abili alber alber [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today tuesday, november 27.

our clerk is mr. alberto quintanilla. mr. quintanilla, could you please call the roll. [roll call] >>clerk: we have quorum. >> chair peskin: great. let me just briefly give the chair's report. as you all know, we overwhelming in the state of california and in san francisco in particular opposed proposition 6, which was the short-sighted repeal of the state gas tax on the -- at the election earlier this month. and at a time when the trump administration is rolling back

environmental protections, i am proud and delighted that the majority of californiians understand the need to mitigate fossil fuel emissions with robust public transportation alternatives to fossil fuel details. our state gas tax provides over $5 billion a year for critical funding. san franciscans oppose proposition 6 by an overwhelming 86%. this protects over $60 million in formula funds for road repair and transit service here in the city and county of san francisco and it also continues other essential problems for congestion relief, active projects and infrastructure payments. thank you for passing our local proposition a by 82%. as the recent tragic fires in

butte county have underscored, we must heed the message of the recent international climate assessments and it's really incumbent upon us to take votes to curb greenhouse gas emissions on all levels, state, local and federal. i know we are all united in our resolve to lead this effort. just yesterday, supervisor kim's legislation to remove parking minimums was forwarded out of committee after years of outreach and i'm proud to be a cosponsor of this long overdue effort along with supervisor brown which would make san francisco the first city to prioritize this. here at the t.a., we know that a majority of missions at san francisco as well as the state come from the transportation sector, so we continue to plan for and invest in transit and to pursue near-term investment strategies with our public and

private sector partners. our election brought many other results including the competition of this body going forward, including at the federal, state and regional levels as well. we look forward to working with everybody on our priorities. speaking of transit, i was delighted to see that bart's new rail cars finally arrived in san francisco this month, a welcome sight in addition to more muni buses and l.r.v.'s coming on-line each month. later this week, we look forward to celebrating the the completion of b.a.r.t.'s east side connections project at the balboa station, another project that has been years in the making and we are glad that b.a.r.t. is moving forward with the second transbay project and o other projects across the bay. and welcome and congratulations

to the newest member of the b.a.r.t. board, soon to represent district eight of b.a.r.t. and that is janice lee. she will be the first woman to hold that seat and the first asian american woman on the b.a.r.t. board. i know and i speak for this entire body that we're looking forward to working with commissioner lee. thank you, colleagues and with that, i conclude my marks. is there any public comment on the chair's remarks, seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: next item, please. [agenda item read] . >> thank you, commissioners. this month, i wanted to congratulate you about the gas tax funding. based on a website check last night, it looks like san mateo

county's additional half-cent sales tax was passing there by the required 66.8% although there's one more round of vote tallies should be the final result. of course we saw voters approving prop c and we saw that santa rosa approved a 24 million housing bond. this is important as the region does try to continue to link our housing and our transportation policy and investment ever more closely. in fact, there will be a workshop at the metropolitan transportation commission tomorrow, i believe, wednesday and thursday in sonoma, a workshop on the so-called cass acompact, try to figure out how to move the region forward in a collaborative way tied to transportation policy and funding. the bay area rapid transit.

b.a.r.t. second crossing study, was fantastic to see that in the news again. this will build on m.t.c.'s prior transit capacity study and will also track with our own see wide transit master plan that we'll be doing with m.t.a., planning department, and regional partners. that's going to be important as we'd like to see the b.a.r.t. extension come into san francisco and potentially serve that west-side routing that we talked about last year. moving forward, we also wanted to celebrate another phase. the bike plan concept moved forward as an outreach meeting by m.t.c. this was a preferred alternative for a retrofitting of the bay bridge on the west side connecting yerba buena island to downtown san francisco.

so website designs are on our website, as well as m.t.c.'s, and this is something that's been, again, many, many years in the making to try and connect the already wonderful connection from the east way to yerba buena island, which already existed. we've already committed prop k funds here at the authority and will eventually serve the connection all the way to san francisco. to please take a look at those concepts and do weigh in. local issues, on vision zero, we did gather recently with commissioner yee and others, families for safe streets, walk sf for world day of remembrance on november 18 to honor the lives of those lost through terrific collisions. this year, the theme was very much to emphasize the importance of language as we discussed here at this body, using words like crash and collision and not accident. all the other members of this

board and i have made this commitment, and the transportation authority is approving a resolution for the agency and encouraging others to do the same. sadly, we heard at the agency earlier this month that we are on track slightly to exceed the number of fatalities this year compared to last year. in october, we were at 18 deaths. as of today, we're at 20 -- 21. and last year, we had 20 fatalities, so that's unfortunately a little trouble willing. however, we are -- the good news, united as a city to make changes. the mayor's office has committed to a slew of safe street projects, and the sfmta has important redesign projects on the high traffic network, lower

grade highway, the allmeny maze, and next up will be valencia. a quick update on salesforce transit center girder work. we expect to hear results fairly shortly, hopefully by the end of the month, if not the beginning of next month. the expert team has already begun working on design and ensure us of causes of potential physici fissures. the effort is intended to reduce the implementation time, of course, so that we can reopen the facility as soon as possible and ensure that the entire facility is safe for the public to use. on the downtown rail extension governance and oversight work that we've been asked to do by this board we've been working with our partners to develop a scope of work by our consultants. we plan to have them on board by

year end and we'll provide an update on our approach both on the phase one review as well as the phase two d.t.x. management and oversight review -- we'll be back to the board by the end of this year. in terms of the bart, additional good news, the station canopies, as chair mentioned, we also find that this is -- this will initially be a benefit at powell, and eventually, canopies at others. additionally, the balboa park station is opening. the transportation authority contributed over $4.6 million in funds to this project. the most noticeable part will be a new, beautiful glass head house connecting both sides of the station and filling the station with natural light. including this project, the t.a. has funded a total of

$10.8 million and improvements at the balboa park station over the last 13 years and we encourage the public to come celebrate with us on friday. with that, i think i'll conclude my reports. >> chair peskin: thank you, madam director. is there any public comment on the executive director report? seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. quintanilla, next item, please. [agenda item read] >> chair peskin: is there any member of the public who would like to testify on item number four, the approval of the november 13 minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: is there a motion to approve the consent

scend? made by commissioner tang, seconded by commissioner kim. roll call on the consent agenda, please. [roll call] >>clerk: we have final approval. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >>clerk: item 12, update on the independent analysis and oversight services. this is an information item. >> chair peskin: miss fong. >> good morning, everyone. cynthia fong, deputy director for finance and administration. at the request of chair peskin, i'm here to report out on the

extensions. in your packet, there's a packet. what i have before on the screen are the three focus areas from the review. the first one in program delivery, the -- schoberg said we are delivering the program as promised but had some review in recommendation of status to the public. they recommended for our annual report, we include one to two-page tables, reconciling the report to current status. they also recommended to improve the quality control for our process. for our website, they recommended that we provide a prop k home page dashboard showing a status of our projects in addition to moving the existing my street sf interactive project map to the main page and linking the fact sheet that we have for our major projects. all of these items will be

completed by early january . as for the mystreets, the update occurred in september 2018, and you may remember the presentation of that to this board. the second focus area was under budgeting. they concluded that the sfcta's budget has typical budget information but is less detailed than others. after conversation with the board members here, we will be providing additional budgetary analysis and performance measures on our future budget items. in addition, schoberg recommended that perhaps we may want to bring in in-house i.t. and in-house legal counsel to the agency. we have performed an analysis and determined it's more efficient and cost effective if we were to continue to outsource these services, but as usual, we will always consider this as an option as we procure for our future consultants. they also made note that prince

engineer positions has been vacant for numerous years due to the retirement of the person from that position. we plan to open that position in early 2018, as well. under the budget focus area, they also recommended that we hold semiannual roundtables with sponsor finance staff to discuss 5ypp's and strategic plan updates. earlier this year, we have met with the sponsors through the work group. we have indicated to them that we will be contacting them in january 2019 to schedule these upper-level management meetings to provide information that they would find helpful in this process. we have -- schoberg has also recommended that we consider establishing a minimum board approval threshold for policy

level grant budget amendments involving funding increases and delegate amendments below that threshold to the executive director. we have spoken to the various commissioners here, as well, and it's been communicated to us that after -- that we have determined that established a threshold does not provide the level of transparency and accountability that is desired by this body. we are not recommending this, and we'd like to continue our current policy as is, but we can also consider this in the future if it were to come up again. and the last focus area is under sponsor reimbursements. schoberg concluded that the sfcta's average processing time improved from 31 days in fiscal year 16-17 to 21 days in fiscal year 17-18, but there were still 9% of payments that took longer than 30 days to process. to address this issue, we plan to conduct multiple time studies

over our invoice processing to see if we can identify any ways of assuring -- >> chair peskin: miss fong, is there any specific to those 10% or 9% that caused those delays? >> there were a couple situations. one related to an invoice payment that was due to a held report that was coming before this body. that was perhaps something with the scope that needed clarification, and we did not want to make the final payment until this body approved the final report. situations like that came up, and along that line, schoberg is recommending that we provide a service-level agreement or discuss with our sponsors as to when we would reject an invoice like that and not keep it in the cue and adding the days of the amount of time, so we plan on having that discussion in early january 2019, as well. and i think the last recommendation here was also to

establish a threshold level for the executive director, where she would not approve invoices of a certain dlafl amount. that threshold is established at $5,000. starting in january 2019, the dollar will not approve any transactions above that amount. with that, i am happy to answer any more questions or provide any further clarification on these recommendations. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss fong. i thought it was important that we hear that. i really appreciate it. sounds like it's been marginally helpful, and if there are any questions from commissioners, please put them forth, and if not, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: mr.

quintanilla, next item, please. [agenda item read] >> chair peskin: miss lombardo. >> i think i'll start -- angela, if you could help me pull up the regional measure slide deck, i'll just jump right in. this is a quick update on regional measure three, which is an up to 3 toll increase on the seven bay area state owned toll bridges, so all of them except the golden gate bridge, and the timing of the update is triggered by some activity at the metropolitan transportation commission and bay area toll authority, m.t.c., they're gearing up to start the program. the timing is also great, as the chair mentioned in his remarks, with the blessing of the voters, the senate bill one gas tax revenues remain in place.

we want to make sure these revenues are flowing to san francisco priority projects and to ensure the projects are getting delivered. very quick update. it's been a while so i'm going to do a quick rebehinder what regional measure or r.m.-3 is and what we're doing to ensure that san francisco's priorities are well respected. so as i said, regional measure 3 $3 is up to a 3 toll increase on the toll bridges. nobody likes a toll increase, but it was seen as a very important thing to do to complement the funds for state of good repair and maintenance work that s.b.-1, the gas tax was providing. it really wasn't more than 5% in the gas tax program to deal with congestion relief, and the bridges have experienced a tremendous amount of congestion, so it was a very good nexus to

dealing with providing congestion relief and providing travel options in the corridors. this did require state authority, but effort was led by a senator from the bay area, senator bell. we worked very closely with the senator to pass that measure. what it did was authorize up to a $3 toll increase. it included an expenditure plan and in that, there's a summary table one, attachment in your packet, and senate bill 595 established some requirements for how the program should be run. the bottom of this slide, you can see just a very high level picture of how much money we're talking about. if you assume the maximum $3 toll increase, which is phased in, and i'll get to that in a second, annual revenue's about $381 million a year. it's a little bit of apples and oranges here, but the numbers

show for capital funding reflect the heavy financing so that funds can be brought forward and made available for capital projects sooner? and then, there's three operating projects that the toll can fund, and they would get a maximum of $60 million peryear. so when m.t.c. put the measure on the ballot, they added a few details to the state legislation. one of them was to phase in the toll increase. you can see the proposal phasing in dollar increases in the next six years, there's actually the required public hearing on this is happening tomorrow. if that new toll schedule's approved, it would go into effect on january 1, 2019. this is a good place to note that there is -- there are two pending lawsuits against regional measure 3. so in light of that, m.t.c. is planning to put the funds in escrow on hold and not allocate them until those legal hurdles are clear, but being optimistic

they will pass, they're moving forward with activities to make sure the bay area is ready when we get the green light. there also is a requirement in there that was triggered by the election date, and that requirement is for all the capital programs, they need to submit an initial project marker. it's i as a sponsor intend to ask for regional measure 3 money for this project, so basic information on scope, schedule, and funding plan are provided to m.t.c. this is going to be the focus of the rest of the slides here. we have been working with san francisco agencies and regional transit operators to make sure that our priorities are reflected in those initial project reports. these don't go before the commission, but they're

important signals that we are interested in toll bridge funds. excuse me. so i'm going to switch over to a quick highlight of those categories in regional measure 3 that are most interest to san francisco. you will see attachment 4 to your memo has a table where we've listed the same categories and the sf projects that we've been working to submit in the initial project reports, this very closely follows the priorities that were adopted during the adoption of the state legislation. for reference, those are included as attachment three on your memorandum. the expenditure plan is divided into a group of regional programs which have capital and operating and then specific programs. the ones on the screen are the most interest to us. the b.a.r.t. expansion cars are much needed expansion in the number of trains that b.a.r.t. runs to deal with the

sentencesiextensive crowding in the transbay corridor. the next is ferry enhancement programs. we've been working with the port of san francisco so make sure the mission bay ferry terminal landing is shown, and also for the treasure island program, i know we have a timma board meeting after this looking for two small ferry vessels to jump start ferry service from treasure island to san francisco. and then, the one bridge corridor that is of interest to us is the san francisco oakland bay bridge. here are the four relevant categories. i'll just note quickly the caltrain downtown extension, working with tjpa on their

transmittal to the m.t.c. this is a committed funding source. the transbay rail crossing is for planning, design and potentially construction of a second crossing b.a.r.t. and/or other rail. we have included initial project report submittal 10 t.c., including commissioner fewer's request b.a.r.t. out to the richmond. b.a.r.t. is gearing up their start to look at this. the next two projects, muni fleet expansion facilities is a project where m.t.a. is the primary sponsor, and you can see a bunch of potential projects listed under there.

i'll just call it three of them. the new light rail vehicles is something that came out under the prioritization of the 5ypp's. we're looking to close the funding gap in purchasing the vehicles. we'd be looking for funds to expand muni east metro facilities so we have a place to maintain these vehicles and ensure they stay in a state of good repair. m.t.a. received a grant recently for electric bus infrastructure. and then, lastly, this just illustrates one of the challenges we'll have and while we'll be working with you, our m.t.c. representatives and other sponsors, there's a core community transit study that m.t.c. built on last year. unfortunately, m.t.a. or san francisco is not named as a

sponsor, but m.t.c. and alameda entities are. we submitted a number of projects. these all have to be recommendations that came from that study. we submitted muni forward, and el taraval. we are trying to swap out some local funds with regional measure three funds, we can direct the local funds and replace the funds later. m.t.c. is very receptive this because they're construction ready. the operating programs which are listed on the screen are there. i will also call it a program san francisco usually competes very well there f. we'll be looking forward to m.t.c. to developing guidelines. next steps are really just working with the sponsored at m.t.c. to answer any questions they have, make sure we're

providing any guidelines for how the program will be run and working with all of you and our state delegation that these funds come to san francisco as soon as we can allocate them. be happy to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: are there any questions for miss lombardo. commissioner fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. i just wanted to ask is there a monetary amount designated to b.a.r.t. expansion out to the west side as i didn't see that in this report at all. >> right. there is a category -- >> supervisor fewer: i didn't even see it listed under any of these categories at all. maybe i'm going -- >> there's there. there is -- it's there. there's a $50 category. it does not subdivide it, commissioner. >> supervisor fewer: so i would appreciate it to be subdivided.

so i would appreciate to see what funds are being dedicated specifically to expansion to the west side. >> so just to be clear that the expenditure plan that was approved by the voters has 50 -- i'm sorry. i'm looking at the wrong category -- has $$50 million looking at the transbay rail crossing category, so we should submitted our request, saying we would like at least in the initial round of allocations about $1 million for planning work. >> supervisor fewer: so you're telling me the $50 million expansion, that money is dedicated to a second transbay two, and also expansion to the west side, out of 50 million, 1 million is allocated for planning to extend it out to the west side. >> nothing is designated? we're just sending out our initial signal for request would

likely be on the order or magnitude of $1 million. mouch might actually come to san francisco to study something that you're asking for is on the decision of m.t.c. >> supervisor fewer: actually, i think 1 million is not enough what you're asking, considering it's going to be very extensive planning. i've seen the funds that this body actually allocated every week or every other week, and asked to vote on these things, and the funds for planning i know will exceed for more than $1 million. so just tell me today it is a request that you put in for it, but yet, i see all of these other projects that don't have much to do with my district at all. i would like to see today an amount designated for more than $1 million for planning out to

the west side. i'm actually shocked that i am not seeing this in a more succinct form because this is something i have verbalized something many times over and over and over with this body. i think those who have attended these meetings have heard loud and clear about what i have expects as part of regional measure three. i look at the expenditure plan, and i guess that this is regional, but actually, i think that the planning out to the west side should be part of this extensive planning and i think that it's not enough, and to tell me today out of the $50 million, you're requesting 1 million, i think that is inadequate. so i would expect at least $5 million to be allocated for this type of planning. i'm happy to follow up with you on a conversation about this,

but i feel like my support for this regional measure three depends on whether funds would be allocated for the west side. so when i sit here and listen only $1 million. and i feel like i'm not heard. and when i feel like i'm not heard as a member of this board, i am completely disappointed. i believe the director has heard me many, many times at these meetings and privately, and so to tell me today you have requested 1 million -- $1 million quite frankly is not even buy you a home in san francisco. so i will repeat, i have not been heard, and this is completely insulting and disrespectful. >> chair peskin: ms. chang.

>> commissioner fewer -- [inaudible] >> sorry. yes, you have been very clear, commissioner fewer. we apologize for not consulting with you prior to making the request. it's not too late to adjust our request, and we will certainly do that together with sfmta and the others in the city. this body, when they approve the regional three measure priorities did very clearly state in the language as you recall that the extension to the west side was part of this line item. that unfortunately did not make it into the legislation. the legislation, of course was a big negotiation across the entire region with the state delegation actively involved. however, i did want to make it clear that t.a. has recently assembled about $1 million of planning funds, both state and local funds for the transit master plan that i mentioned earlier with the heavy emphasis on filling the rail gap in the west side of the -- northwest

part of the city and the west side. >> b.a.r.t. has $150 million. they're seeking 125 out of r.r. >> so 125 out of r.r., the recently b.a.r.t. -- measure for b.a.r.t. funds that was recently announced this week is a huge opportunity for us to advocate for that $5 million or whatever it's going to take to truly properly begin serious studies of west side b.a.r.t. extensions planning. so this is something that i know that representatives are very committed to doing, so this is always the case with transportation. we have to put the funds together using our local funds, regional funds, both the m.t.c. regional measure three as well as the b.a.r.t. r.r. funds.

>> supervisor fewer: so i just want to say, with all due respect, that is completely inadequate. that is just inadequate to tell me that. it is -- when i see specific funds with actual numbers being put to these regional measure three funds and also when clearly there is a need to actually upgrade transportation out on the west side, and when every meeting, i am asked to approve these prop k funds, i am looking at $8 million here, i am looking at 100 million -- and nothing comes out to my district, and yet, i ask my constituents to vote for these measures which would mean that they would have to pay more when they cross the bridge, i just think it is really inadequate to tell me well, there's these other funds or we can have these other funds. it just is not a guarantee, it is not -- it's absolutely

somewhat, i am feeling today, and maybe i am wrong, that this is, fabricated, and actually there is no funds being put toward this. and i just want to put on the record once again, i believe, director chang, you have heard me many times. we've had many conversations this, but when i see this presentation today, i just want to say it's inadequate. and wunts again, it is completely disrespectful. >> chair peskin: may i suggest as chair that commissioner fewer and executive director -- >> supervisor fewer: the fact that i wasn't even consulted before this, when i actually said this many, many times in this chamber, with this body. and the fact that oh, i apologize we didn't consult you ahead of time is completely insulting. and so i just want to -- i -- i -- i don't want to make this -- this is not a personal fight or an attack, this is simply stating that on the west

side, we are not transit rich. when i hear complaints on the west side that your constituents have cars, when there is zero investments out on the west side, and who knows when -- it's going to happen when, i just feel it is completely disrespectful to say to me, that we have not consulted you. thank you, chair. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner. i look forward to having a meeting with the executive director and yourself. commissioner cohen? >> president cohen: thank you, chair. colleagues, i just wanted to offer some support to supervisor fewer to let her know that i understand your frustration, i understand it completely. and i too, share in that level of frustration when it comes to advocating for the southeast of san francisco also in the outer extremity that is not transit rich. and i just want to affirm what

i've heard. i, too, at times over the last eight years that i've been on the board have felt not heard, and it does fly in the face and feels like disrespect. but i also have positive work experiences with the t.a. staff, and i know that maria lombardo, it's not personal. i'm not making excuses for everyone, i just want to acknowledge that i was uncomfortable with the exchange, and affirm that i can connect and be empathetic to supervisor fewer's frustration, and also just want to acknowledge, maria, i think to your staff and tilly do do a good job and are thoughtful, and i'm hopeful, mr. chair, that perhaps with your leadership, will be able to

reconcile this incident. when we move forward, it does respect everyone's perspective. i hope that you've heard supervisor fewer and received it. like supervisor fewer, she said it's not personal, but she's coming from a very raw place and that is what we are experiencing and hearing. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you for those comments. commissioner ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes. i also wanted to chime in here because as a supervisor that is constantly advocating for the east side of the city that deals with so much development and homelessness and so much of the social ills that are happening, we often say that the west side of san francisco doesn't deal with those and that the west side should do -- you know, have more development while the east side's taking all the development. but how do you do that if you don't have a robust transportation system going to the west side. so i have to agree that even

though i represent an east side of the city neighborhood, that this would be a priority for me, as well. we can't at the same time ask the west side to take on more development, more of its fair share of tons of issues that we're facing in san francisco if we didn't then match that and make it an accessible part of our city to all those but those with vehicles. so i also appreciate both supervisor cohen and supervisor fewer's comments and just realize that this priority that supervisor fewer has been trying over and over to make clear as a priority for her, she's not alone in that priority, that this is a shared priority of this board. the west side does not have sufficient transit. it's a problem that we have to

fix. so supervisor fewer, know that many of your colleagues hear you and share your frustration. >> chair peskin: thank you for your comments. commissioner yee? >> supervisor yee: also representing the west side, so i feel you, commissioner fewer. we're -- either in my own district, and everybody thinks that we're not doing anything out there in terms of creating housing, that in district 7, we're going to add another 20,000 people. that's in the pipelines. i don't know why people don't understand that you cannot just keep on building and building and not have transportation that's already inadequate. and i've been preaching this, there's some systems that we have out there that could be improved vastly, although, the recommendations that we talk about all the time, to me, it's like band-aids.

the muni custom needs to be improved, not just b.a.r.t. it's it's muni. it's one track. when one thing breaks down, everything breaks down. but even given that, we have an m line which i've been talking about that, adding four cars from two cars, adding more capacity in terms of operations. and yet, it's -- i get the same answer as commissioner fewer, yeah, sure. you know, one of these days, we might look at it and so forth. and i don't think anybody takes it seriously, that you can't fit 20,000 more people on an m line when in the morning and evenings it's already at capacity. so i hear commissioner fewer's

requests, and i certainly hope that my request for doing something in terms of increasing capacity of not only the m line but the k line would be taken seriously. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner yee. are there any additional comments from commissioners? commissioner fewer, i think you have been heard. i think staff hears this, and i look forward having a meeting as chair with your staff to rectify the situation. is there any member or members of the public who wish to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: thank you for that information item that is soon to turn into an action item. next item, please. >>clerk: item 14, internal accounting report, investment report and data report from september 2014, this is an information item.

>> chair peskin: miss fong. >> cynthia fong. as for the first three months as of september 30, 2019. we have 214.1 million assets. liabilities of 300.5 million, and the majority of this involves our revolving loan and sales tax bond review debt. revenues have amounted to 29.3 million. this is pretty much as close as i could possibly hope for in terms of target revenues for the first quarter. expenditures, as usual, we are slow to incur. we expect increased expenditures from our sponsors after the first quarters have closed and after all of us have closed our books for the year. this is also a report out from our debt program. we've hit the mark on one-year

anniversary. we've incurred 40% of our bond proceeds. this remains 115.9 left to spend within the next two years to be legally compliant. with that, i am happy to answer any questions related to the first quarter numbers. >> chair peskin: are there any questions from miss fong on this report? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, thank you for that update. next item, please. >>clerk: item 15, introduction of new items. this is an information item. >> chair peskin: is there any introduction of new items, colleagues? seeing none, is there any general public comment? seeing none, we are adjourned, and in three minutes, is the there -- there will be a timma

committee in this chamber. [ gavel ] .

>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support

the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco