changed certain terms of ours and beginning to get a little theme here to account and auditers just to get to more fees, i guess, in addition, to that, we noted no transactions that were entered into the authority that lacked the authority, guidance as well as all significant transactions have been properly reflected in these financial statements. accounting estimates are critical in the financial reporting and the few, major accounting estimates that we entered in or that we reviewed for the reasonableness were to accommodate the absence liability and the posing contributions as well as funding project. and proud to say that there were no difficulties encountered during the audit and any corrected adjustments that we identified as a result of the audit pro-secretary were corrected by the management and were not material in of itself or in the aggregate. proud to say that there was no

disagreement with management. we did ask for and receive a management representation letter from the management prior to the issuance of the report. and we were not aware of any consultation with other account ant and finally, with regard to other information, presented in these financial statements, that were or are outside of the basic financial statements our roll is just to review them, and point out any discrepancies or in consistencies and there were none, and with that, there were no, current year comments, but we did provide a update of prior year comments which are in the attached letter and both were corrected and the only item that continues to be on an ongoing project would be with the implementation of 68 which is on pension reform that is not due until 2015 and it is going to be a significant task on the staff and we applaud their efforts in keeping track with that. that concludes my formal remarks and if there are any

questions or comments he will be happy to answer. >> any questions or comments? >> seeing none, we will open item..., did you want to say something? >> i just wanted to mention one last thing that you should be aware of, this is the tenth audit in a row that we have had a clean audit, especially with what happened last year, i had two, and myself and my staff were two new moms and it is great that we were able to maintain a clean audit and i would like to extend a special thank you to my staff and we band together to share and kept everything clean and especially the knowledge and we and kelley, my account ant and without them, we definitely would not have a clean audit this year, thank you. >> and congratulations. so, we will now open it up for public comment on item four, is there any public comment? on item four, come forward.

>> >> good morning, commissioners we are fellow commissioners my name is jackie sacks and i have been on the advisory committee since 97 as you all know. i have been very familiar with these audits that they have. and they have gone, they have, i have approved every one of them. and i hope that you do the same, because it is worth noting, thank you very much. >> thank you, very much. >> is there any additional public comment on item four? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, could i have a motion to forward item four to the full authority with positive recommendations? >> okay and, we will talk that without objection.

>> could you call item five? >> recommend the award of an 18-month consultant contract to tyler technologies, inc., in an amount not to exceed $415,000, for implementation, licensing, support and maintenance services for microsoft dynamics ax 2012, and authorizing the executive director to negotiate contract payment terms and non-material contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> cynthia the financial director, and this starts on page 85 of your packet. in line of with transportation authority, the plan that you reviewed in june, we are bringing but you the erp enterprise resource planning implementation. this is the implementation of new accounting software for the transportation authority. and we have had the system called fun ware for the last ten years, back then, a non-profit system was the best system suited for the transportation authority. in the past ten years, we have been growing and we had more

project and more responsibilities and we have currently out grown our accounting software, we started to look into new software and i took a look along with the staff into four softwares that fit the needs of the transportation authority. we met with them and had some discovery sessions we were able to play with the software and from conclusions of those we decided to go with the software called microsoft dynamics ax, the 2012 version. from that point, we were looking for a vender to help us with the implementation, we needed a rendor to help us achieve the four goals, to find a system, and help us implement a system that is structure for government agencies instead of businesses and private businesses or non-for profit and also looking for implementer to help us to guide

us through a new software that could provide us real time data instead of having to commingle information from various financial and accounting systems. we were also looking for a vendor that was or could help to guide us through the microsoft ax, software and help us identify how the authority should structure its processes, business processes and then lastly, we are looking for a vendor to help to implement a paperless system for our accounting practices. and we issued rfp back in august, we received a bid and the bid we met with them to interview in september, and we ended up deciding that tyler systems was the best consultant for us since they were also a co-developer in the microsoft ax system, and also have a lot of experience with the government entities of a staff of less than five that was important to me because of a

lot of implementations may go wrong in the short amount of time i wanted somebody who knew what we were doing and had experience and hads the demands that a small accounting staff would have, in terms of cost and break down, on page 91, we have a time line that we look to implement the system from january of 2014 and hopefully go live in september of 2014. and in terms of fiscal impacts, we set aside $100,000, in the fiscal year, budget, and now, the plan back then was to implement the system and some time between the fiscal year whenever we had some time we could allocate those between the audits and budgets and i saw that there would be two months that we could start with that. after meeting with the various firms we needed to start this new system at the same time we would be processing transactions for the new fiscal year. what i would like to do is bring the mid year budget amendment we would add the

different budget, of 315,000 to help to offset the cost, in terms of maintenance and support costs we ko be encuring about 21,000 each year going forward. anticipating that we would be using the system for 10 years or more. and like i mentioned we were using a system for ten years and that was a non-profit system and we could extend the life of this project. and last item that i would like to point out is this went to the cac committee on december fourth and there was a support for this item. i would are more than happy to answer any more questions that you may have. >> any questions or comments? >> okay. thank you. >> we will now open item five up for public comment, is there any public comment oit em five?

come forward. >> my name is jackcy sacks and i was at the meeting last week and i approved and i was one of the individuals that strongly supported this item and i hope that you do the same thing, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> and any additional public comment on item five? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. could i have a motion to forward item five to the full authority with positive recommendation? >> okay. and we will take that without objection. >> item 6. >> introduction of new items this is an information item. >> are there any introductions? >> okay. is there any public? on item six? >> seeing none, we will close public comment. >> item seven? >> item 7, public comment. >> is there any public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> and item 8. >> adjournment. >> we are adjourned. thank you.

>>

>> good morning, everyone. ed meeting will come to order. this is the tuesday, december tenth, 2013, meeting of the plans and programs committee of the san francisco county transportation authority, our clerk is miss erika cheng, could you call the roll? >> roll call, commissioner breed? >> here. >> commissioner campos? >> absent. >> kim, absent fp >> mar. >> present. >> yee? >> yee, present. >> we have a quorum. >> thank you, and i would like to thank, jim smith and johnson gramwhack from sfgtv for tell vicing us today. >> item number two, approve the minutes of the november 19, 2013 meeting this is an action item. >> thank you, seeing no comments from colleagues, let's open up this for public comment, is there anyone from the public? seeing none, the public comment is closed could we moved this

forward without objection? thank you. >> item three, citizen's advisory committee report, this is an information report. >> and we have the vice chair of the committee joseph flanagan. >> >> good morning commissioners my name and i am the vice chair, sorry, joseph flanagan. there are a few items on your agenda that the cac took action

on on december 4th, meeting. they are the items for allocation of prop k funds for three requests. and in addition, items, we took action on two of the items. number one, 463,000, for the street repair and cleaning equipment and we deferred action pending additional information regarding the cost share of changes stations to reduce the prop k request number 2.

4,,000 for the bartlet street scape improvements project. we voted nearly unanimously for this item with one abstaining. item five adoption of the sf gp, we again, passed with a near unanimous vote of one substation, item six, recommended approval for a 2013 san francisco congestion management program and we have passed unanimously by the cac, thank you very much and that includes, and thank you very much and i can take any questions.

>> thank you, vice chair, any questions, colleagues? >> i see no questions. thank you so much for that report. >> thank you very much. >> miss cheng, could you call the next item? let's open up this up for public comment, is there anyone that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item four,recommend allocation of $4,563,090 in prop k funds, with conditions, for three requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules and amendment of the relevant 5-year prioritization programs . this is an action item. >> thank you, and we have courtney mcgeary, and other members from the mta and bart with us here as well. good morning, with the authority this past month, we reviewed a total of 3 prop k allocation requests totaling 4.5 million, the department of public works has requested prop k funds for construction of the

part let project ideas stemming from the mission street scape plan and an effort led by the plan and adopted in 2010, intended to create a flexibility urban public space on bartlett between 21st and 22nd street. before you is a visual of what the projects will look like upon completing. the projects anticipated result in the loss of 34 parking spaces and 56 existing spaces which may be mitigated with the use of an adjacent parking structure that is often under utilized and maintains and operated by the sfmta. the project manager assured our committee that community stake holders were involved in the decision to reduce the parking and determined that the benefits of the project far out weighed the law. >> the project is currently under going final design anticipated to be completed in

the next month, dpw anticipates completing by january of 2015 and this is another visual of what it may look like during an event. the department of public works has requested prop k fund to procure six pieces of cleaning equipment, these will replace the existing vehicles that have reached the end of their useful lives, the citizen's advisory committee was briefed at the december meeting and adopted the motion to refer the request sighting the concerns of the high cost and the potential for the charging units to be used for non-street cleaning purposes. the department of public works requests presenting to the committee today despite the citizen advisory deferal action, they have confirmed that these are the highest use of funds from this category and confirmed that these vehicles charging stations while they may be used by other city

departments for other vehicles, electric, units procured by using prop k, will require a charging unit to re, power, over night. >> they anticipate that it will be completed by june of 2015. and i should also note that these vehicles the procurement of them is consistent with the city's action plan. >> finally, we will request that you consider last month, the sfmta has interested 3.7 million for the construction to upgrade, 17 escalators in the subway, and in the november plans and committee, this committee again was briefed on this item, and the committee decided to defer the action pending additional information from the sfmta regarding the over all escalator plan and policies regarding outdoor canopies. and we have included new information in the topics and

you can also review additional information from the sfmta in the attachment four, and today, sfmta staff are present to respond to your concerns, and they have a brief presentation that they have prepared as well as bart staff who are present to deliver a presentation on the pilot escalator program. with that i will hand it off to jonathan. >> thank you. >> mr. louis? >> i just like to say that we have johnson from the sfmta, john from bart, and samoc jock from the dpw as well. >> and colleagues i think that it is a red powerpoint that we have in front of us, and the escalator. thank you, chair members and the plans and programs, i am jonathan with the mta and i am here to discuss quickly our

maintenance plan for the escalators on the system, and i appreciate the questions from commissioner campos who is not here right now, but it is always great when we get an opportunity to talk to the public and to you about the state of good repair about the system, and to have the opportunity to invest in it and just really quickly, the escalator systems were built as part of the system, and the sfmta is responsible for the 28 of these escalators and we have maintained them through a contract with cone which is the actual manufacturer since that period of time and since they are 25 years old, they are at the end of their useful life and it is at this point that we are beginning a renovation program, phase one of the program replacement program replaced five my priority escalators in 2013 and this phase two request is for the detailed design to preplace 17 on the system for a total of

18.5 million and that project is anticipated to be completed in the winter of 2018. just really quickly, i wanted to cover the actual replacement plan and note where the actual escalators are. and a number of the escalators are part of the joint main nens program are maintained and have to do with the escalators to the street and all of the escalators that go from the level down to the muni pret toe they are responsible for maintaining, you will see the escalators were completed as part of phase one. and phase two, includes escalators at montgomery station, and powell, and san ef station and church read station and castro station, the escalators at embarcadero are not part of phase two and will be completed as a subsequent phase because they are the newest working with the oldest and most used escalators first.

>> just really quickly, one of the questions had to do with the sustainability of the escalator and how we are upgrading them. this has to do with kind of weather proofing them to the greatest extent possible. so the new escalators include solid, stainless steel panels and oil free chains and water proof, and so they have been weatherized to deal with the weather and noting that with the escalators that we are responsible for maintaining but they need to be weather proof and account for that. but we need to include these materials to make sure that they could stand the test of time. finally specifically what the maintenance plan is part of your memo, again, in may of 2013, the board of directors approved a new master contract with cone, for an amount of 1.4 million dollars which includes the maintenance of the escalator system over five years, some things that i do want to note is that the staff

delayed bringing the maintenance contract forward to the board until we could test the escalator completed as part of phase one, and since cone is the manufacturer he wanted to make sure and we wanted to include everything possible in the subsequent maintenance contract and so we tested it out for a few months and delayed the contract and now that we know the issues that could arise with the kaes lay tores we made sure that the components are considered as part of the maintenance contract. the contract is fully funded as part of the transit division budget, over the next five years and it includes labor, and materials, equipment, and other incidental service and i do want to stress that was one of the questions of the commissioners that the main nens contract that we have actually exceeds the manufacturer's standard main nens plan that they give with these escalators. so i have kenny with me and scott broder, kenny is the project manager and scott is in charge of the maintenance, if you have any more questions.

>> i had a question, so there are 28 escalators at 7 stations that the mta is responsible for, and does this include the 16th street and 24th street bart stations for example, or glen park? >> no, those are included as part of bart, bater is responsible for the maipt nens of those. >> and when was the last time, so these are 40 years old, it looks like 41 years old, when was the last time that bart replaced some of the other eastern neighbor stations. >> right, it is something that i could check with bart with and get back to you on. >> okay. now, maybe, the bart rep who is here might have answers. >> thank you, and commissioner yee? >> so, in the... i guess that i

am trying to figure out in regards to this phase two escalator rehabilitation, it looks like it is going to modernize or replace 17 escalators? >> correct. >> and so there is eleven others, what is going to happen to the eleven others? so five were completed as part of phase one and the remaining 6 escalators are at embarcadero and since those were the last stations to be added as part of the system and so those are our newest escalator and will be completed as part of a phase three. >> and so explain to me as we replace these, and they are supposed to be hopefully easier to maintain, because a lot of the things that you are doing, why are we paying more for maintenance? >> i am not saying that we would pay any more, the contract that we have is the standard contract that we have and so the 1.5 million is over a five year period for the main

nens of the escalators and the major issue that i have with maintenance right now with cone has to do with the parts because the actual escalators are so old, the parts are being fabric ated and the cost is higher, as we replace, we are counting on the actual cost of the main nens to go down as we go down through the system. >> thank you. >> i see no other questions, thank you. are there other reps from the departments that would like to make any points as well? >> and i am interested in dpw explanation of the electric vehicle truck as well. that is the first that i have heard of large vehicles that are electric, and electrically chargable as well. >> the budget manager with the department of public works, we are actually not replacing trucks with trucks, our plan is to down size where possible, so

the folks that are using these particular trucks don't necessarily carry heavy equipment, and so we are looking to down size. the electric vehicles, we have looked for electric trucks and unfortunately they don't exist yet in the way that we would like to use them. did that address your question? >> so n stead of purchasing, 6 electric vehicles, not trucks. >> right. >> very good. >> the charging station a rapid charging station? i know that there are different types. >> we had actually planned to the budget does include the rapid charge because we would like to get out quickly, but we are not sure if the vehicle that we purchased would be compatible with that and so we may have to reduce to a 240, and we will know once we install. >> very good. commissioner yee? >> i guess that this is along the same line, the question, what are the existing fleet in

regards to flusher trucks and electric vehicles and so forth? >> you want to know the current composition of our fleet? >> we have about 920 or so, vehicles in our fleet. i believe that we have four flusher trucks at the moment. a few of them two or three of them, i am not sure of the exact count don't currently meet the requirements and so that is why we are replacing this one here now as icon included in our request. and in terms of the other vehicles, let me take a look, i did bring that with me. as those 900 vehicles, we have about 50 percent of that is heavy duty vehicles, sweepers and construction vehicles and things like that. 20 percent are light duty vehicles and so that will

include our sedans and trucks. >> i didn't mean the total fleet, i mean the total fleet in regards to cleaning equipment. >> cleaning equipment. >> are these electric vehicles for what? >> these electric vehicles are going to be used by the graffiti inspecters that are out inspecting the graffiti that are called in by the residents and property owners to 311. >> okay. i got the picture now. this was described i thought with all of these vehicles had something to do with cleaning something. >> no, they are not. they are not the heavy equipment. >> thank you, so much. and i was just going to thank ken from bart who is a bart architect for also the fight that we have on the bart canopy as well. >> and he is not in today and if you are prepared and like

to, hear him. he is... >> thank you commissioners for considering the hearing about the pilot project and also considering that the support of the funding this project may be taking place in san francisco in the near future. and as a result of nearly two decades of concerns and studies of how to wait for tactile escalators and it will be used undesired out comes from the lower landing of our suburban stations in urban alignment. and it is proceeded in oakland station. and the reason that the 19th street, station was chosen as a pilot site has two main attributes and one is that it se