park. we do not have it right now. it needs to be put into the budget, so we can get it. i do not want a park that no one can get to. and we need to control the costs would be melarus district, very expensive. thank you. >> are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? the trend that -- the transit district plan is being heard currently. the initiation began last week, but you can come to the final eir plan of action on the 24th. seeing no other public comment,

public comment is now closed. we now live to our consent calendar. can we hear them separately? but we just have a regular calendar today. item #7 is a presentation of and public hearing for draft fiscal year 2012-13 capital budget in an amount not to exceed $221,000. correct our chief financial officer will report on this item -- >> our chief financial officer report on this item. >> the draft budget will be brought to you next month for final approval. this is just for your final information and for your comment. it is a capital budget, fiscal year budget of $223 million and an operations budget for the temporary terminal for $4.4 million. this is an estimate of the overall baseline budget for the project as a whole. this is our looking at cash flow

projections, the estimate of what would be spent in the upcoming fiscal year. obviously, the large majority of that is for professional and specialized services, 94%, or $210 million, and $159 million or well over half of the budget is anticipated for construction next year. director kim had asked about revenues at the last meeting. on the expenditure side, where there is an estimate of what would be spent next year, it is also an estimate of correlating revenue pain for those expenditures. next month, for instance, we will have an allocation for an mtp grant of $7 million, however, only 10% is included in the next year's fiscal budget. what ever is not spent in the

fiscal year remains allocated for future fiscal years. same with the lands. while the block 67 proposal price was $30 million, only a little over $12 million was included in the fiscal budget for next year because that is what we expect to spend of the $30 million. the rest would remain in a trust account and be invested per hour -- her our investment policy. >> i noticed that we still have $7.5 million to be determined. and i noticed that number drastically increased last year, where it was only $760,000. do you have a lot of confidence that we will get that funding from tciu? and what will be have from the bridge toll, the $73 million that we are in discussion with at the mctc?

there are two grants of $2 million each, roughly. >> i will take the easy one first, the ntt -- allocation of $73 million, it really is just a formality. it was their commitment to us. this board will approve the initial project report and will be brought to the ntc board in june as well. >> is this a flow of $73 million? is it a onetime grant divided up over time? >> it is a broad scope, largely construction base. as we incur the expenses we

invoice them and are able to pay the contractors when they reimburse us. ac transit, because those are state applications, we're not sure on the timing of those. as things become awarded, we move them into the committed revenue section. the revenue to be identified, the reason that is larger this year is that there have been, as i'm sure you are aware, discussions with all of the bay area family agencies regarding high-speed rail funding, etc., and as part of those discussions, the mtc have provided revenues to move forward with the bay area

revenue. mtc is committed to helping us find that funding. i know the -- we will not incur the revenue expenditures -- will not incur the expenditures if the revenues do not come through. perhaps another our timeline issues and potential revenue -- >> i know there are timeline issues and potential revenue questions. i wonder if we have expenditures dependent on next year's fiscal budget on the tower revenue. >> next year as in fiscal year 2013-14, yes. not the current budget we are proving. >> are there any other questions from directors? thank you so much. >> see you next month with that. >> there is no action to be taking. it was a public hearing, though. no members of the public have

indicated they want to address that. we can move on. >> item number 8. >> approving the transit joint powers committee. drugs -- >> this year, in january we started the process of doing out reached to try to recruit members for the cac. the we have reached out to the operating agencies advertise in several community publications, as well as reaching out to members of chambers of commerce and cbo's within the city for applicants. we had originally scheduled that application to run through the end of february, at which time we had 10 new applicants.

we made the decision to extend the application time frame through the end of march, and it read you again some of our outreach, which resulted in additionally -- an additional five applicants. and we are bringing to you today list of applicants. five would be returning candidates, who all have one term of service on the cac. one of them is one of our inaugural members of the cac. the other of four have a single term of service. and we have three new applicants to the cac. i can answer any questions you may have. >> we have a question from director ortiz. >> i see it is not required to put down ethnicity.

would you say that it is a very representative -- and i know it is difficult to try to attract applicants. >> it is a challenge. of the 15 applicants that we received, i believe all of them did indicate their ethnicity. there would be 10 caucasian applicants, three hispanic, one african-american, and one who indicated mixed ethnicity. >> i have some comments. first, thank you for spending the time on the outreach. as director ortiz said, is typical to out reached for these committees. i appreciate the expenditure of time. i was impressed with the applicant, but those that were reappointing -- both those that were reappointing and the new

ones. i really liked sandra and her background. another one, pascal, he also has a planning background. i thought both were great. i did have concerns. i will now be supporting -- not be supporting the standard oil. -- sandra boil. she had a very impressive real- estate and environmental background, but i think we need to find someone who actually works in environmental work, since we have only one position for that seat. but i was happy to see their real applications. i know that these individuals that reapply, they are very active in their districts and neighborhoods and i'm happy to see that they want to continue to serve. i will be supporting applicant seats won, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and

eight, but not two. gregg's you bring to mind -- >> you bring up the point that this is an environmental position and she does not seem to have that background, so how did you select her as an environmentalist? >> the candidates indicate what areas they are engaged in. we do have several people who indicate more than one area. but it is difficult to fit people into all of the slots. in that situation, we were relying on herself -- on her self reporting and trying to find a candidate to fill that slot. id will have one other applicant -- i would have to go back and

look at all of them -- who indicated that they had an environmental interest or background. >> we do not have a duty to fulfill that specific requirement? >> we do have a duty. our bylaws specify 15 individual seats. and in this instance, she indicated to -- she indicated that was an area of interest or competency, and we relied upon that. >> her professional affiliations with usdbc, i think you looked at that. lee tep was also a consideration. she did lift herself as an environmentalist. what she does not have

technical, she did mention affiliation. we basically took her at her word that she is an environmentalist. grex i'm agreeing with jane. but that is fine. -- >> i am agreeing with jane. >> that is fine. >> any other comment from directors? i do not know if we have to do an amendment to the resolution. at this time just to delete sandra boil. and i'm also glad todd williams will be here. >> he is very committed. >> very committed, right. if we can just delete that. it wrecks -- >> motion to amend.

it ranks second. -- >> second. >> we will revise the resolution to remove sandra boiled as one of the applicants and approve the item and come back to you for another candidate for that position. with that, a motion and a second. >>can we get that without opposition? any opposed? >> move approval. >> second. >> now to the resolution as amended. i'm sorry, i want to clarify. we made a motion to amend the resolution, which was approved, and now we're going to vote to approve the amended resolution. >> first and second.

any opposed? seeing none, all in favor? ok. >> item number 9. >> [unintelligible] >> we did not receive any members of the public that wanted to comment on the item, did you wish to comment on that item? i did not come up, but now i do wish to comment on it. >> we have already voted on this item. we usually take public comment on the boat. but just come up and speak on item number 8. >> thank you. i'm jim patrik with patrik and company. i have observed a lot of these board meanings and i find that this board does not pay any attention to the community. i have seen actions taken their that die in the board. i would strongly recommend that

this board, as part of their activity, evaluate or make notes on the minutes of that meeting, so that we know that what they're doing is landing on this board. from an outsider looking in, i do not think it happens. i think it's a charade. i have no comment about the particular nominees. but thank you for your comments. -- >> thank you for your comments. >> item #9 is approving a resolution authorizing the joint powers agreement and authorizing participation in the workers' compensation program. for public entities to to the gift of consent. drugs and directors farewell -- >> and director sarah will comment on this item. i will have their report on that. brecht's -- >> workers'

compensation coverage its stature torelli required -- statutorily required and right now, our fund is over $40,000 a year. going with our current provider for general liability and properties program, we will see significant savings. it is also a very good program. the combined ratio is referred to as a measure of expenses to the premiums collected. and the combined ratio is always historically lower than the industry average benchmark. they have a very good program. they're very proud of their approach to loss prevention and preventing injuries, rather than having to pay claims after that fact. it may i answer any questions? >> any questions from directors?

>> motion to approve. >> i want to commend the director and her staff for bringing this. it is not a lot of money, but every dollar we can say is great. there is reference in the staff report to -- in relation to being self insured. the purpose of this is basically to buy the insurance for workers, -- workers' comp. >> it puts us into the risk insurance pool that thefdrma is in. the date combination of purchasing insurance as well as reinsurance. the companies are all rated excellent or superior in both their liability and worker's comp program. >> thank you. >> no members of the public have indicated they would -- they want to address you. correct any members of the public wish to comment?

-- >> any members of the public wish to comment? with that, may have a motion and a second? >> so moved. greg second. >> all in favor? many oppose? item nine is approved. >> item 10 will be the minutes of the april 25th -- april 2012 meeting and will be continued because we had some directors absent last month. >> will continue it. zeno other items at this time, we will recess the regular meeting and move into closed session. >> and have not received indication that any members of the public wish to address you. but they have the opportunity to now. >> if any members of the public wish to speak on any item in the session, please come up now. seeing none,

>> the board of directors meeting is now back in session. the cracks as to item number one, conference with real property negotiators and legal counsel regarding existing litigation on of thomas street -- and that thomas street, the board authorizes an executive's sales agreement with patrick mahoney to purchase 85 natomas street #14 $3 million. -- never one for $3 million. we also authorized the purchase of 85 never to 4 $1 million.

-- number two for $1 million. and 85 natomas street #4, the board authorizes executive sale agreement for the purchase price of $893,000. and upon closing, authorizes the dismissal of the eminent domain action. and as to item number four the mob 85 net thomas street, now berg -- the item number four, the property on 85 natomas street #4, and upon closing to authorize the disposal of the eminent domain action. rekha thank you. and we have no further items -- >> thank you. and we have no further items on the agenda today. >> correct.

rex seeing none about the meeting is adjourned. meeting is adjourned. -- >> seeing none, the meeting