takes to finance the cost moving the fund the last slide shows the available funds being used for financing and those are the categories driving the prop k program in terms of dollars we'll be working a lot with project sponsors to know how much is how the i out there and how much we'll have to pay the projects to adequately manage the paperwork. >> getting towards the end here's the end of the first slide this shows the picture of high ends of revenue it is $620 million to note 9 percent of revenues will be for refinancing companion slides shows this at the end of the thirty years there will be enough to pay the

expenditures we have to pay and the program notification is 15 percent of the total expenditures including the operations reserve so the slide shows that the first and second year of each 5 year programs has dramatically higher than cash flows from the 5 year period this is a combination of rolling projects forward so the expenditures from the existing allocated projects whether you see in the blue box 40 percent of the cash in the early years 2015-2016 is from looltsz prongs the prop k sponsors have been slow to allocate the expenditures to balance that it has in some cases be able to spend other funds ramble the prop k this leads to refinancing

the costs and funding for the projects so to note here over the last 5 years there was a spike in the first two years of projected cash flow and what the sponsors in 2009, 2014-2015 and there's a discrepancy before what we actually spent on the capital projects all right. with that, i'm happy to take questions on the strategic plan. >> so any questions colleagues. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i know that the downtown extension and electrification came up and i know there's a large discussion in terms of how to insure alignment likes caltrain and the high speed rail and the transbay terminal i want to ask a little

bit about the thoughts on making sure that as part of a body we're insuring the limit i know that caltrain is considering or rfp in january for new transcripts in order to prepare for electrification they're looking at for trains that are 25 feet in the boarders platform our current platform and their is current so the major changes to all our stations but the high speed rail will only work on a 50 inch platform i'm concerned we are setting up a system it's not annexed lines e lined with san francisco and what we can do with the leveraging in that region ail go decision i know

we're a small piece of electrification and downtown is incredibly expensive but the city is going to be transmitting to the project we want to make sure it's in line with our final goals. >> ms. chang. >> tilly chang to supervisor kim through the chair it's incredibly important working with the transportation authority and our caltrain transbay joint powers authority board our partner with the state and federal agency supporting those promotions to make sure we're in the alignment to have the coordination the one technical initial is one to make sure we're in compatibility issue it's been raised by the working group and the region ail

body i believe the agencies are meeting i have a meeting next week is a a t c and other members of the joint powers no right i suggest we organize and hearing i believe it called for one at the tjpa and we might want to hear the transportation authority. >> it is an important issue that the board, you know, fully understands the technical issues it seems like a kind of booelg rfp going out they needed to electrify their trains it is going to be difficult to get the trains approved down the road it is a lot of issues everyone has a lot of feeling about but it's important in terms of our leadership to get a full

understanding of all the steps that would impact the ability to bring high speed rail finally to san francisco we don't want technical issues in the next 10 years to sidestep us. >> absolutely on the larger investment scale the downtown extension of transbay it would be that we look at it as an integrated rail project so it's a voter mandate to deliver the projects into together within san francisco and together with our sister agencies within the region we appreciate our leadership on that and i look forward to bring the whole set of issues city of not only the heights it's the potential cost increases and the integration of high speed rail and the ability

to partner with san mateo and santa fe as the blended high speed rail corridor investment plan in the south bay area. >> thank you, ms. chang. >> thank you for getting through the 20 slides of 37 slides he provided anyone from the public wish to speak on this item. >> i believe this morning i ruined my camera it is the third camera i've ruined this year the cannon i put it in a washer with the other things and so it's not functioning so we have a protect our cameras and bad accidents see so we have to have caution to all detailed from the money

adaptation of the strategic plan you must put it all consideration into consideration so the more on the detail and consideration the more professional that the statistic plan. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed we have a project statistic plan, sir call a role. >> excuse me. mr. chair, i wanted to make a quick comment it is important to not only do the strategic plans with something of this large magnitude but in my of our city departments to have a clear understanding of what we need to think about moving forward in the future we're not randomly supported things we know clearly where the needs are and what money is available for project, what the projections are you

think this is great planning and wholeheartedly support that. >> sir an voerlt. >> supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor yee that item passes. >> next item. >> item 9 recommended approval of delegation policy for the 2014-2015 for dedicated authority. >> we have chief donating. >> i'll try to be brief you've been power pointed to death i've got to down to 8 slides in the scheme of things it is important as bryan talked about it is a lengthy and engaged discussion

on a split vote recommending approval of the pilot policy one is the approval the policy and one an approval of the list of projects that are for the approval in the years 2014-2015 this to the strategic item also wanting to acknowledge the input to our project sponsors to mta and voilg u jonathan should be on the committee. >> all right. and in our packet with you to get more details attachment one is the actual policy and attachment two a two page list of projects so first and foremost where did this idea come from any want to start with the mta staff of the

request we know that prop k was crafted as a voter measure that had transcript as a hallmark the program will at the same time as i recall we have during the executive director around the performance reports by the controller's office we had feedback with the prop k process was needing 0 improvement this is one of the concerns we noted a couple of things we're working to extremely the invoicing process we've done electronic cross out continuing to simplify procures this is a policy that requires board approval this is a process that is carefully crafted it will expedite the

timeline for allocation with the timely delivers and balancing the accountability i won't go into detail i'll quickly witness no. run you through the annual process this is based on a policy every year the astrological approves a list of projects that is approval once the list is approved they could submit a question we'll review it at the staff level like all allocation projects and once it is meeting stds this will not go through the board process we'll monthly post it on our website and interact active

form so if people want more details we'll share the list we have a consent calendar with the l ac m this is a special pilot every year we'll have an annual report on the performance of the pilot right now this is supposed to end in january 2016 to go through one cycle to evaluate whether or not it's successful. >> so benefits of this policy i'll say that on one hand it's not the most silver bullet that will improve project delivery the benefits that come out are shortening the timeline timeline when the requests are from 4 to 6 weeks sponsors are not working on the project during that time

the staff time is not having to attend the board two or three committees that said time saved by the project sponsor staff is a good thing on the transparency accountability does what is lost is the program to weigh in on a project at the time of allocation this is a pilot i think we've done our best shot and a at developing this to see if it works. >> actually almost done with the slides here process for doing this is a eligible project that is a 5 year allocation program the idea of 5 year prioritization program is to lay out a road map for the

projects to fund we're chosen the projects and the phase and the mta has abbreviated the process there's a scope of funding included so that's probable one of the most important eligibility criteria because this is just been adapted we know it is particularly was is going to happen as it gets to the 4 and 5 accounting year the intent of every year do an unanimous call to give the project sponsors to update the more specific projects here's the meat of the project the ignite criteria beyond needing to be listed in a 5 year plan to make sure that the projects are sufficiently

well-designed and supervisor mar asked what was in group 3 of the t p they need to be projects and i'll put up another one that staff feels it wouldn't faces a a lot of controversy we know this committee comments on we'll pull off the list the list comes to the cac and to you if you see individual projects you feel should come to a committee process we've pulled them off the calendar this one is a 5 power point judgment i'll leave it for reference those are the 6 categories or types of projects that a project fits into one of the categories to be allocated for the category the first one is the annual activities like

the sidewalk replacements it is a clear process and the third presence we have street repair and cleaning equipment equipment for installation of translate like a bucket but not signals you want public input on the signals who special ones we call out are the second to the last bum a small request for $75,000 or less those should be eligible but unless it's a straeveng analysis report on bicycle sharing and lastly the one that doesn't fit tends to be well-defined walk first place holders we put this one in we have a bunch of place holders for construction of walk first projects we don't have the

location but we know the importance of vision zero so those projects are dedicated as well as the vision zero committee has approved those schedules for budget last thing is that to balance out the transparency and the accountability was added additional oversight requirements i've mentioned month of them in introduction the cac recommended approval they want us to come back with specific metrics this is difficult to measure the success of the pilot because at the end of the day it's difficult to say that was the deleted allocated authority it's not meanwhile the fault of the policy one of the things the project sponsors we're working with to try to

engage their precipitation of how well, this is working last thing the project lists the perspective has 25 projects will will be projected allocations it represents about a third of one hundred and six some projects we have in rfp in a problematic categories and the total of $5 million in prop k fund and for per inspection for 2015 we have $4 million it's a relatively small process the cac approved it but up to the committee if you want to you can remove those if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them and jonathan will be happy to answer. >> supervisor campos thank you, very much and thank you to the staff there was a lot of thought and work i want to say have are

a great deal of respect by i'll vote against it is a misguided policy if you look at the 4 page memo that was sent to us not a single line even addresses what the problem actually is it describes the policy but didn't address the one bullet that they have which is, you know, to expedite allocation of prop k funds i mean, if you're going to change the determination of authority this is one of the most serious things a body what had you have to have examples of why the change t is needed simply saying you need to allocate the fund is not sufficient i have to hear the timely project was impede because of delegation of lack of

authority and beyond that i think if you are changing for a third of the projects the role of the citizens advisory committee and not taking them out of the picture and not only taking them but taking this committee out of the picture you better have a good reason and i think it is telling that staff is given a lot of segregation to make sure if they deem a project to be controversial it wouldn't be on the list part of the transparency is for the public to decide if something is controversial things are likely not to be controversial if the public doesn't get an opportunity to say anything i think this is really misguided i know it has good tennis but the wrong the we're going to the ballot asking voters for

hundreds of million dollars and now we're talking about diminishing transparency and accountability because that is precisely what's happening here i think we're sending the wrongs message i don't know why this is happening i'm surprised with all the things i've seen as a member of this agency this is the first time i'm what is going on here i don't understand this so i'll be respectfully voting against it i be sure that my colleagues in my district know about this. >> thank you supervisor kim. >> so actually having i have a press conference it downstairs i'm not sure this could be expanding continued i see the benefits of some of it but i agree there are a lot of questions i have about this allocation i like extremely the

process i get frustrated at the project delivery so i like the idea of extremely bureaucracy but i want to feel comfortable to support that that makes sense for small projects might be $75,000 can be streamlined but i'm gladly we're looking at walk first at least going through vision zero i want to assure that walk first happens as quickly as possible but we don't know accident locations we know what the overall plan and the mta has identified as provided for walk first but not gotten the project plan with the alleyway actual locations i imagine the board or commission times to look at accident things before 3 more

going out this is my initial feedback this deserves a longer conversation this is my motion to continue it. >> thank you supervisor breed. >> i said support a motion for continuance if i had to vote open this item today, i wouldn't be able to support it i have concerns about streamlining the process and the prop k funds from my understanding a lot of the cac and the committees there were established were to make sure there was public input from a variety of places on those particular items i know that some of the departments have expressed frustration with me trying to get the project done as quickly as possible and not being able to assault of some of the details but there's a process we need to under take

you previous we not change the process unless i clearly understand why this is being proposed it is two random to say it's a controversial project a small dollars amount like a bulb out could constitute a controversial situation is it's not about the dollar but the fact we're changing it in the city and making sure i macro decisions we need to make sure that the public has a seat at the table i'm not comfortable with what is being proposed. >> supervisor yee. >> i'll also be willing to support a tennis when i had the discussion earlier it was a little bit - it was a long discussion because i wasn't too sure what is rational was and what the proof and any

sufficiency and if we're going to be talking efficiency there are other possible vehicles to get there i think we should have a discussion on this. >> thank you and you've heard the sentiments of committee i hope i bring it back with the organ but specific examples this is addressing and how to maintain accountability. >> if i may the staff raised the concerns and i think also, if you made things like jonathan spoke on behalf of the project sponsors but from the perspective with but approval of the 5 year plans just to reference we h have more details than any other counties but the cac board has had a chance we're

missing as people put their radar out when the allocation come forward and that's what is lost with the policy with that, i think supervisor campos. >> your explanation to how the policy works but not providing the justification what went wrong. >> i think jonathan should speak to that it doesn't allow the last minute projects because the board has to approval the list of projects. >> thank you marie jonathan rivers with the mta, you know, maria brought universe i up the background that had to do with the studies of krorldz and the feedback a lot coming from us some keep in mind from the public works and i think the staff i completely agree with

supervisor campos that part of the issue not reflected is the problem and the sponsors identifying the problem not the authorities responsibility to say they're not being as quickly as possible the policy as framed real focuses on the quick improvements we want to get out open the streets one example hapsz to be the match for caltrain grant we might get $200,000 we need even though $300,000 match we want to good faith those with caltrain but we have to have the design the 4 to 6 weeks behind on that we have an obligation schedule with caltrain and trying to get past the red tape another example it's been very important for this vision zero committee for us to continue it

work with dpw on better cooperations especially with repeal pavement projects and very often dpw they want to go out and bid a contract may have to delay the bid because we want to add 20 to $30,000 or so, so as maria pointed out within the prop k $200 million it is $5 million and it's really those opportunities with regard to vision zero a lot of the projects are quick paint projects we want to get out there as quickly as possible you've seen the allocations for $8,000 it is a paint project so we can do those in bundle and cooperate it makes the projects done quicker will happy to have this postponed and come back and

work with you. >> it mr. rose. >> supervisor breed. >> can i add it would be hopefully to see the mta supports them and have feedback from them as well as and others providing consistent comments with the projects relied to the prop k funds. >> one thing we've built into that was useful i want to thank the authority staff the process we went through this year, the cac we spent 3 hours on special meetings going through each category and projects and questions they had it will give you a better sense of the strategy and we'll know what we're doing through the global process we've committed we're very transparent and