outstanding, projecting another $5 million with target in 5 million new gifts, conservatively 3 million would be a good outcome, dove tailing with the costs for the first half of this year. they are looking at year end of giving to be key. obviously that is the time when they do a lot of giving. hopefully the dove tail, followed by good followup will result in realization of more funds over the course of the next three months that. is my prepared remarks but i'm happy to answer questions about any of that. >> thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> good morning, chair chu, members of the committee. as we say on page five of our report. i won't repeat too much of it. mr. martin had to say. is that this revised da, the one thing it does is transfers responsibility for obtaining the security from the acoc to the city.

he spelled out the exposure of the city there would be in terms of cash 2.4 million dollars that would need to be put into the cash collateral or escrow immediately that may or may not be used. also another $1 million the city would have to come up with in terms of paying the premium on the $5 million insurance policy that the organizing committee will obtain. these are in the budget, are general fund moneys and reimbursable by america's cup organizing committee. if the cash collateral were to be drawn down in case the city couldn't meet its obligations or if there were additional funds, the additional 2.4 million during the event, those moneys are supposed to be reimbursable by the america's cup organizing committee. but as we said in our earlier report in march the availability of those funds

is not certain. there was a discussion of fundraising. it is short of the $32 million that was originally considered. the city's been paid in full through june. we don't know about the august payments, so we do consider this to be a policy matter for the board because of the uptick in the funds. >> thank you. supervisor avalos? >> thank you, just followups for the budget analyst or mr. martin, but that is really on -- what we are anticipating as a city in terms of how -- what our appropriation from oewd for -- we are anticipating we would have 2.4 for cash collateral and another one million plus for insurance or is this a new expenditure that we hadn't anticipated? >> supervisor, i will take a first shot at answering that and go from there. we anticipated the cost for security when we came before you in march n. the current appropriation we feel there is capacity to

make these payments as required, as proposed in the resolution. we are not looking for new authority but strictly folding it in with what's already been reviewed. >> so then when we had made the appropriation for the office of economic workforce development was there an actually line item that referred to these expenditures and others? >> there was not a specific line item that said cash collateral and security. it was appropriated as a $10 million amount broadly for event purposes. >> is there any risk of something else not being covered by this expenditure being done? have we over extended, you know, how this $10 million will be used and looking at future trade-offs that we will have to adjust in budget committee down the line? >> i don't believe so. we went through sort of a forward budgeting exercise in reviewing this with the risk manager and controller's office to understand how this looks

going forward. we see certainly that costs of not only finishing the planning of the event but also putting on the august events were lower than we projected. think we did a conservative job and it is coming in below. i guess i would express confidence on that side but provisions chair chu mention about coming back with reports on cost-saving measures on a quarterly basis is a way to keep on top of this going forward. >> just kind of related to what we have before us, more general to the america's cup, what have we been able to learn from the events that happened last month and what we expect relative to what will happen next month and next year? do we have a sense that we are successful in terms of attendance? do we have any measurements of economic activity that we earlier had projected?

what do we have for any kind of data related to that? >> it is interesting. so back when the original economic projections were done back in 2010 that had the much ballyhooed one million number of jobs, et cetera, it did not take into account 2012 america's cup world series events. those weren't in part of their analysis. what we have done, i think, is used august to give sort of a baseline of what, quote unquote, normal day or normal week of next year would look like. i think we really were pretty pleased we got a lot of constructive comments but it wasn't a great deal of complaints. i don't think services in the marina were overwhelmed, muni performed well. we can do better like community augments so there are operational things we want to improve on and test out in october. we have anecdotal evidence of certainly neighborhoods, commercial districts, starting with the waterfront ones having increased interest.

we don't see sort of upticks in hotel bookings for august. at least in our sort of unscientific sampling. i think part of that is what we will look like next year, august, september and july are the big tourist areas anyway. >> it is hard to measure who came specifically for america's cup year over year. hotel occupancy rates seem to be similar. >> right. for that sector we will have to do thinking about how we measure that. do we do surveys, try to find ways to count people year over year. i mean we want to be able to assign with some specificity this was an america's cup benefit. we have been talking to the organizing committee as part of what they are putting together to get an economic study that looks at what is happening during the events. because i think it is -- i think difficult as we are finding to take a snapshot in hindsight how many were there and what did they spend on. we need to be ahead of

doing visitor accounts, surveys of neighborhood groups to see how -- i think also sort of informs our strategies. we will survey a neighborhood, we want to figure out a way that there is a specific strategy to get them involved in the event benefits and that sort of thing. i wouldn't say there is a number kicking out of august and october of this year. but what i would say is, you know, i think we feel comfortable with spectator estimates that the event authority has put together from their aerial photography, about 150,000 over the course of the august events. i think there's really no chance of us being able to aggregate america's cup visitors fleet week or decompression or visitors during the weekend of october 6th and 7th, so i think we will probably not be able to see what that bump was. what we are going to get out of october is the strategic understanding of white -- what it means to have that number of people moving around the waterfront and do the muni

work. does the closing of embarkadero work for bikes and pedestrians? does that work or create problems. i think that is the experience we are looking at in october. together i think we would like to then refine our plans for next year, assign sort of better planning for low days versus high interest days for next year. do budgeting and our economic sort of scientific analysis based on that and come together with a policy dialogue that really verifies and validates the policy decision in moving ahead with the events. >> do we have other indicators we can look at in terms of city spending, overtime, quantifying how buses have been used as well? is some of that going to be gathered together? >> certainly different pieces have different things. we had good stats on the ridership on the different muni augments, the e line, the light rail line on the embarkadero was a huge sort of spectator hit. probably hit for the neighborhood too. that is where a lot of the

ridership went, which was interesting. that isn't necessarily the center of attention for the america's cup world series event, toward the northern part of the city. i think we are using that kind of analysis, sort of august to october, to make sure we are better sort of deploying our resources. i think august probably didn't tell us a ton about overtime usage for big days next year. i think october, we are in good dialogue with fleet week and folks that run these events to see if how america's cup changes them, if some of the plans make those things work better. i think that is the dialogue we want to have before and after october and we started on that. >> we did use overtime for different departments, mta, police, dpw and that over time is a cost is occurring, that is getting reimbursed by the organizing committee. >> that's correct. that is coming out of the

budget appropriation through an innerdepartmental process. we turn to the mou and say these are the costs we have paid, reimburse us for these. what we have asked departments do is show us effectively their net new is relating to america's cup events relating to things you described, supervisor. using that as a way to sort of review that budgetary ask and seek reimbursement. >> we have been reimbursed. >> correct, through june 30th. the next quarter under the mou we actually to the end of october. we wanted to capture the costs. we will likely do a roundup of those and in working with the controller's office issue a reimbursement request. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i appreciate supervisor avalos's question. i had a quick follow up.

by the way, i appreciate the work put into place after our last hearing on america's cup to ensure we were getting reimbursed through privately driven fundraising for this event so we can take on the event without necessarily incuring the cost, as supervisor avalos brought up. you mentioned it is difficult to discern between fleet week and america's cup and strictly bluegrass. how would we calculate additional costs for police, fire, other infrastructure when we have multiple events going on that weekend? >> i think the aggregation from my perspective was around the spectators, what they are doing. i think in terms of america's cup proposition, if what america's cup is doing is requiring new efforts beyond what would be provided for fleet week, that is what we want to see in our being. for example america's cup

will do some activating on marina green. awe we know fleet week has the bulk of the main park. so to the extent there are rec park costs for overseeing that build or, you know, other security things we have to stretch down, one other thing we are doing is bicycle valet. not something fleet week has done in the past but something we have in the america cup people plan. that is something we are expecting our budget to pay for, not fleet week. it is things different and kind from what people understood. those are ones we want to come to us. >> i apologize that i don't actually know this but has fleet week usually taken place with strictly bluegrass festival? >> my understanding is this was a this year thing. that generally doesn't get scheduled together. but there being so few weekends in this time of year, i think everyone tries to pile as many of their great events in as they can. >> okay. thank you very much. why don't we open this for public comment. are there members of the

public who wish to speak? seeing none, comment is closed. we have this item before us, the amendment on the whole i spoke of earlier. do we have a motion to accept that amendment of the whole? we will do that without objection. to the underlying item. do we have a motion to send that forward? we will do that without objection. thank you. any other items before us? >> no, no further matters. >> okay, we are adjourned.

>> good morning and welcome to the september 25th, 2012 meeting of the san francisco county transportation authority. my name is david campos and i am the chair of the authority. the clerk of the authority is erika cheng. i want to thank the following members of sfgtv staff who are covering this meeting. mike freeman and jesse larson. madam clerk, if you can please call item number 1, roll call. >> roll call, [speaker not understood]? present. chair campos? >> present. >> commissioner david chiu? david chiu absent. carmen chu? present. elsbernd absent. [speaker not understood].

commissioner mar? olague absent. commissioner westerner? wiener? >> present. >> please call item number 2. >> item 2 is approval of minutes of the july 24, 2012 meeting. >> there is an action item. is there a member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment for item 2 is closed. you have before you the approval of minutes for the july 24 meeting. [speaker not understood]. can we take that without objection? without objection. item number 3? >> chair's report, this is a commission item. >> i have a brief report today. this is our first meeting coming back from the legislative recess of the san francisco board of supervisors. i just want to make a couple of notes. first, on september 14th, a number of us, specifically

commissioners carmen chiu, christin a olague and scott wiener were on the regional transportation plan which was actually held at the county transportation authority's offices. we had a very interesting discussion. the discussion involved members of abag and other regional players in this effort. and the discussion focused on drug trends here in san francisco and the region. we talked about the scope of investment in transportation infrastructure, the investment that will be needed to accommodate the growth that is expected to happen here at the region and specifically here in the city. and we also discussed some of the challenges that are facing not only the city and county of san francisco, but the other jurisdictions as the region moves forward with its transportation plan. as you probably are aware in your agenda today, we will have later in the agenda a presentation about the san francisco transportation plan,

which is actually the long-range vision for transportation investment by the authority here in the city and county of san francisco. that plan is mandated by state law and its purpose is to really figure out what the transportation needs for the city long-term are. and, so, i think it's important for us to begin the discussion of what those needs are, what the future looks like, and what the challenges in meeting the needs that the city has and will have, what those challenges will be. we need to think about this issue and specifically focus on ways in which we can bring revenue into the system, the kinds of investments that need to be made not only by the county transportation authority, but other agencies like the san francisco mta. i look forward to a substantive discussion. and again, this is the beginning of this discussion and we know that we will have

additional discussions that will take place. i also want to note that because of the good work of our staff at the authority, we recently received some money on the planning front. we actually received half a million dollars from caltrans, a planning grant and it's a grant that will allow for work to be done in various neighborhoods to really think about the needs and a lot of different neighborhoods here in san francisco. the idea there is to make sure that we support the very comprehensive set of investments that we have already made, including investments in areas like treasure island. i know when we get to the executive director's report, he will elaborate on that. so, those are some of the developments that i'm happy to report on. i don't know if any of my colleagues have questions about my report, but if not, i will open it up to public comment.

if there is any member of the public who would like to speak orthctionv report that i provided, this is your opportunity. seeing none, public comment is closed. * on the madam clerk, can you please call item number 4? >> item 4, director's report. this is an information item. >> i will turn it over to director moskovich. >> good morning, commissioners. my report is on your desk. i would like to highlight a few things. first of all, we thank you, mr. chairman, for highlighting the importance of the round table we just had. as i recall, you also stressed the importance of making effectively the connection between land use and transportation positionses and the importance of establishing, really opening a dialogue between both the planning commission and the mda commission to ensure we are moving those items in the future with a clear path to implementation. on the federal front on just a

couple days ago, congress before adjourning for the november election recess, passed a continuing resolution that funds the federal government to march 27th and unfortunately it did so without accounting for the inflation factor that is built into map 21, the new act. so, we wound up with 500 million dollars less money nationwide andthan was expected in that period. but bright note on that it is a short period of time and, so, we don't think the dod will have any trouble meeting the challenges of map 21 in that period of time with the money that's available. nevertheless, it's something that the house will surely have to take up when it comes back from recess to restore the funding that's missing now from the continuing resolution. on treasure island, i just want to provide a little bit more detail. the award that we got is from the federal d.o.t. and it's $4

80,000, and that adds to the already obtained $500,000 from the [speaker not understood] commission for priority development area planning to a local match of 245,000. we now have essentially a very substantial amount of funding to allow us to take the first steps implementing the comprehensive package for treasure island transportation, which is bus, cycling and parking enhancements that in part is going to be funded by pricing revenues in that area. we're very excited about that and we continue to work with the mayor's office and the authority, with the authority as the transportation manager agency for the island. i expect a report on that at a future meeting. same with the caltrans planning

grant. i think the key projects we got funded are the hills neighborhood transportation plan which is going to address the south side of the hills, it will be nicely with existing [speaker not understood] and reconnections efforts. and will kickoff in early 2013. and we also have a $300,000 grant for the geneva harney bus rapid transit analysis, which is again a long-term effort that we've had in that area of town, part of the county study. and in fact we're going to get some swoon funding for the local match from san mateo in addition to our own. so, congratulations to the planning staff on yet another achievement in this area and staff, bravo on that. also i'd like to congratulate the planning department because they got two grants out of this

-- planning grants part of caltrans, one for mission street transit and public grounds improvement study, which is very key to that area, and another one very interesting for living alley, pedestrian network study. both of these are topics, very current. what we did not get unfortunately is the grant we had requested from the [speaker not understood] design project. but we are going to continue to support the efforts of the chair and commissioner wiener to get some near term traffic improvements in that area involving the san jose avenue ramp, off ramp from 2 80 and other achievements that probably proceed without this grant. there's been plenty of progress on the 19th avenue transit study where we are looking at relocating the light rail transit line from the center of 19th avenue to the west side.

but there's a number of other features and a following round of input, we would hope to be able to evaluate conception detail and have some results for you in the summer of 2013. similarly, we have a balboa park station area circulation study that's looking at the conflict between the on and off of ramps in that area and pedestrian activity related to the balboa park muni and bart station. and we are looking to conduct outreach with the support of the commissioner's office in the winter of 2012-13 and we'll enter into detailed evaluation phase to have results in the summer of 2013. there's more information available on this online at our website, www.sfcta.org. the market street project is coming up with some interesting

events. we call them pop-up events. the first one of them is happening this friday at the food lab [speaker not understood] at the hotel on market street at seventh, friday from 2:00 p.m. -- from noon until 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. until 9:00. this is an opportunity for people who use market street, the corridor on a regular basis to be engaged and get a sense of what some of the concepts are being considered for the street in advance of the next phase of our analysis. that also is available -- information is available online at the project's own website which is www.better market street.org. very interesting stuff happening there. we continue to work with mda and with caltrans on evaluation of benefits progressing the design on the van ness drt

project which you approved [speaker not understood] for in june. we are now analyzing lpa to determine the performance of the area for the final [speaker not understood] and focusing on minimizing impacts, of course, and maximizing benefits. we also submitted, of course, the small start program report to the federal transit administration earlier this month. this is an item that was seen by the plans and programs committee. we have a draft extension plan. you recall this is a $10 station fee that passed in 2010 and required a central plan prioritization. we had significant input from the plans and programs committee, from the community, from the departments that are potential project sponsors, and from individual members of the

board provide that had we're able to reconcile those. i'm planning to bring the program for approval in october and i will keep you posted, of course. we will also actually do projects that are ready to go at that time [speaker not understood]. so, we can essentially keep faith with the voters and start projects on that program immediately. we also, just to conclude my report, had a -- hosted a panel of international experts to talk about the state of the arts in transportation modeling and the dynamic traffic assignment and i'm happy to report that they are impressed with the level of progress that we have in san francisco in term of that topic. and i'd like to recognize our director of technology services for the incredible amount of

work and for the level of work and her contributions and her team's contributionses to the state-of-the-art in that area. and that concludes my report for today. i'm glad to answer any questions. >> thank you very much, mr. moskovich. colleagues, do we have any questions for our executive director? seeing no questions, why don't we open it up for public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak on the executive director's report, this is your opportunity. seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk, if you could please -- and i want to thank again the executive director and his staff for all the work they've been doing this summer. if you can please call item number 5. >> 5 is amend the authority's administrative code. this is an action item. >> this is an item that came before the finance committee that's chaired by commissioner scott wiener. i don't know if we have any comments from our colleagues, but why don't we open it up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak on item number 5. seei n