oh, my! haa ha ha! ha hha ha! [snortg] >> 7 and a half million renovation is part of the clean and safe neighbor's park fund which was on the ballot four years ago and look at how that

public investment has transformed our neighborhood. >> the playground is unique in that it serves a number of age groups, unlike many of the other properties, it serves small children with the children's play grounds and clubhouses that has basketball courts, it has an outdoor soccer field and so there were a lot of people that came to the table that had their wish list and we did our best to make sure that we kind of divided up spaces and made sure that we kept the old features of the playground but we were able to enhance all of those features.

>> the playground and the soccer field and the tennis fields and it is such a key part of this neighborhood. >> we want kids to be here. we want families to be here and we want people to have athletic opportunities. >> we are given a real responsibility to insure that the public's money is used appropriately and that something really special comes of these projects. we generally have about an opportunity every 50 years to redo these spaces. and it is really, really rewarding to see children and families benefit, you know, from the change of culture, at each one of these properties >> and as a result of, what you see behind us, more kids are playing on our soccer fields than ever before. we have more girls playing sports than we have ever had before. [ applause ] fp >> and we are sending a strong message that san francisco families are welcome and we want you to stay.

>> this park is open. ♪

>> good morning. and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority finance committee. i am scott weiner, the chair of the committee, to my far right is commissioner elsbernd, and to my left. and to my left is commissioner carmen chu and i want to thank from sfg tv lowe, and karm anac for the video services today. matter clerk are there any

announcements? >> no announcements. >> item two? >> approve the minutes of the october 16, 2012, it is an action item >> is there any public comment on item two? >> seeing none, it is closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> could we take that without objection, that will be the order. item three? >> item three, recommend exercising the first one-year option of the legal services contract with nossaman llp and increasing the contract amount by $350,000, to a total amount not to exceed $1,310,000, for general legal consel services and authorizing the executive director to modify contract terms and conditions. >> this is an action item. >> good morning, commissioners, fong director for finance and administration. the authority contacts the legal services with the city attorney for the general contract related items. we also have nixon peabody and

squire. and nossman helping us. back in march of 2010, the board approved the three-year agreement with two-year options. we are currently in the third year, and the agreement will be expiring on june 30, 2013. back in december, 2011, you may remember, i brought before this committee, an amendment to that contract, to increase the contract by $300,000 to increase the contract to offset the cost spent and legal lawsuit related to the city of the presidio parkway project. >> in february of 2012, you may recall that i brought before the board an item to replace the $200 million dollar line of credit. athat time we were working with abdw and the rates were

extremely high and we went out and came back with a new where it was yielding us a savings of $3.3 million over the court of three years. with that, we also encured $100,000 in services related to the commercial paper and this is the reason that i am bringing the item, a few months earlier than the contract expiration date. within, the services that nossman performs in addition to just the routine, and legal services related to the operations of authority, they assist us in for the legal services for parkway, island and brt and the formation of the treasure island mobility agency. it has a 7 percent dbe and lbe participation. and this item was brought before the cec on october 24

and there was a unanimous support. in terms of fiscal impacts, part of the costs for the contract that is funded by mlas with other city departments such as tida and tima for bueda island. we expect to receive more mous and will be using the prop a funds to offset the costs. in terms of me budget amendments we have the next budget to cover the majority of the contract and we will be bringing before the committee of an amendment of $177,000 over the course of the next month, at the mid year point. with that i am looking for a recommendation to exercise the first, one-year option for legal services with nossman llp and increase the contract amount by $350,000, for a total amount not-to-exceed $1.3 million for general legal

counsel services and i am available to answer any questions that you may have. >> commissioners, david chiu has joined us. >> could you give us a little bit more information about what exactly the extent to the terms and the conditions can be modified by the director. >> they would stay the same, but we would be modifying any conditions or terms that have changed over the course of the time, meaning through the government code, maybe through any city ordinances, and we would might be looking at changing the contract drastically, we are changing the contract not approved by the board and the term of the services. >> i totally appreciate that, we may need to change the contract terms if we change the rules here is that del ineatd.

>> it would mention that the executive director could modify any contract terms and conditions. >> my point is could we limit the resolution language that it is clear that it is based on changes that we make from the administrative code angle or other changes as opposed to blanket changes. >> good morning, commissioners, this is the standard language. what i am not allowed to change are the dollars and cents aspects of the contract. but, this is actually they are simply to say that the need for a board's action on something like a change in personnel, to the company or things like that, that may be specified in the contract. and may need to be changed but does not necessarily change the contract. but it isn't just to reflect

city, or other guidelines that may be changing on the board. it is also to deal with the sort of the basics of keeping that contract active. and we can clarify that some more, even in the resolution that goes to the board. >> all right. >> it is not a blanket authority, especially not on the financial side of this. >> and i trust that you and the staff are making decisions that are in the best interests of what we are trying to achieve. it would be good to clarify the circumstances in which the changes can be had and if, again, i think that what you delineated, personnel changes and changes that governor you and administrative changes and those make sense and would be helpful. >> great. >> comments or questions, and we will open up for public comment and who would like to comment on item three? seeing none, public comment is

closed. >> let's move forward with the full authority with recommendation? that will be the order. >> item four. >> item four. internal accounting report for the trhee months ending september 30, 2012. this is an information item. >> respond. >> commissioners, what you have before you is the first quarterly fiscal year 2013, internal accounting report. this is your birds' eye view of what the financial position is of the authority eit has aamounted for $165 million and liabilities up to $223.5 million. and this includes $150 outstanding commercial paper. total revenues have added up to 19.8 million, and total expenditures are at 3.7 million. and in terms of total cash for the first quarter, we have

approximately $104.6 million in cash. this is approximately 91 percent of it is approximately sitting in the commercial, sitting in the city's treasury pool. and the investments that we hold are in compliance with the government code and the authority board approved investment policy and the amount that we have in the bank provides sufficient liquidty to meet the requirements over the next six months. with that i am more than happy to answer any questions related to the internal report >> any questions or comments? >> seeing none, is there any member of the public that wishes to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> this is an information item and so we do not need to take any action. >> thank you. >> item number five. >> introduction of new items, this is an information item. >> are there any introductions? >> seeing none, is there any member of the public who wish to comment on item five.

seeing none, public comment is six. >> item six. >> public comment. >> is there any member of the public that wishes to comment on any item in the jurisdiction of this committee? seeing none, item 7, public comment is closed. >> item seven. >> adjournment. >> we are adjourned. >> >> good morning and welcome to the plans and programs meeting of the county transportation authority. my name is john avalos chair of the committee

and joined by supervisor kim. supervisor kim is the vice chair and joined by commissioner mark farrell and ms. cohen. we have sfgtv staff helping today. thank you for your work. madam clerk can you call our first item. >> item two approve the minutes. this is an action item. >> okay. we can go on to public comment. and seeing none we will close public comment. colleague do we have a motion to approve the minutes from last meet something okay. we will take that without objection. thank you very much. next item please. >> item three is the advisory commission report. >> good morning chair, commissioners. i am glen davis -- >> would you pull the mic up. >> i am the chair of the

advisory committee and here to give the report of october 24. we had one action item that is on the agenda this morning and action item six which is about allocating money to c box and those projects. that item was passed unanimously without much discussion but they ask that the staff bring it back periodically so we can follow the funding. with that i can take questions. that concludes the report. it's pretty short. >> just a question about the commitment made for future years for prop k fund. do you recall the nature of the discussion. >> yeah, there was a discussion -- i believe ta is working with the mayor's office. i can't remember the office at the moment for the commitments and

that is part of coming back to us and the funding. >> okay great. thank you. >> thank you chair avalos. >> thank you very much. any members of the public that would like to comment? okay. we will close public comment. and that is our three. if we can go on to item four please. >> item four is recommend appointment of three members to the citizens advisory committee. >> thank you erica. we have three seats that are open. i believe i did talk with supervisor carmen chu. i think they're looking for a fourth one. we have someone here to talk about these positions. >> yes. good morning members and court ree geary and this is on page 17 of the packet and has 11 member advisory committee and each serves a year term and the

programs and plans committee and recommends and appoints members. neither staff or the citizens advisory committee make recommendations on appointment. on page 20 you can see a list of folks that submitted applications for appointment to the citizens advisory committee. on page 19 you see information with the current members. to qualify for appointment of the citizens advisory committee you have to be a san francisco resident and appear at least once to give your qualifications. we have three vacancies and carmen wu and fran martin and glen davis, the assistant advisory chair that spoke before you. both have indicated their interest in being reappointed and we understand the chair campos does support mr. davis'

reappointment. >> okay. thank you very much. commissioner. >> thank you very much. i would like actually request that we continue this item. i would like to continue vetting my district 10 appointee. >> okay. let's have the folks here present and then we can make decisions at the very end who we can move forward and what seats we can continue but thank you for that. commissioner kim. >> i was going to suggest the same as supervisor campos is comfortable with his appointment and move forward with that and leave four and 10. i am happy to hear from the folks here first. >> what i would like to do -- we have three vacancies and i know there are people applying for the citizens advisory committee that would like to make presentations so anyone here that is a candidate i would like to provide space for them to

make a presentation and we can go on to makes decisions so i have three names of people that are here. okay. mr. davis, if you want to come up first. >> good morning again chair avalos and members. i am glen davis and i am seeking reappointment to the committee. i am doing so and i really enjoyed the role of being a citizen member, being on a committee that is holding government accountable for the money and spending of prop k funds through the intent of the voters. i have a master's in administration and worked in the community for 10 years around many years and education and housing and directly or indirectly affected by prop k funds and schools and the light rail stations or upcoming cal train station, so that's pretty

much it in a nutshell. i can take any questions. >> okay. thank you. just wondering what do you feel is the greatest input you've had on the committee. >> i would say there's two items that come to mind quickly. one is as the chair was the tree maintenance and the issues that homeowners were having around tree maintenance and the cost to them and the potential liability to them, and i think we've moved that forward and the folks that came before the committee and asking for help with that feel good about what is moved forward through this committee, and then through the full board entirely, and also i would say still the most impactful issue is the private shuttle buses and we had back and forth for a couple of years and even before -- i can't recall right now, but the plan that was put forth and you

passed about 18 months ago. is that correct? yeah; right. and that still is an issue and i think it impacts the city significantly and maybe more significantly than we thought even back in 2010 so i think that is a pressing issue that affects not all prop k but all transportation in the city and that is something that we need to think about, and also one of the items that is shuffled under the board a little bit is sidewalk repair and how prop k is allocated in certain areas like your district or the district that i live in that might not get as much maintenance as the others and how they measure how the maintenance is done which can be inadequate in terms how they measure but i won't go into the logistics there. i will stop right there. >> thank you for your presentation. next up fran

martin. >> i'm going to read what i have. i have lon been involved in transportation issues in district town and before i was asked to be on the cac. i worked in the watershed group and met monthly and transportation and land use planning in san francisco. the focus had been getting people from the two counties and the towns together to discuss regional issues and in the future have greater community participation. i wanted better dialogue among the different entities which at that point other that were not communicating. excuse me. when the bay shore cal train station was moved south from san francisco to bis bane our community was dissatisfied with the design of the over passhi