second and third bidders. division staff and the [kwr-frpb/]'s office investigated all of these allegations and found them to be without merit. contract compliance determined that the low bidder met the 20% sbe goal as prescribed and also in compliance with the administrative code chapter 12b. staff recommends award of the contract to blocka construction as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $24,116,000. that completes my basic report and staff will be glad to answer any questions that members might. >> thank you, mr. harris. members of the board, questions? members of the public? >> no members of the board have indicated that they wish to comment. >> mr. heinicke. >> thank you for a very good report and very comprehensive and to the point. i want to make sure i understand it and clarify for emp.

there are two aspects, one is the [kpwh-upbgs/] and in particular the public address systems and in the past i have talked about letting our customers know what is going on, especially in the event of a service disruption of it's just very helpful and there has been a lot of progress on that in my term. i see this helping that as well. but this isn't just about communications. i mean, this project will also address some of the issues that we have had that have caused metro service disruptions. am i understanding that correctly? >> that is correct. it is primarily communications, however. and of course, communications a viable link making sure that we have a viabling alternative way to make sure that he with do communicate between central control and in particular the subway. the uninterruptible power supply is critical, in case those systems do go down.

>> right. so i guess what i'm trying to say, we had one very serious service interruption because of a derailment. efforts to make sure that that didn't happen. we had a lot of service disruptions because the [kpwh-upbgs/] for communication was disrupted. this contract is actually going to address some of the problems that we have encountered specifically that have caused service disruptions. do i misunderstand that? >> i would say just a bit, because primarily this is communications in the system. but as you well know that is a vital component in terms of how the system operates. i would say it's primarily communication-related. i might let frank address the other issues relative to your question. >> my understanding is that we encountered some service disruptions.

if that is not so, i just want to understand what we're doing here. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. >> if i could clarify a little bit. yes. >> just state your name. >> my name is frank, the project manager. the system we're replacing will see and detect the problems in the subway. for example, as you mentioned earlier, if there is a power outage, the new system will be on a realtime basis, letting central control personnel know so they can quickly respond to the outage and do a quick restoration of service. so that is just one of the many examples. >> okay. i got it. thank you. >> members of the board? director ramos? >> so if i'm understanding the conversation that is happening here, it sounds like this

system would actually help expedite the recovery time? >> right. >> and thereby saving us resources. >> yes. because the communication detection system that we will replace will give the realtime-based information to central control. so they will know exactly to pinpoint where the problem and to act to it quickly. >> respond to it quickly while trains are sitting in the tunneling. it's my long windied way to say we're not just upgrading signs. >> it sounds like it's a system we definitely need. one quick question. how old was the current system right now? >> nearly 30 years old. in fact, because it's so old, there are times there is

difficulty getting replacement parts since the old system of communication is old, it will be difficult to communicate with new systems. as we mentioned one of the advantages of this new communication system will be the tie-in for central subway coming online with new communication products will be able to tie directly in as a plug-in tool. this is really an avenue to bring communication to the state-of-the-art for sfmta. >> thank you. >> anything else from members? so is there a motion on this recommendation, resolution? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> any further discussion, all those in favor, say aye? >> aye. >> thank you very much. thank you members. >> item 13 approving sfmta as 2013 legislative program thank you kate. >> kate, manager of government affairs. go to see all of you directors. director yee, thank you. this afternoon i'm going to

focus on the highlights here. each year as much of you know we take a legislative program before you. this program has been reviewed with the city and county of san francisco state legislative committee, including members of the board of supervisors, as well as earlier this month we reviewed the program, the draft program with the sfmta's citizens' advisory committee that was a good opportunity to go over in detail the recommendations brand new before you today. just to quickly walk you through some of the priorities here. starting with the coming year to deal with. r staff is preparing briefing materials so that they are familiar with the issues of the

sfmta and our understanding of the broader realm of responsibilitis that this agency now has. the rest of the program here really focuses on the future in the coming year, discussions on plans for san francisco's implementation of the recently approved vlf legislation at the state level. i will make a note ever that for the portion of your conversation this afternoon on the state picture. we'll also anticipate a number of contracts going to the board in the coming year, as well as grants that need to be approved. in terms of measured projects the central subway, as was mentioned in mr. yee 's report, we'll have issues before the board of supervisors on an ongoing basis.

pagoda palace. as well as the transportation sustainability program, which is a major initiative, looking to evolve how away from a level of service-oriented fee-based system to one that looks more broadly across impacts for development in the city. on the state portion as i mentioned we have not just a new two-year session, but a real historical moment in sacramento with two-thirds democrats, as well as a democratic governor. it's an opportunity that the majority party is mindful of not squandering and with regards to initiatives that we'll see this year, i think the vlf is something that is being talked about as another opportunity for transportation funding at the state level, something that previous administrations have not wanted to look at in terms of bringing that state vehicle license fee back up to historical levels. if that happens, i think we in san francisco have to be

mindful that we uniquely already have that authority and to the extent that the state chooses to embrace that authority, where do we stand? since conversations are underway in san francisco about how to spend our own vlf, i think we need to take a strategic, somewhat defensive position to make sure that we don't lose that to the state's interest, valid as it is, to invest at the state level. the governor released his budget, which most of you know, just recently. it's pretty good for transportation. there are some projected adjustments, if will you in the state transit assistance, which is a key source of operating funds for this agency. we have confirmed with our cfo, despite of that fluctuation in that fund source, our budget is okay. fairly conserve estimate that allows for the fluctuation in that fund source. that fund source used to be a

line item in the budget, but you recall a couple of years ago there was a gas tax swap, a complicated maneuver to ensure that transportation funds continued to flow. the result is that the state transit assistance is now based on the details sales tax receipts. that is a fluctuating amount of money and therefore we only rely on the projections over the course of the year. so far it looks pretty good. the other big news is that the state is looking pretty good. troop prop 30 passed, significant dollars in projected revenue. so i think we find ourselves in a cautiously optimistic time. we'll be following that as the year unfolds.

we participate in that process through various trade associations and our meeting, in fact, next week with the commit staff working on the bill to have california's law conform for the federal law. cap and trade another very large statewide issue. san francisco as a city family is engaging on that through our advocacy, our lobbyists, as well as the league of cities, california state association of counties and others who have an interest in making sure that local government and transportation programs in particular, given that transportation emits 38% of the state's greenhouse gas emissions do see some benefit from the auction revenues that are generated. 4 and 5 together, 4 we really are looking at the final closeout of the high speed rail bond program, which san francisco has received its allocation from that. and the companion proposition

1b we received really great news that $117 million check is being suspect for the central project. that project has proven it's readiness to spend those kind of funds and our project in san francisco is a really good example to the state in terms of readiness, if you will for these bond programs. leading to what does the future look like? there is a very active conversation going on and a refresh on the california transportation needs assessment to figure out what does california need to start thinking about in terms of a new revenue source to make major transportation investments? and we again will be at the table participating in those conversations. 6 is a somewhat -- you say what are we sponsoring here? that isn't determined yet. we're working with the california bicycle coalition, as well as the san francisco bicycle coalition to figure out if there is an interest in amending state law. so [stao-upbl/]ed stay tuned on that. no. 7 is important. it's a measure that we're

sponsoring this year and i think it's timely given the employee awards that were announced today. stay law currently provides protection for various classes of our employees including station agents, transit operators and passengers and taxi drivers for battery, another more severe form of assault. but it doesn't explicitly attack our transit fare inspectors or officers. so we're sponsoring legislation in sacramento to ensure that front line employees are protected under the law to the same level our other employees are protected. it's a very important initiative and we're working closely with the enforcement staff in making that case in sacramento. no. 8 is related to that, but we sort of had an evolving concept on fare citation enhancement and having our staff look at how collection could be better in terms of

fare evasion? we're really looking to improve that process and to the accident there is something from that that involves a change this state law, we'll be making a recommendation. the 9th -- no. 9, this is really related to the work under way of the accessible parking advisory committee. this was a group convened back in november to look at the issue of accessible parking, as well as disabled placard form in whatever form that is supportable. we really look forward to the work of this committee as to recommendations that may or may not result in recommended state law changes. there may be other remedis that this group that is made up of a very broad group of stakeholders is looking at addressing accessible parking issues. the last few here, ceqa reform we're following it to see where

it goes at state level. we don't have a define ask for ceqa reform, but there are a lot of conversations going on at the state level. the taxi legislation we'll work with chris and her team to make sure we're engaging on those issues as appropriate. moving to the federal side, the mayor is back there this week and director reiskin is also back there this week, really talking about federal prioritis in general. trying to make -- we have been thinking about what matters now? we have our full funding grant agreement and what is our method in washington? one the most important things is to emphasize the continued need for the federal-local partnership. so much of the investment that is made in san francisco for capital projects, the major projects that you have all heard reported about for the last couple of years, those are funded with federal dollars and this is a good year

to talk about why that investment matters' with make the case for increased federal investment. lastly we are looking at the next aprojection appropriation cycle to make sure that those programs continue to be funded and projects like the central subway are able to secure the appropriate funding levels. thank you item happy to answer questions. tch director ramos? >> thank you kate. i wanted to expressly point out the enhanced protection. i run into those guys regularly, and if you give them just 30 seconds of your time,

they have so many stories. what some of these guys have gone through is really tragic to hear. so thank you for that. i wanted to see if there was any appropriate time or more appropriate time to address the moving violations questions, the camera on your buses in the dedicated transit lanes and this would have been the appropriate place for it? >> it's a good question. we have -- we were successful last year in getting the camera program reauthorized. and that initiative was always pursued as a parking violation. because pd is really responsible for the moving violations. this fall we had some inquiries from our partners across the bay, ac transit who are

starting their own brt program and they are interested in the question and looking awhether or not there are other ways to skin the cat, as in maybe those violations are defined as separate and apparent from other types of moving violations. from this agency's perspective, i think we still have a burden of proof, frankly to show the success of the forward-facing camera program and given that we have to go back to the legislature in march of 2015, that is probably the best time to make our case. >> okay. >> and so that is really where we are at with that. >> i asked the question mostly because one of the things that i really, really detest about our service is the way we have to wrap our vehicles. i think it's so tacky. it's blight now. it's gotten to the level it's a moving billboard. i know there is a lost lot of

revenue there, but not only is it unsightly for everyone who has to see those, but it's really is degrading to climb on those vehicles and have your sunlight take away. i understands the vehicles, but at least the vehicle themselves. so people are panicked and getting on the wrong vehicles sometimes. so whatever we can do to get away from that revenue system and to better revenues i think we're on the right track. >> other members of the board? director brinkman? >> on 6 we have it noted that we'll review opportunities for pilot programs. i know the speed cameras are in

the pedestrian strategy, which i believe we're going to be discussing at the workshop. so that would probably be a good time for us to get into that a little more. we have had success at masonic with the left-turn camera and we'll get at market and octavia a right-turn? >> any turn. >> any right turn on this freeway. i just think if we're going to pursue a pilot opportunity for speed cameras i would like to see us aim a little higher. i think that is something that we'd have to have a discussion as a board, not just in school zones. it's great. we have got the 50 miles per hour speed limits in the school zones. i would love to see that 5 miles 15 miles per hour speed limit enforced by cameras and keep not just the kids, but every other citizen safe from speeding cars by maybe consider

expanding that to haves with bike and pedestrian trafficks, libraries, parks, streets around parks. so if this is a good opportunity to pursue this pilot program that we really go for a program that shows safety. as we see as we look at pedestrian strategy program, we have a ways to go in pedestrian safety and so many of our incidents are simply cars violating the pedestrian right-of-way, whether it's turning through a crosswalk or on their cell phone or texting and just not seeing somebody. so i think it's a good opportunity for us to aim higher on that one. >> that one is waiting for more input and it's a place holder and we'll take your direction. >> thank you. good report. this is a really good update. thank you, i really appreciate it. >> do you know where it stands with the caltrain joint powers

board looking at some kind of a measure that will provide fixed funding for it? >> the latest a lot of caltrain work is being managed through the mayor's office and we're working very closely on transportation issue, more closely than ever with the mayor's office. silicon valley leadership group had launched that effort. >> with the three counties. >> right. >> if something came along, it wouldn't preclude us from being involved with that. >> i have some insights on your question. >> i would love to hear your insights >> two points. the city is looking at the fact at the whole study going on with caltrans revenue.

your specific question, caltrans did a poll of sales tax in that area and so now they are rethinking what they are going to be doing. they did do a poll of possible sales tax . >> that is where it comes state and federal funding. so they are looking for some kind of local thing and that would be very difficult in the three counties, because the three counties look at it very differently. thanks. anybody else? anything? thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, no members indicated that they are interested in addressing you on this matter. so it's before you for agency. >> each we have a motion on this to support? >> so moved. >> second. >> any discussion? all those in favor, say aye? >> aye. >> item 14 authorizing the

director to enact a small business enterprise bonding and financial assistance program on federally-assisted contracts including establishing a surety bond reserve fund and obtaining a letter of credit or alternate collateral for small business enterprises on the federally-assisted contract grams i'm virginia harmon and i manage the small business enterprise program. one of the greatest barriers to small business bidding on public works construction contracts is an inability to access the surety bond market. disparity studis have regularly demonstrated that it limits access to both the credit and capital markets of as part of our ongoing effort to provide a level playing field, we're seeking permission to assist some business ms. obtaining bid and permission bonds with the intended purpose of increasing competition on our contracts, which should save us money and increase their capacity and

successfully bid and complete city projects. the city's program has had a great deal of success in helping local businesses bid city contracts. bid bonds have been obtained on more than $200 million during the life of the program. unfortunately we can't tap in the program for federal-funded projects. costs associated with establishing the program are relatively small. including obtaining a letter of credit and consultant to administer the program. i want to emphasize that the bond fund reserve monies are only actually expended in the event of a default. the city has an excellent track record in that regard. only one default has occurred

in the course of the 15-year program and costing approximately $125,000. this effort is particularly important to the small business community at this time as we have the central subways station contract and attempting to remove as many barriers apossible to ensure successful sbe participation. we ask the board to authorize the program that mirrors the city's program. i would be happy to answer questions >> thank you, miss harmon. any members of the board? any members of the public? >> no members of the public are here to address this matter. >> a motion, and second. all those in favor, say aye (? >> aye. >> please go back to 10.1. is that right, the only thing before the closed session? i would entertain a motion to approve this. >> move to approve.

>> second. >> all those in favor, say aye i-aye. >> closed session. >> directors it would be appropriate to consider whether to conduct a closed session and invoke the attorney-client privilege. >> yes. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> we'll take a short break. >> we'll take the time to put the room into closed session. >> there are videos to every moment can be captured on film. there we go. announcement of closed session, the sfmta board of directors met in closed session to discuss matters with the [kr-frp/] and the board of directors voted unanimously to settle the cases and also discussed the cases, but too no action. the board held a conference with the real property negotiator, but took no agency.

directors would it be appropriate to disclose or not disclose? >> not disclose? >> second. >> any further discussion? all those in favor, say aye? >> aye. >> we'll remind you that we're adjourning in the memory of a long-term employee of the transit division. >> we'll be meeting next on the 29th. happy new year everybody.

. >> good afternoon, everyone,