renmar and the produce market. >> there's an application process and we have an advisory board and they bring it to the advisory board that have representation from the board and there's criterias that we expect them to meet. once they go to the advisories board, they come to the full board and we look at it and make a recommendation. >> so it doesn't necessarily have to be in the red areas if it's going to serve distress individuals or communities, poverty, medium family income base and then low income target populations. >> yep. you got it. >> okay. thank you mr. strong. is there anyone else that wants to present? okay. and we do not have a budget finance

report. we'll open it up public comment. anybody wish to comment. public comment is closed. thanks for the presentation. what a terrific program. this is great. so thanks for bringing it before us and we look forward to hear about new projects. >> motion for approval. >> we have a motion for approval. do we have anymore items. >> that completes the items. >> thank you. see you at 1:00. we are adjourned. >> garv, everyone, and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee meeting

for wednesday, june 5th, 2013. my name is supervisor mark farrell, i will be chairing this committee. and i am joined by supervisor john avalos, supervisor london breed will be joining momentarily supervisor scott wiener and we are going to be missing supervisor eric mar who we will be excusing. i'd like to thank the members of sfgtv mark bunch and jeff as well as victor young. do you have any announcements? >> yes, please silence all cell phones and electronic deviceses. copies submitted to the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted on today will be on the board of supervisors june lease termination agreement - downtown parking corporation - 833 mission street unless otherwise stated. >> okay, colleagues, before we call item number 1, can i have a motion to excuse supervisor mar who is absent for family reasons? motion by supervisor avalos, we can do so without opposition. [gavel] >> mr. clerk, can you please call items number 1 and 2 together, pleat? se?

>> item number 1, resolution retroactively approving the feeder agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district for payment for transfer trips, with a term from july 1, 2010, to june 30, 2020. ~ item number 2, resolution retroactively approving the special transit fare (fast pass) agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district, with a term from january 1, 2010, to june 30, 2014. >> okay, thank you. administrator reiskin from the mta to present on this item. thank you for being back. >> thank you, good afternoon, chair farrell, members of the committee. ed reiskin, mta. i think this is our third time before this committee on these items dating back to 2011. because we've been here a number of times and talked through the specifics, i'll spare you those except to the extent you have questions. what i will say is that there

are two different agreements before you. they're before you together at your request, but they're not really related. they have different reasons and histories and impetuses. but what they share is that they are both agreements that are good for transit riders, that they're good for regional transit coordination and collaboration which i think we all agree in a region that has dozens of transit agencies we need more of. they're good for the transit agencies. i've worked directly and personally with the bart general manager grace [speaker not understood] on these agreements to get them to the state they're in. and we both believe, and i know i've talked with steve hemingway, the executive director of the metropolitan transportation commission, and he also believes that these agreements are good for transit and the bay area, and certainly for muni. my board has approved these. we believe these are very good

for muni. the feeder agreement is a payment that bart makes to muni to pay for the feeder service that we provide into the bart system. the budget and legislative analyst who did a great report on both of these, again, has -- we incorporated from previous recommendations. there's one additional recommendation here that has a 5% floor that both we and bart gladly accept that recommendation. and i believe the budget and legislative analyst also recommends approval with that change, with that amendment. the fast pass agreement, what that is is it basically is muni -- san francisco is buying capacity on the bart system for one with of our most heavily traveled corridors. it's really for the folks who live in districts 9 and 11 who are using

transit to get from balboa park, glenn park, 24th street, 16th street, mission, those are the main beneficiaries, allow them to get into downtown and back for $10 on top of the cost of the monthly muni fast pass. so, it's a great service for the riders because for a modest cost, they get that unlimited bart service in san francisco. they get between those points faster than they would on the surface on muni. and it's great foremuni because anyone who rides along the mission corridor knows ~ many of our buses are at or beyond capacity. we're buying capacity on bart because we don't have it. for us to provide that capacity would certainly strain the resources that we have to manage the system. so, it's a good thing for us. it's a great thing for our riders. bart sees a benefit, too, because it fills some of their seats. although bart itself is beginning to

have capacity challenges, particularly at montgomery and embarcadaro. so, we appreciate bart working with us on this to provide that capacity for our riders in san francisco. so, i would -- again, this is something that grace [speaker not understood] and i have personally put our time and attention to. we both strongly believe these are good agreements for both agencies. more importantly, for the riders of bart and muni. and i would, therefore, respectfully but strongly urge your support and recommending this to the full board of supervisors and i'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you, mr. reiskin. i know it's in here somewhere, but can you on an annual basis, how many bart rides do our muni fast past [speaker not understood] take? is it in these documents?

7 million, it likes, almost 8 million? >> yes, fiscal rider ship was 7.12 million. it's pretty significant. >> thanks. i want to thank you for also spending time with me to get educated on both these items. i know we continued it, it's been around for a while, the budget committee. i want to thank you and bart personnel as well for coming forward. colleagues, do we have any questions for mr. reiskin on this item? either of these items? sure. we might have some more questions at the end, but thank you very much, mr. reiskin. we have a budget analyst report from mr. rose. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 7 of the report, we point out that as shown in table 1, and that's on page 6, without the 5% annual cap on payment increases for

the proposed feeder agreement, payments would increase approximately 6% annually and result in a total of 33.3 million in payments to bart to sfmta as an increase of $1,197,0 93 of the term of the proposed payment with the 5% cap in place. we believe the 5% cap is reasonable despite we would be getting the sfmta would be getting less money. but there is currently no floor on how much the annual payments by bart to sfmta could decrease over the 10 year term, so we believe it would be reasonable to include such a floor. and as i understand from what mr. reiskin stated, the department concurs with us on that point. on page 8 of our report, as shown in table 3, based on the estimated payments for both the proposed fast pass and feeder agreements,

sfmta would pay an estimated 26.4 million in total net payments to bart from 10-11 through 13-14 which represents the overlapping time period of the proposed fast pass and feeder agreements. so, or recommendations are on page 9 ~ our ~ regarding file 12-188 6. we recommend that the do a medv the proposed resolution to require that the proposed feeder agreement be revised to include a floor of no more than 5% of decreases in payments from bart to the sfmta and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as a he'ded. and we simply point out on file 12 117, we consider that to be a policy matter for the board ~ for the reasons stated on page 9. we are not objecting to that legislation at all, but we consider it to be a policy for the board. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions for mr. rose? supervisor avalos?

>> yes. yes, mr. rose, if you could say exactly why it's a policy matter, not you're recommending approval. is that because fares are based -- are actually -- there could be an increase to bart fares that will put us deeper, deeper behind or -- >> no. specifically, mr. chairman, members of the committee, supervisor avalos, we're stating that because -- in fact, we state this on page 9 of our report. because sfmta's 2011-12-inch correctthval revenues of 3 million 6 840, from the $10 additional fee from purchasing the fast pass with the bart option ~ are 5,5 84,545 less than sfmta's fiscal year 11-12 payment to bart of 9,193,384 under the

fast pass agreement. ~ what we're simply pointing out because of that differential, we understand that that may be good policy, but because of that gap, we think it's a policy matter for the board. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any further questions for mr. rose? okay, any follow-up questions for mr. reiskin at this time? okay, seeing none, we'll open this up to public comment. if anybody wishes to publicly comment on this item, please step forward. i do have one speaker card. zachary malet. and if interester any other members of the public, please line up on the side over there. mr. malheth? good afternoon, committee members. ~ and members of the public. my name is sack ra malet. i'm the direct 7 director of the bay area rapid district. we represent visitacion valley, bayview hunters point, silver terrace, dogpatch, mission bay, and more. i'm basically here to comment

to what's the budget and legislative committee or chairperson mentioned, not committee chairperson, sorry, analyst mentioned. and i believe it is bad policy cross subsidies. as ed reiskin pointed out the beneficiaries of this program i think i mentioned districts 9 and 11 in san francisco. only those who live and work or play within the bart corridor of san francisco. but 61% of the costs are generated from other muni riders. it creates this cross subsidy where a select few transit users benefit at the expense of so many more. and i'm not a fan of cross subsidies. and for that reason i'm inviting you to not approve this and to join me in what i'm doing with the bart board of re-looking at this. this is a program that has -- it's just a tradition. it's been a tradition since '83 and we've never taken a second look

at whether or not this instrument is being used as it is intended to be used and designed to be used and who is subsidizing who. i strongly disagree that if people don't use this pass they're going to stop using bart and would suddenly cram muni services. in fact, an analysis that i did reveals otherwise. so, i respectfully suggest that due to the efficiencies, cross subsidies and the ongoing expense that you do not approve this and give direction to the mta to work with bart at reconsidering it. >> okay, thank you very much. are there any other memorandum biz wire of the public who wish to comment on this item? ~ members okay, seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] >> mr. reiskin, just out of curiosity from your conversations, i know you've been working closely with bart. maybe you could talk a little about your conversations with them on this item, taking -- we do have a bart director here who just commented on it.

>> yeah, i can just -- i can restate as recently as this morning i spoke with the bart general manager and she remains fully 100% supportive of this agreement. my understanding is that the president of the bart board who represents a good chunk of san francisco is fully supportive of these agreements. my understanding is i expect that the bart board as a body, notwithstanding individual different opinions, will also be supportive. as to the issue of, you know, who is subsidizing whom, or what the value of the agreement is or alternatives, we did do some looking at that with the bart staff. what would happen if we didn't have this agreement in place, what would the impacts be. there are different assumptions one could make about what would those people do and we looked at different scenarios, some would probably

continue on bart as the director said. some would affect muni. some may leave transit, but those latter two would be bad for the city and for us, the people who are staying with bart would be paying a lot more to make their trip in from balboa and inward, which we also saw as not a good thing for transit generally. to put more strain on the muni system would have an impact to all muni riders, not just those in that area. so, likewise, i would argue that the beneficiaries of this agreement are all the users of the muni system. really, all san franciscans because these agreements are encouraging more people to use transit, to take advantage of the multiple transit systems to make the best choice for them, but to get them on transit, off the roads, which benefits everybody. >> okay, thank you. supervisor avalos? >> thank you. and i appreciate your work on -- your

patience and getting our support and bringing in the budget analyst recommendation around the floor of the feeder agreement. the relationship between muni and bart is particularly important in my district and i would say in district 10 as well, visitacion valley. there are many people from the southern part of san francisco who are combined muni and bart users and really it's the fastest way to get to where most of the jobs are in san francisco, downtown, is to take bart. and, so, that agreement is really essential to make sure it's affordable for a lot of residents who are -- choose to be on our transit system and also who don't have much choices about it as well. and i think if we were to have a system that didn't quite work economically, it would have a major impact on a lot of low-income residents and these neighborhoods. so, i appreciate the work of negotiating and bringing something that i would be supportive of. >> supervisor wiener?

>> i think i'll be supporting both items. and in terms of the fast pass agreement with bart, i think it's absolutely critical and, of course, you can always argue there will be a slightly better deal, but i think this is a pretty good deal for the city and for muni/bart riders. and it would be -- not to have that agreement i think would be just awful for transit riders in the city. and in addition, to supervisor avalos' district, the agreement is critical. in my district, both the residents in glenn park and residents of noe valley, particularly since the performance of the j [speaker not understood] is beyond acceptable. a lot of people who live beyond the jay-church line in noe valley would rather walk 3, 4, 5 blocks to

24th street or glenn park bart station where they can actually get reliable service. so, it's important to a lot of different parts of the city. >> okay, thank you. if there are no other comments, colleagues, mr. reiskin, thank you for being here again and walking that through with us. colleagues, we have for item number 1, let's take them one at a time. we have some proposed amendments from mr. rose's office that mr. reiskin is in agreement with. can i have a motion to accept those amendments? so moved. we can do so without opposition. [gavel] >> the underlying item number 1 as amended, can we accept that without opposition? so moved. [gavel] >> as for item number 2, is there a motion to accept? item number 2? we can do so without opposition. [gavel] >> okay. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 3? >> item number 3, ordinance appropriating $55,064,799 of proceeds from san francisco public utilities commission water revenue bonds

to fund the water system improvement program calaveras dam project and re-appropriating $77,271,241 of wsip project appropriations to various wsip projects consistent with the revised april 2013 wsip program budget adopted by the sfpuc. a okay, thank you very much. we have puc here to speak on thev item. >> my neighborv is emilio cusp, infrastructure for the public utilities commission. i'm also here with our chief financial officer, todd [speaker not understood]. we had originally not intended on making a presentation, but we thought maybe a status of the program would help give perspective to the item before you today. under the leadership of our general manager, mr. harlan kelly and the implementation of staff led by program detector julie la bon tee, the program today is 72% complete with 61 of 82 specific projects completed with construction. we are six months past our overall peak anticipated person

hours of 206,000 per year, and we only have three projects left in pre-construction. so, we are definitely at the tail end of the project, having made major progress on our system wide plan. we have had major scope changes on two projects, the calaveras dam replacement project and the alameda creek recapture project. our revised program completion as a result of these changes have increased the schedule by 8 months to april 11 of 2019, and it has increased the budget by $55.1 million to $4.64 billion. sorry for the error there. and none of these changes change the level of service that was set by the commission as a goal for the overall project. the two projects that are changing are calaveras dam and alameda creek. calaveras dam, even after doing a thorough pre-design site investigation which had an

array of boring test [speaker not understood] conditions, in construction we found an underground land slide of an historic land slide that happened and not been charted in any of our historic information. as a result, that land slide created an unsafe excavation for the construction as it was designed. we have redesigned the project to excavate under the land slide, therefore necessitating an additional 3 million cubic yards of soil movement. we successfully completed negotiations with the contractor for that change order and thus have seen an increase in both schedule and cost. the alameda creek project comes after, it's downstream from the calaveras project. the delay there is associated with the delay in calaveras, but we are replanning that project and actually finding ways to save money on alameda creek itself. overall our regional projects as a result of the calaveras dam have gone up by 76.3 million dollars, but we have been able to implement all of our local projects at a savings

of $21.4 million. assessing our savings to our overrun, we are program wide looking at an overrun of $55.1 million or 1.2% of the overall program cost. given the volume of underground work that we have endeavored, the tunneling as well as the excavation for the dam, we believe this is a very good number in the history of underground construction. this slide simply shows you our progress on our main part of the work which is our transmission. again, creating seismic reliability in our water supply from hetch hetchy to san francisco. and you can see all the projects in blue are completed. the projects in green for the most part are nearing completion. consistent with the march 2013 revised water system improvement program budget which was adopted by the public utilities commission, we're asking that you appropriate $55.1 million water revenue bond proceeds to fund the

calaveras dam replacement project and shift appropriate funds within the program in order to balance the program as we have presented it today. so you under, we propose to make the $55.1 million adjustment by adjusting our 10 year capital improvement program for those known net additional funds necessary and there's no impact to the rate payers. that is all i have for you today. >> great. colleagues, do we have any questions? supervisor avalos. >> i'm just trying to recall, maybe if i can get a budget analyst report, i can wait till then. i'm trying to recall what was the earlier action we took this year on calaveras dam. >> there was an earlier action in which we identified the -- we identified the problem and identified a range of the impact. and, so, we did increase the budget prior to negotiating the final contractor negotiation on

the change order. now we have actually finalized the change order. we have all of the costs associated -- [speaker not understood], and this is for appropriation of that change. >> any other questions, colleagues? okay, thank you very much. we have a budget analyst report from mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 13 of our report, we state that as shown in table 4, and that's on page 14, puc has reallocated funds within the [speaker not understood] water system improvement budget to offset some of the increased costs of the calaveras dam project and this proposed ordinance appropriates $74,353,6 87 to fund the balance of the calaveras dam project budget increase. ~ and as i say, that's shown in table 4. we also note that the proposed

ordinance would approve the release of $50,314,35 2 object reserve for the alameda county creek fishery enhancement project. ~ on that's no longer needed for that project. and the puc will reallocate that 15.3 million within the sunol valley improvements project offset by other expenditures resulting in a net $14,444,332 reallocated within the sunol valley water system improvement project to be used for the calaveras dam project. and finally, the requested supplemental would also approve funding of $57,677,85 1 for various other water system improvement projects and they are described and shown on pages 14 through 18 of our report.

and we do recommend that you approve this proposed ordinance. >> okay, thank you very much, mr. rose. colleagues, do we have any questions for the budget analyst? okay, thank you very much. any other questions for staff right now? okay, seeing none, we are going to open up to public comment. if there's anybody who wishes to publicly comment on item number 3, please step forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor avalos. okay. we have a motion to approve item number 3. we can do so without opposition? so moved. [gavel] >> thank you, committee, thank you to the budget analyst as well. >> thank you. mr. clerk, you can please call item number 4. >> item number 4, resolution authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute agreements with cdm smith/ats, a joint venture (cs-211a); icf + avila, a joint venture (cs-211b); shaw environmental and infrastructure, inc. (cs-211c); and urs corporation (cs-211d) for specialized and technical services for natural resources and watershed management and monitoring, each with an agreement amount not to exceed $5,000,000 and each with a term not to exceed 14 years pursuant to charter, section 9.118 (b).

>> okay, thank you. we also have the puc here to present on this item. hold on one second. >> good afternoon, chair farrell, supervisors. my name is greg limon. i work for tim ramirez in the natural resources and land management division of the water enterprise. i have been working with our contracts administration bureau to manage the selection of the consultants to supplement city staff and provide specialized and technical services to monitor and manage our watersheds. the natural resource he and land management division is responsible for monitoring water quality in our reservoirs, monitoring the ecological health of our water

sheds and monitoring the habitat mitigation for the wisip of our water system improvement programs like the calaveras dam. the scope of the requested services is not new to the water enterprise. what's new is the magnitude of the work that needs to be done. in large part due to the commitments we have made to state and federal environmental compliance permits in the duration of these commitments. under these per conmitt conditions, we have to monitor and maintain water improvement milt gas sites after 10 years at the completion of the projects ~ and in some cases perpetuity. the majority of the services will be to conduct performance period monitoring, reinquiredth by these permit conditions. these are new requirements that last between 5 and 10 years, depending on the type of mitigation. with the last 10 year monitoring increment starting in the year 2017. ~ it is the length of these permit required monitoring period that prompted us to

request a 14-year contract. the contracts do not bind the sfpuc to use these consultants, to use consultants that are performing poorly and we can terminate the contracts at any time. we appreciate the efforts made by the budget and legislative analyst staff to succinctly and accurately summarize the contracting process. mr. ramirez and i are here for your questions. >> okay, thank you very much. colleagues, any questions right now for puc staff? thanks for presenting. we have a budget analyst report, mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 22 of our report, we note that the puc is requesting to enter into four separate agreements, each for a not to exceed $5 million total of up to $20 million. currently the puc is expending approximately $500,000 annually for professional services to assist in the monitoring and