>> good afternoon, commissioners. in terms of mission, we suspect sustainable transportation of all sorts, including trains and buses and other forms of sustainable transportation on the peninsula corridor. we've got is significant version and have some significant questions that are not yet answered at this high level presentation. one is about how this does interact with the potential goals for congestion pricing that san francisco is considering. there's a bill in the legislature. would one replace the other? would they be used together? how would this work?

the transit option is about to come out with the results of its express bus study. what would the performance of the express buses be with or without this component? and, actually, how would the performance be with respect to buses if there's san mateo and san francisco or san mateo only? another question, though, has to do with that rain configuration and if the lanes are expected to be on 280 and you already have 101, this would be pulling vehicles from 101 into 280 and then bringing them down at fifth and king where in the central plan i just saw there were going to be about 10,000 extra pedestrians in the general area

and in that major transit hub with caltran and central subway and all the other metro and muni buses, will it suck additional cars on to that route, and how will it affect the transit goals and quality of life goals. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public for items 12 and 13? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sheehy, would you be comfortable after those comments, in moving forward with item no. 12, knowing that ultimately this body has the ability to say no, but we could allow the executive director to into into a cooperative agreement with caltrans? your thoughts on that? >> i'm going to vote against it. i just don't think this is a great idea. i would like to know why we

couldn't put -- it's kind of like, you know, the los angeles experience. every time they build a freeway, it's full. when they built the 10, they said it was going to take a number of years to be full. within a year, it was full. so i want to take the opposite tact. i would like to see us maybe bill for mass transit. when mass transit comes, if that's the plan, i'm for it. if it's for any facilitatation -- facilitation of private automobiles, i would like to stop it now. if we built the equivalent of a red lane only for mass transit, i think it would encourage mass transit routes. it could include shuttles, especially when they're union organized. that's not the best of all possible worlds -- that's not the worst of all possible worlds. if we're going to do this, let's

go 100% and say this is mass transit only lanes. that's something i would be interested in. >> all right. is there a motion for item no. 12? item no. 13 is an informational item. [off microphone] >> he said he was ready to make the motion, but i don't think he actually made the motion. but is there a motion of one kind or another? commissioner tang? >> just to clarify, to continue or approve? >> continue. >> a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair or a date certain? >> to the call of the chair. >> a motion made by commissioner tang. seconded by commissioner sheehy on that item, a roll call, please. [roll call]

today we're asking you to

approve our general approach. prop k is our half cent sales tax. it included a 30-year -- the expenditure plan is implemented through a strategic plan and five-year plan that's required for those categories. this shows the distribution with about two-thirds funds for prop k. it's for almost exclusive projects. while the expenditure -- the

policies tell staff and sponsors how to manage prop k. we don't anticipate any major changes during this update. the revenue-up ensures we're able to have enough funds for the prop k projects when they're ready to go. while the strategic plan is the document that i can ma -- that makes sure those funding are able, five years is about as far ahead as we can expect sponsors to identify their project priorities. any project you might be thinking of for prop k funds needs to fit in one of those categories. each has a few designated elements. the most basic is that five-year list of projects with detailed information for each one. and, as you know, with board items every month, they can be

amended with certain understanding of trade-offs. it's important to set that for the next five years. again, the update we're discussing is the opportunity to pick which projects will receive funding over the next five years. we're looking for projects that are recommended in and proved plans or submissions for sponsor agency. this update will help prop k respond to projects such as involving pipelines to take advantage of funding and how to renew programs. we've laid out three steps for the process. that will determine how much funding is available year by year and categories years 20 to 34. the baseline will come before you for the next month. after board of approval of the baseline, we'll issue guidance on how to prepare and we'll work with those agencies to develop the list for each category.

this is our schedule. we know that outreach is going to be important through this process, even if it is a pretty wonky subject. attachment three is our preliminary outreach a -- approach. with that, i can take any questions. >> seeing no questions from members, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, is there a motion? >> motion to approve. >> made by commissioner tang. seconded by commissioner sheehy. on that item, a roll call, please. [roll call] [voting]

>> next item, please. [ agenda item read ] >> ms. mcavoy? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have about a six-minute presentation that i will run through and hopefully it will answer any questions and concerns about the program. when fully staffed, we have 190 crossing guards and five field trainers. we provide services at 106 schools and cover 151 corners. we cover elementary and middle schools, both private and public. our budget is 2.2 million per year, and the funding is covered

by the general funds. we have 195 budgeted crossing guard positions. guards currently earn $17.96. per hour. they will receive a 3% increase, bringing their salary to 18.50 per hour. the current union contract expires in june of 2019 and contract negotiations are scheduled to begin in january of 2019. they will be handled by hr's negotiating team. guards work an average of 2.5 hours per tay. 12 hours per week and 38 weeks per year. they do not work when school is closed for summer break, during winter, spring, and summer breaks. they cost the agency about 15,000 per year. some of our challenges. it is difficult to maintain our

optimal number of 185. we have hired 146 yards and lost 130. we have persevered and continued to move forward. two year ago, we were at our highest vacancy level with a shortage of 40 guards. today, we're down to about 15 vacancies. we're trending in the right direction. presently, the program operates with 180 guards on a daily basis. we kept the job posting open year-round. this has been beneficial as we have a steady stream of applicants. we put up flyers at various community centers and we target districts where we have vacancies. we are making sure applicants are aware of what they're

applying for and what the aspects are of the job. we address hours, shifts, lack of benefits during the interview process so applicants have a clear picture of what they can expect. this job particularly suits students, retirees, parents and grandparents who want to be home their kids after school and during holiday breaks. we do best to place guards at the school of their choice. we cannot place a new guard at their desired location if there is already a guard in place at that corner. if we're unable to place a guardt a school of their choice, we let them choose a location that best suits them, and we place them on a waiting list so they can get back to their desired school once there's an opening. one nice perk is they can ride muni for free. this is helpful to those who may need to travel to a corner. obviously this job is not for

everyone due to the hours, split shifts, and lack of benefits. however, we have a wonderful group of crossing guards, many of whom have been with the program for years and who are content. we have 80 guards with the program for three to nine years. 37 guards with the program for 15 to 20 years, and three guards that have been with the program for 21 to 30 years, and one guard that's been with us for 41 years. our next challenge would be supply and demand. the fact is everyone would like a crossing guard at every intersection around every school, the reality is crossing guards are a limit red source. we rely on the results of an engineering survey, which is a number of criteria unfortunately the schools that don't pass

won't make it onto the list. in either case, we offer to train a parent or school volunteer and will provide a stop sign. some schools have availed of our offer, but most do not. some other challenges we face, the expectations that all requests will be granted immediately and unfortunately they are not due to the survey process and available positions. the belief that a guard will solve all traffic issues, which is not the case as a crossing guard's duty is to cross students, not assist with other processes. while schools are appreciative, we are frustrated sometimes with uncooperative school staff and changes and accommodating guards are restroom privileges and access to clock in and out for

timekeeping. we work closely with all of our guards to make sure they're trained, confident, and supported while on the corner, and we provide them with good, high visibility, safety equipment and rain gear. they're challenged by problematic kids and motor riis and subjected to danger. a steady pool of applicants has allowed us to find and hire good people. when possible, we try to schedule one guard to work at twoal schools. if there are two schools nearby with great times, this is be a great opportunity for a guard to get additional hours. in some case, we have been able to reduce two guards to one when safety allows by providing additional train and assigning an energetic guard.

to make sure we're serving our communities, we've resurveyed all of our existing corners, all corners on the waiting list and koreans that didn't last throughout the three-year period. the goal is to get a comprehensive list so we can determine if guards are placed at intersections where they're doing the most good. the data collection has started and will be completed before the updated school year in june. analysis and scoring will follow, but that time frame has not been determined yet. we're awaiting for the data collection and analysis to be completed before determining if changes are needed and then, if so, how best to proceed. it is my wish to run the best program possible. input and suggestions are always possible. i'm happy to, with you and your

staff on possibilities. i'm proud of the work our guards do. they're our greatest asset. they're out there day after day, rain or shine, keeping our kids safe. thank you. >> thank you. >> i can take any questions. >> commissioner sheehy and maybe commissioner tang. commissioner sheehy? >> yes. our time is getting short. i really think my question will be for the director when he comes in with the mta budget to budget and finance. first of all, i appreciate it. what a great job you're doing. i have a 13-year-old. i've seen the crossing guards. they're amazing. their dedication, and the program is very well-run. it's just seriously underfunded. really, my question, if you can carry it back to the director is why is this not a priority? these are our children. for the sfmta and, you know, i would like to know why this has been continuously underfunded,

underprioritized by the sfmta when, really, our children are walking in front of 2,000-on the vehicles, and we can provide crossing guards. we're obviously not providing adequate wages. if we need to raise wages to get people to do this, we need to do so. i want to commend you on your work. that was an excellent presentation. i hope the director will take to heart this issue and make it a higher priority. >> thank you. i will bring that back. >> commissioner fewer? >> yes, thank you. thank you for this presentation. i also am concerned that actually the current budget for crossing guards is not going to meet the challenges to hire them and retain them. i think that under the next step, it says lastly ongoing

efforts to improve hiring processes and retention will continue to find more qualified applicants and make this aattractive for guards to stay with. i would like to see what are those additional steps? what are the costs of those additional steps? and is this crossing guard program afterward. i went to the commission to talk about this and also the taxi drivers, but this was foremost on my list because i have areas in my district that are not being covered, and i keep hearing that it's because we can't keep enough people and we don't have enough people. so my question is how much more funding is needed? what additional steps will be done? what sort of ideas are on the

table? is there -- is this reflected actually in the current mta budget that will come before us? thank you. >> ms. mcavoy? >> i don't know what the mta has planned for our program within the upcoming budget, but i will find out. if we had additional positions, we would be able to tackle those positions or those schools on the waiting list. there's currently 19 schools on the waiting list. i know some of the schools you're concerned about are on the waiting list. if we did have more funding and more positions, we would be able to fill those positions. >> yes. i also think the issues of retention are very experience about the circumstances. actually, what's so nice about this crossing guard program is that the students really get to know who their crossing guard is. when there's a shift, it also is a shift in community and in trust.

also, when i observed the crossing guards at the corners, i can't tell you just greeting parents and students in a friendly way just starts the day for students in a really good way. and also, this is align for the vision commitments. then, i just want to say lastly about the lack of corporation from school sites, is that something that can addressed to the san francisco unified school district because that should never, ever be a barrier from keeping crossing guards because they're actually helping the school. so i would be happy to help address that, actually, before the board of education or with the superintendent. >> it is very rare. it's just that it does happen from time to time. >> yeah. it's sad, isn't it? >> commissioner safia. >> i want to add on a couple of

points. i'm sorry if you said this already. one of the thins that concerns me are the hours offered to cross crossing guards. i don't think they work enough hours to be a livable job. there's other things they could be doing. so it doesn't come along with benefits so, at the end of the day, it's not something that encourages people to participate because it doesn't have the opportunity to be a living wage. if it doesn't come with the benefits and the right hours and the amount of time, that's something of a concern to me. >> i think that's something that hopefully will be addressed when the union contract -- >> can you please speak into the microphone? >> i think that will be addressed when the union contract comes up next in june of 2019. >> june of 2019. that's when the contract

expires. >> why don't we open this up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards. mr. canon, weinburg, hector carnidas. >> commissioners, chair peskin, we have been -- we are really frustrated with the mta. we represent about 170 of these crossing guards. the majority are women and people of color. they are the lowest paid workers in mta that we represent. mta's presentation makes the case for us, actually. it's a really popular program. they have a waiting list of 19 major intersections. they've never achieved their optimal staff number. they say they've lost 146

crossing guards. 130 out of 146. these folks work split shifts. nobody wans to work a split shift for two-and-a-half hours. these folks get no health care, no pension. some of them have worked up to 21 years for the mta. we have given them a proposal that will create five steps. they're a single-step class. every other workers have five steps with 5% between each step. these folks have a single rate. we ask they work four hours a day to qualify for pension and health care. these folks have families. these jobs are not being done by students, as they want you to believe. they have an mou that they have with the school district that was negotiated in 1997 that has not changed. this program is pay for itself if mta had a will to fix this problem, but they don't.

giving benefits to every single crossing guard will add $2 million to the problem. they can find $2 million in a $1 billion budget. you have to tell them to do it. we cannot wait because we know what will happening in bargaining. they will not fix it in bargaining. they need fix it now. [ bell sound ] >> i'm a guard at 19th and judah. i'm retired, so it's not my primary income. it's helpful, but it's really hard. you work sometimes in the really pouring rain. it's hard to put a dollar value on this. i realize you have to be fiscally responsible. as mick jagger says, you can't always get what you want, but at least got to be a higher pay in benefit. $18.96 an hour or $17.96 an hour

in some cities is a good wage, but not here. you've just got to have a higher pay. one thing to consider, in addition to being crossing guards, we're sort of the neighborhood watch. the eyes and ears of the community echt eve watched for people trying to break into cars. i once saw somebody looking suspicious. i thought he might try to steal a package. i looked at him, and he went away. another time, i watched somebody take pictures of kids in a playground. it's not illegal, but i noted the license plate in case it turned out to be something as. we're valuable to the school district. i hope you can encourage better financing. the school district now takes more holidays, and we don't get paid for that. because they take a longer thanksgiving week, we lose out on our mta benefits. and it may seem like a radical

proposal, but i think about $25 an hour for a short day is reasonable because if we can keep more cards on the job with that higher pay, and if each guard can possibly prevent one accident during the school year, that would be money well spent. >> i'm struck by the presentation made in that it's not significantly different from the presentation they were prepared to meet at the last meeting. we made some similar comments to what we made today, and they had the opportunity to learn from that and make a better

presentation to talk about how important this presentation is to the mta, but they didn't do that. i think that's telling. the speaker from the mta said that they wanted to wait for bargaining to address this issue. i did some quick math. that means they're prepared to lose another 40 crossing guards between now and then, just based on their own math that they've presented in their presentation. i don't think that's acceptable. i don't think you think that's acceptable. i don't think the citizens of san francisco think that's acceptable. we're asking you to direct the mta to work with us now to find a solution that meets our needs so this program that everybody likes can continue and can grow and expand and become better. thank you. >> are there any members of the public for this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. message received. this is an information item. and we'll continue these discussions in public and

offline. mr. clerk, if you could read item 17 for the purpose of continuing it at the request of commissioner sheehy. >> update on the valencia street plan? >> okay. we're going to continue this item. i apologize, ms. young. thank you for your patience, but we're not going to go forward with this today. my anthropologipologies, but we board meeting that we have to prepare for and commissioner sheehy has offered to continue this to the next meeting. is there any public comment on item 17? seeing none, commissioner sheehy, a motion to continue? >> made by commissioner sheehy, seconded by commissioner tang. we'll continue. our one-year long experiment to meet as a committee of the whole is coming to an end. we're going back to the committee system.

i will introduce that change -- commissioner safia still looks it. the vice chair tang has commanded this, and it shall be. we'll go back to the programs and structure. with that, is there any general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. and the -- we're adjourned.

(>> and so first order will be item number 4, presentation from public works about the 201 # one road repaving and street safety bond program and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.

>> mr. thomas, before you start, i think that my members and i have agreed that it would probably not be that meaningful for you to render your report to us today because many of us, myself included, we haven't really had access to the information. i believe based on what we have been told that the information that you were required to send to the controller's office was at least one week late. and i just wanted to give you the opportunity to let us know

what circumstances that may have been out of your control to render your report that much late. and i'm also reminded to remind you that this is not the first time that the reports from your department have, you know, have been late for several days or weeks. so, maybe you could, you know, update us on what circumstances that would beyond your control that prevented you from sending the materials. >> so, for this most recent, again, john thomas with public works, for the most recent submission, there was a mix-up. we have been switching to a new representative for this bond report. in future reporting meetings it will be edmund lee from our department who will report in lieu of myself. having said that, the communication between the controller's office and my

office was last. we didn't respond to it, didn't see it, and so we had to scramble to get it together for presenting it to moira. so, my apologies for that. we also seem to be missing a liaison, we have not been contacted to meet now in probably almost a year, so i would request from the committee that somebody is assigned and reaches out to us. i think that is key to our relationship with the committee. so, that should help us moving forward. >> well, good. and i think that i'm sorry that you came hoping to present and with my, permission of my fellow members and moira, could we reschedule this to, sneak it into next meeting? and i think because of the timing our next meeting, i believe, is actually next month. >> toward the end of the month,

yes. >> toward the end of the month. and if you could advise mr. thomas of the date, updating of your materials, you know, wouldn't be a big burden to you. because we are going to meet in i believe in about four weeks. an ok. yeah. that's fine. >> ok. >> thank you. >> thank you. public comment. seeing no public comment, can we go to the next item? >> item number 5, presentation from the sfmta about the 2014 transportation and road improvement bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.

>> good morning, committee members. timothy maganot, on behalf of monique webster who could not make it because of health reasons. co-presenting with my colleague. thank you for having us. so, in front of you is our first issuance jail bond presentation, going to slide number two, we are happy to report that the second issuance was issued recently, approved in february by the mayor, and the bond holders on march 20. knock on wood, we receive second issuance of the g.o. bond as early as tomorrow. great news for us, and a lot of presentation will focus on the second issue of g.o. bond. unfortunately for sfmta, financials are not fully

reviable in sfp in the financial system, so we are trying to clean things up, so the next reporting cycle we'll have better and more accurate financial data. a lot of our presentation will focus on the second issuance of the g.o. bond, so going through the first slide, you can see the different categories approved under the $500 million g.o. bond. first issuance, second column and the second is what we expect to receive tomorrow. some highlights from both the first and second issuance, last june there was 26.2 million supplemental approved by the board of supervisors. happy to report as of last week, the 26.2 million was moved in the financial system and made available for the facilities

projects, which is great. second, muni forward will get the bulk of the money. it says 177 million on the slides, 172 million for projects. actual bond was for 174 million, so a little cost savings with the cost of issuance. some other highlights to talk about for the second issuance of the g.o. bond, facilities category will be getting the remainder of the issuance for, the bond issuance due to them, 41.5 million, a small portion to m.m.e., pretty close to being done. muni forward, $50 million. so the bulk of the money for 13 different projects, a variety of projects, and advancing forward. and the ped safety, large chunk

of that with 7 million. the next two slides talk about the accomplishment for the first issuance of the g.o. bond and turn it over to michael rhodes from our muni forward team to elaborate a little more on these. >> hello, michael rhodes, transit division. want to highlight a few of the accomplishments and key dates on the first if you years of the g.o. bond first issuance here. one of the major ones we want to call out is that we started construction on chestnut street in 2017 and want to mention that's nearing completion of construction, that's one that has come along since our last meeting. some other highlights, we have major safety upgrades on ter --

taravel street, and san bruno saw some important upgrades. and fulton between 6th avenue and market street, and also substantially complete, so very recently completed construction on that project. some other important upgrades, construction on inner irving, as well as we see later second issuance was approved in february, so, quite a few projects have broken ground over the last several years here and we are starting to see some of them reach the completion of construction and especially in the last several months. >> thanks, michael. >> as you can see, we are very excited about our bond. we, a lot of our projects are

either entering construction or completing construction. quite a bit of progress over the last few years, another reason why we have issued the second issuance of the g.o. bond. so moving on to the next slide, these slides have a little more detail about the second issuance of the g.o. bond, the first slide talks about some of the major categories that are receiving funding and more detailed projects. as mentioned earlier, muni forward is getting 50 million. about 20 million of that is going to the 22 fillmore project, in construction. seven haight project 6 million, 2 segments, and lower haight and upper haight, lower is in construction, and the upper in bitter ward, correct me if i'm wrong. another 20 million to the cal train electrification, as

mentioned earlier, muni facility upgrades the last money for the two projects for burke and m.m.e. and then major transit corridor, 21.6 billion. -- 21.6 million. ok. so, moving on, also part of the second issuance, the bar at canopies project, you can see the rendering, the canopy in front of the bart stations or the shared muni and bart stations, 3 million under accessible improvements, and three categories, ped safety 26.3, a large to phase one, lombard street also another 4.2 million, and signal group a large chunk of money, and there

are several projects that will receive some chunks of money. and real quick, other two categories, all that funding is going to better market street for the traffic signals, and complete street category, in which the townsend and 7th street projects will be moving forward as part of that category. i believe this is the last slide, which shows a cash flow projection for the second issuance of the g.o. bond. a lot of the projects are either in active construction or will be entering active construction at some point during the second issuance of the g.o. bond. so, i believe it's by late 2020 we expect the full second issuance of the g.o. bond to be spent, 85% spent by the end of

2019, so it's a pretty aggressive cash flow. you can see on that chart. and with that, that is the transportation presentation for the g.o. bond. open up for any questions that you guys might have. >> thank you. mr. larkin, you want to make comments? >> well, we had a liaison meeting, fred and i did regarding this bond last wednesday, the 28th of march, and rather than me reporting on that, first, are there any other general questions from any other commissioners? you can go first, robert. >> yeah, ok, i have a few. start by the last schedule you showed, the second issuance, spending projections. >> yep. >> if i may have this incorrect, you can correct me, but the first bond was 67.6 million and

it's been three years since you had those funds and we don't have financial reports -- >> excuse me, commissioner. chair, at this time we do have a quorum so we can begin our meeting. >> ok. so, let's begin our meeting. shall we continue the rest of this presentation and then go back to other items that we have skipped? yes. continue on with this item. >> this meeting is called to order, call roll. [roll call taken] we have five members present.

>> ok. so just to address your question, sounds like -- >> i haven't got to the question yet. the first bond issue, it has not totally been spent, we don't know, we have not seen a financial report in nine months but three years since you had those funds, 67. now, you are going to get 100, what -- >> 172. >> 174 million. >> and projection spending in two and a half years. is there a bond accountability support you submitted to public finance for 174 in two and a half years and have not spent 67 in three? >> i could talk a lot about that. to answer the first question, there was a bond accountability board submitted to the office of

public finance as part of the second issuance. you are right in that we have not submitted updated financials, mainly because in our financial system, it's not ready yet. however, i can say the first issuance happened, i think june 2015, so three years, june 2018, so in a few months. our biggest, i guess our biggest thing with the first issuance of the g.o. bond was the 26.2 million approved back in june. one of our big challenges, when that supplemental appropriation was approved in june, also when we cut over to our new financial system. so, it was really -- that really paved the way for what we actually needed for a lot of the things that needed to move forward and s.f.p. and how we understood s.f.p. not until last week did we actually process the supplemental appropriation.

without going to the financial system and confirming when that supplemental appropriation was processed, 85 -- i believe it's 89% of the bond spent once it was processed, a lot was going to finishing the facility project. so, burke and m.m.e. in particular. we don't have financial data in the report, i'm confident in saying we are over the 85% mark, the three -- which is the, i guess, not the rule, but the guideline for ex pending bonds. so, we should be over the 85% mark before the three years, june 2018, because they are able to process the supplemental appropriation. so given that, and also given, i mean, and bond accountability report, you can see the projects that we are going in for. like mentioned earlier, a lot are in active construction or answering active construction, so from the perspective, a lot of the projects need funding right away in order to keep

these moving, and in order to get the projects delivered to the public. so. >> thank you. next question, last tuesday in "the chronicle" an editorial, quickly read, it's short. san francisco prop a funds voted upon in 2014 to make specific muni improvements have quietly squirrelled away to pay for anticipated central subway costs overruns. so my question is, is there currently any appropriations to pay these bond funds for the central subway overruns or any plans? any appropriations or any plans to use these funds for the central subway project? >> i saw is that article, too. i can say with complete confidence that there aren't any appropriations for the bond, for the central subway project.

neither are there any plans for us to use bonds for the central subway project. so, the ssmta is actually working on our five year capital improvement program and two year proposed capital budget is expected to be adopted by the board i believe tomorrow, and you can see in the five-year capital improvement program that the bonds don't have any appropriations scheduled for the central subway project, neither does the two-year proposed budget. to be completely honest with you, i'm not sure where that piece of information came from. as far as i know, it's false. we don't have any plans on appropriating any money to central subway. >> thank you, appreciate that. i did not want to ask -- in today's "chronicle," a story about an overrun on the muni metro platform and track realignment up to 51 million and

made reference to some bonds potentially being used for that. my question, do you know if there is any from the 2014 bond fund for the muni metro platform and track realignment project? >> again, to be completely honest with you, i have not read that article. and i can't say whether or not we have used bonds for that particular project. however, i can look into it and get back to you. >> 22 fillmore which ends down there, $67 million project out of these bond funds? so, i don't know if in that project scope of work was any of that 67 going to be spent, do you know, maybe you don't know. >> i can check in with the project manager and get back to you on that question. as a finance person, i'm not super deep into the projects but i can look at that information and let you know. >> great. oh, one last question, the lack

of the financial reports for the last nine months, how does muni project managers manage projects? >> great question. so, definitely a challenge for us right now. within the sfmta we have done some work arounds. the group developed the interim financial report, it takes a crosswalk, it looks at all the transactions in s.f.p. to give the managers an idea what they can expect for financials. it's not 100% accurate but probably 90, 95% accurate. allows our project manager the ability to go into the report and see what we think are the estimated financials. however, i mean, we still have a lot of problems with an s.f.p., a lot of the funding getting work authorized to d.p.w. and so i know on the d.p.w. side we

have to rely on them to actually clean up their data in order to be able to report financial data. accurate financial data. and so i mean, there's a lot of challenges and a lot of the projects are mapped incorrectly and including bonds, and so we are working very diligently to clean a lot of those things up. but we can't just do it in a box, other city departments, giving we do a lot of funding to other agencies. >> thank you very much. and that's the last of my questions. >> thank you, thank you very much for the report. a couple of quick questions. there are expenditures related to i think a shared jurisdiction, and so for cal train, electrification, $20 million. is that -- is that shared corridor or -- how are bond

dollars appropriately spent in these mixed use shared corridors? >> to be completely on northwest with you, cal train is probably my weakest areas of the bonds. our portion what we are contributing. i don't think it's necessarily the san francisco portion of the cal train tracks. however, i could -- i could look at that information and get you more information. >> ok. thank you. >> that would be helpful. and the next question, my last on this, also on a shared jurisdiction, so the canopies for the, for improved accessibility to subway, great idea, mechanical passenger lift equipment, that's exposed to the rain, you know, has an increased failure rate. so the canopy will benefit

everyone, i believe. and that's a mixed use passenger corridor, shared by bart and the sfmta. so, does bart pick up some of that? >> yeah. >> how does that work? >> yeah, sfmta and bart, given the four stations along market are shared stations, both the sfmta and bart contribute to those projects. i don't know what the fund share is, i want to say 50/50 but don't quote me on that. but sfmta has committed with bart to contributing funds for those projects, and so it is a joint project between our three agencies. >> shared use of accessibility elevators, a lot of shared inventory there. >> that's right. we are working on the m.o.u. with part as part of the second issuance of the g.o. bond.

i can't quote you the numbers, i know we are close to finalizing the m.o.u. with some of the details. >> and it's a shared expenditure, using the customer criteria of shared costs for those corridors. >> thank you. >> ok. as i said, brenda and i met with staff, here, today, on wednesday. you have heard the reports, there were two things that i wanted to comment on based on what i heard from them. first is the supplemental appropriation and that's, there had been complaints i think london breed as a member of the, government oversight committee of the board of supervisors made some comments, a hearing on it and you, not you, but staffers, including director griskin were there to respond to that. brenda mcnulty and i also

commented on things from liaison meetings. one of the things, not surprising to me but noticeable to me was this supplemental appropriation process. the reason that, and correct me if i'm wrong, the reason that there was the requirement to say to the board of soups, was some of the projects were spending money more quickly, but some others were not spending it as quickly as they might have. rather than in a clean way transfer money from the ones that weren't going very fast to the ones going too fast, there was a supplemental appropriation process that went as far as the board of supervisors, i'm guess it's an staff intensive process. to what end. supposedly some language in the

bond that says no, use it here but not over here, and otherwise watching the process pretty carefully. why would we not just trust staff to make that judgment? we, the taxpayers on whose behalf are here, are not getting any benefit from things being slow. we only get our projects delivered more slowly. so, i'm going to ask you to comment on what changes in the process you could recommend that could get to the board of supervisors to improve that on behalf of all of us. >> yes, great question, brian. i can tell you that, i guess i should first start off by saying i should watch what i say. i'm, charlie wu and i are the ones working on processing the supplemental appropriation and for us it's an absolute headache. probably spend an hour of the

day every day for the last nine months working on it and so we have learned a lot of lessons, and i feel our supplemental appropriation has not only forced sfmta to learn lessons, but it paved the way for how s.f.p. worked for a lot of processes that we have to work out of the controller's office. so, some of the details, things in s.f.p., the code, first time authority code was issued, and trio code, first time it was processed in the financial system so we had to figure out, do the supplemental how to do these things and procedures because of the supplemental. it's absolutely crazy. in terms of recommending things for the go bot committee and the board of supervisors, the bit