we've kind of crossed that threshold. if it wasn't for some disruptions in the systems, we do use that building today if it weren't for the lack of confidence or concern. we are, you know, well into the second step you noticed or made notice of, and ultimately, we're looking for our experts to articulate exactly the blame part. >> thank you. >> so i just want to echo some of the other comments from director reiskin that we're reviewing the design process and the review process for this process. is there going to be a final report that kind of lays this out for folks that they can understand the review that was done and have confidence that when we're all said and done that the building is -- is safe and ready to go? >> yeah, both from -- from the

lab as well as the design team, and a final report from the p.r.p. which is tending to be more of a concurrence with the findings and the activity from the priors. but yes, the short answer is there will be final reports that will be rolled out. the final element, this analysis could go on for quite a while, so in terms of having a final draft in terms of having a final final, there may be a tail on that in having to manage and balance and understanding and knowing that the building is safe and ready for use, and reoperating. you know, there is the aspect of the budget and financing and all, and i feel for mark's pain in terms of the monetary side of this in trying to keep this

facility going. i'm hoping our time frame will support the budget we have now in terms of all the back up of the c.m.o., but i have a feeling we're going to be going back to this panel for more money because of all of the elements, but we need to land on a square building sooner rather than later. >> further questions? thank you for the presentation. >> thank you. >> all right. ready to call your next item? >> next item. >> item seven is the citizen's advisory committee update. i believe mr. aggett is here.

>> good afternoon. my name is bruce agge 2ed t. i'm the chamber of the citizen's advisory committee. as executive director zabaneh mepgsed, the 30-day review period of the seis and seir was completed as of 1-7-2019 and we look forward to having the final issued once the government offices reopen. second in regard to the sfcta's resolution to suspend the funding agreement, we were pleased to hear the contract is being issued by the sfcta for the review of the alternative oversight and goettschance models for the management and delivery of the d.t.x. in addition to the previously scoped task to advise on the project delivery methods for

d.t.x. as approved through resolution 19-02. we hope this work can move forward with a sense of urgency and be completed by may 2019, the date previously shared at last month's meeting. in addition, we again recommend informational updates of both this work and that of the controller's office be provided to the sfcta commission, tjpa board, and the associated c.a.c.s on a regular basis, possibly every four to six weeks, and for this work to move along with a sense of urgency, to minimize any additional delays, and when completed, resume the work of the 30% design. we were also pleased to hear that contact has been made with afta to develop a best lessons learned, and for phase two, and as mentioned by director reiskin, for phase three as

appropriate. we look forward to the project team bringing the pennsylvania avenue extension to the tjpa board as a future meeting to incorporate that phase as part of the tjpa program. with that step, work on scoping can begin, and once completed, environmental work can commence. we encourage this to move forward expeditiously, as many of the stakeholder groups would like to see these phases integrated as soon as practical for a variety of reasons. it was shared that no -- it was shared at our c.a.c. meeting that no update on a -- there was no update on additional retail leases. with the holiday season now behind us, we look forward to hearing an update -- an update next month on the progress being made to negotiate and sign additional leases. this is important to meet the goals of the center's revenue model, to cover costs -- to cover the center's o.n.m. costs. the second item at our meeting was on the update of the status of the transit center.

we thank the project team for their transparency and level of detail presented, along with the opportunity to answer many of our questions. we appreciate the exhaustive review and analysis by the team of experts assembled to assure the root cause-causes of the fissure is identified, along with approach to repairs, and that these items are being fully vetted and approved by the expert peer review panel. in addition, we agree with the board's direction to ensure a complete study of other critical design elements in the transit center is completed before the center is opened. thank you for the opportunity to provide this update and happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for the report. next item. >> all right. next item on the agenda is public comment. directors, we've not received an indication that any member

of the public wants to address you on this item. we can move to the next item. >> yes, please. [agenda item read] >> i've not received an indication that any members wi wish to pull an item. consent calendar items 9.1, approving the minutes of the december 19, 2018 meeting. [agenda item read] >> so moved. >> second. >> a first and a second.

[roll call] >> that's six ayes. item 9.1 and 9.3 with approved. going ahead and call item 9.2, approving the minutes of the december 19, 2018 meeting. >> so moved. >> second. >> first and a second. director lipkin abstaining. [roll call] >> five ayes, and item 9.2, minutes of the december 19, 2018 meeting are approved. go ahead and call your first item on the regular calendar, item 10 is a presentation by the structural and seismic peer review panel for the transit center. >> and mr. rule will introduce this item. >> thank you, mark. good morning again. as mentioned, we have the

benefit of the some of the participants and the active chair of the ssrc here to refresh us all on what transpired during plan review and the level and depth of analysis of the design to kind of round out our look at the building over and above fabrication and installation, so with that, we have laurie wiley, senior prince of dogg and cope engineers, as well as mason walters, senior principle at farrell lessner, structural engineers, and laurie will present the presentation to you. >> good morning, directors. the -- i'm here to give you an overview of what the activities of the structural and seismic peer review panel -- review

panel committee were. the ssrc, as we were called, was first formed in november of 2008 to provide guidance on the transit center's structural design assumptions of the engineers. at the request of san francisco building inspection, d.b.i., our scope was expanded in 2009 to essentially include a peer review of the designs in accordance with their peer review guidelines. we continued to work until 2014, when the designs were completed and were all permitted. our panel was quite large. we had seven when we started out. i was elected and appointed chair. i've been on many peer review

panels. mason walters, senior principle structural engineer with farrells lasser was also on the panel. third member was jack maley, a structural engineer at perk re, and i was involved in the design criteria as well as the substructure, which was all concrete. he did not get very involved in the steel design that was above. the fourth member was robin mcguire. his firm was originally risk engineering out of colorado, and he was very involved in the early stages of design criteria review and the ground motion studies. then, his firm was purchased by lennus consultants who was

involved in aspects of the design, so he had to recuse himself and was only involved in early aspects of the design. third member has done a lot of bridge research in caltrans. he was our bridge guy because we had to review the bridge coming down from the bay bridge. sixth member was a professor emeritus at berkeley. he was active in the designed criteria, basis of design and ground motion. he became ill and unfortunately passed quite early in our process, so he was only involved in the early process. and the last member was jonathan bray, another professor at berkeley, geotechnical engineering, and jonathan was very active in all the ground motion reviews and the buttress design review.

so our purpose was to provide an independent peer review of the structural design. we reviewed the design criteria, the seismic and structural systems for code compliance. we were -- reviewed the design ground motions they used for the design, the engineers used. we reviewed the structural analysis and reviewed computer programs, and we did a detailed design of the details for adequacy. and our findings, just to give a little conclusion up front was that the structural design was reviewed thoroughly and found to meet or exceed code compliance. now this is a very busy slide of the -- sort of our scope, and i'm going to go very, very briefly here because i'll highlight most of these things on a few subsequent slides. we did review the ground motion hazard evaluation, seismic shaking at the site. we reviewed their structural

basis of design, what the criteria was, what their acceptance criteria and the like were. we reviewed many analysis he's, soil structure analysis, 3-d finite review analyses. we reviewed the shoring design really only for its effect on groundwater and adequacy for the process, not so much the -- since it's a temporary construction, we did not review it in great detail. we then reviewed in great detail the substructure, the train box, and also the super structure, the street frames and all above ground. we also had a very detailed review of the bus ramp coming down from the bay bridge for all of these same issues.

so let's talk about these various issues in more detail. the structural basis of design, tjpa had provided performance goals in their documents to the design team, and they had three earthquakes that were to be designed for. one was the frequent earthquake, the one that might occur every 50 years. there was to be no structural damage. there could be cracks and things, but no structural damage for the frequent earthquake. the rare earthquake, the 975 year there was to be immediate occupancy, getting things back into shape in a day or to. and the maximum considered earthquake, which is essentially a 2500 year return period, it was collapse prevention and being able to repair the structure.

the basis of design gave the method -- the design methodology, how they were -- how the engineer was going to design it and what their acceptance criteria was. there were several things that called out special studies. one was the structural special steel moment frames which braces the structure above grade in the transfer's direction, and these were -- since the recent earthquakes like in northridge, steel moment frames have come under great scrutiny from the old deficit and design, and testing is required when new things are tried or new details are tried. these connections, the members were so large, that they had never -- members that large had never been tested, so there was a test program done to test -- i think they tested two different frames -- connections for adequacy, and they

performed quite well. likewise, in the longitudinal direction, the frames on the outside where the big round tube columns come up to the roof, and again, the -- this -- the scale of the members were so large that they had never been tested before, either, so those members were also tested. we reviewed the results of all those tests. on the ground motion hazard evaluation, we reviewed their studies on the -- what the seismic motions at the site -- site specific characterization. we have -- the station is so long, and the ground conditions change over that length of about three blocks, so there was actually several different characterizations at different parts of the station which were used for the design of those

parts of the station. and i think one of the things that we -- at the time this was being reviewed ten years ago roughly, there was a lot of discussion in ground motion studies of so-called pull-type motions. earthquakes give a big pulse in one direction, and those were not in the initial studies, those recommendations, and we required that they include some pulse-type motions. that is now standard practice in codes and is done routinely. we spent a lot of time in the early days on the buttress design and the shoring design. we reviewed the design of the buttress. this is at 301 mission, design methodology, acceptance criteria, interpretation and results and reviewed that in quite a bit of detail. we also were involved in the shoring system, really, only to

prevent the watering outside the project site. the substructure or the train box down below in that figure, the top of that figure is the street grade. you don't see the super structure there, but you can see the shoring wall that goes down deep, the mat foundation. water table is high, and there are all these tiedowns under the building. the building is actually buoyant. it would float if it was dewatered, so we reviewed all those actions. we reviewed the concepts and design, member selection, and we did very detailed -- essentially a construction document review, plan review for d.b.i. on the super structure, the process was similar, reviewing design concepts and details,

member selection, design. we reviewed the documents in both drawings and specifications in detail. the steel -- structural steel special moment resisting frames, that's the top photograph, during erection, one of the beams is coming, being erected to the column. we reviewed the tests. we also reviewed the design. the longitudinal eccentric brace plates. you can see those up at the top, one of the two plates that come in eccentrically, and we also reviewed the light column and all these cast nodes for the pipes on the outside of the structure. we also reviewed specialty glazing and the exterior cladding system, you can see in

the bottom picture a piece of that cladding being erected. the original design of the cladding was a glass system. we reviewed that, and we were having a few problems with it, and they were having problems with it, too, especially with blast. we ended up with a lot lighter aluminum system that worked out quite well, and we reviewed the details of that. the bus ramp design and construction documents, again, we reviewed the earthquake hazard determination ground motion and characterization for the bus ramp, the seismic performance goals. we reviewed the basis of design, methodology, acceptance criteria, mathematical modelling, interpretation results, plan check, very similar to what we did on the rest of the structure. now i'm sure the reason i'm here today is because of a --

couple girders over fremont street, and i just wanted to sort of show you that we did review those. this is a page from the original construction drawings showing the tapered girder. this is a -- it's a little hard to read, but there's a schedule there. there were different girders -- there were tapered girders elsewhere in the structure, but they did not have the hanger down like we have at the girder that failed. and the last one is the -- this was the basic detail. and then, the next -- another sheet, showed the detail of this on the right there that's -- and the detail shows it's noted that the web of the girder is thickened out to about, i think it's 4 inches, and it extends through a slot in the bottom flange of the

girder down to all those bolts and hanger details down below to hang a detail to support the bus column below. we reviewed this. it was very detailed, met the code, and very logical. things that were discussing earlier, access holes were all done in the shop drawing phase, which were reviewed by the engineers and all, but we were not involved because we had -- our services were terminated in 2014, when the design was complete. our task was to review the design, not the construction. so in summary, our review was very thorough. our design concept is sound, we believe the design is conservative. the construction permits were issued based on our recommendations, and the design met or exceeded applicable

codes and standards. and we'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. >> questions from directors? yes, director gee. >> great. laurie, it's good to see you. >> good to see you again, jeff. [inaudible] >> and actually touched it and seen it. and were very involved in the ground motion criteria. [inaudible] >> at this point in time, i can tell you exactly how each

building on the berkeley campus might fail in a major earthquake. [inaudible] >> -- frequency or 50-year return or things like that, so can you translate that into something that most of us can understand better, like frequency or magnitude of earthquake or m.m.i. or something like that because we don't usually talk in terms of

975-year return in terms of seismic performance or something like that. >> i think the 50-year earthquake was something like loma prieta. it really only affected -- it was a very soft ground in san francisco. we are -- the transbay terminal isn't soft ground, but it goes through the soft ground down to a little better stuff, and no structural damage, and really, buildings around the terminal had no structural damage. so i think that's pretty reasonable. that's the frequent earthquake that we haven't had for a while, but we had loma prieta. that was probably the source. the rare earthquake is more the design earthquake. sometimes that's a 475-year earthquake. this time, it was a 975-year

earthquake, probably a little stronger. this one would be like 1906. i've done a lot of study on the 1906 earthquake. 80 or 90% of the damage was the fire. many of the buildings before the fire in downtown san francisco, the windows weren't broken, the building looked just fine. might have had a few little cracks here and there, but the buildings did quite well generally in the earthquake. yes, there were a few collapses in the earthquake. generally, it's inevitable, so the rare earthquake is really more like that. the maximum considerate earthquake is one we are we've never seen here in the bay area that we're aware of. it would be bigger and stronger, and longer. the shaking would lost a lot longer. the fault would break further, and in that case, we're just trying to keep the building standing, so keep

shaking-standing. [inaudible] >> yeah. yeah, this was given in -- in the criteria that tjpa put out to the -- when they were selecting the design team and contractors and all that. the -- part of it is in the code, certainly. the code now certainly has a maximum considered earthquake, which is this 2475 return-year period. so now, the code -- two-thirds of that is the design earthquake, but here, they had to go through and develop using

earthquake data and everything, the fault sources and all that, they had to develop ground motions that would represent these three different earthquakes, and we imposed the pulse-type earthquake on them, which was not in standard practice at that time, but we felt as a peer review panel that that was appropriate for an important structure like this, and so that was incorporated. [inaudible] >> it's -- it somewhat exceeds code requirements, yes. >> yes, director -- >> i just -- i wanted to appreciate our director's significant experience and what a benefit that is to us at this time and your really long-term relationships, so thank you so much for the report. i did want to, say, pick up on this code and the possible sort of interpretation of the findings the way you summarized the findings as the design was

reviewed thoroughly and found to meet or exceed code. do you consider a different wording or does that -- is it still fair to say that the design was thoroughly reviewed and found to meet or exceed design goals, performance goals? was that something that you considered in the wording or was that intentional? i also noted, for example, where when you talked about the hanging design of the girder, that you said it met code, so i think what would give us comfort, especially in the current peer review -- this is already completed, that when we have an assessment in design and the adequacy of design, that it's stated clearly that it meets whatever the design goals were or whatever the performance goals were rather than referring to code, because i feel that codes may or may not always be updated in the case of the pulse. >> excuse me. when you use the word code compliance, i also say that the criteria --

>> are met. >> -- we were reviewing not only for code compliance, but also for compliance with the basis of design and the criteria that had been established in a document, the design criteria document, which away reviewed and reviewed -- we reviewed and reviewed in great detail. we did some arm wresting with the design team back and forth to get it so it was consistent with tjpa's performance goals and so forth and all that. so we sent many, many comments back to the design team, which they -- they responded to and made many changes in the design, i think, based on our comments. >> great. that's very helpful. so who sets the design criteria? the owner? >> no. >> the designer. >> the owner set the performance goals. >> performance goals, that's right. >> and then, the design team, they have to execute and design a building to meet that, so they write a design criteria of how they're going to design it,

what kind of materials they're going to use, and what kind of basic seismic resisting system they're going to use. and so they write this basis of design report which that we reviewed -- that was probably our first task, was reviewed that, and it went on for -- we fine tweaked that for several years, as i recall, as -- as different pieces of the design proceeded. >> that's very helpful. thank you. >> yes, director. >> actually, i do have a question. excellent report. thank you. very informative. are you aware -- i know we had a picture today of the fix of the fructured beams. -- fractured beams. >> in light of the fix, is there a subset of this study that should be done -- i appreciate that you commented specifically on the beams in question, but now that they're going to have holes drilled in

them and, "splints" put on them, should other seismic study be done around that repair but also how that repair could affect the adjacent structure? >> i don't think a whole nother study is needed. i think hearing the report just previous to me speaking about the actions of the peer review panel that are looking at the situation, and i think it's ruby associates who are going through 15,000 sheets of shopping drawings. i would hate to have that -- shop drawings. i would hate to have that task myself, but they're looking for same things where design may have been altered in the construction process or design fabrication. if there are any vulnerabilities out there, i would think it's something that happened in there, sort of like the hanger situation here. and that should give you some comfort, i think, when that report comes in. >> no, but my question's

specific to the fix. does somebody need to look at the fix with a specific question of what does it do to the seismic performance of the building. >> no. >> thank you. >> and really, the fix is out in an area where it's not really the seismic stressing of the structure. there may be a little vertical bounce out there in the middle of that long span, but that's all. the fix is pretty much a gravity fix more than a seismic fix. >> i'm glad that we have professionals like you to give us that reassurance. >> any other questions? thank you for the presentation. it's very inform ative. next item. [agenda item read] >> directors, this item will be presented by mr. nathan edelman.

>> all right, commissioners. good morning. thank you for having me. any name is nathan edelman. i am the external financial auditor. what we have before you are the audited financial statements for the year ending june 30, 2018. the first opinion is regarding whether or not the accounting records are complete and accurate, and whether or not they fairly represent the results of operations and the financial position of the j.p.a. as of that june 30, 2018 date. our opinion on the financial statements is just that, that they are complete and accurate, that they fairly state the financial position as of that balance sheet date. we have what's called a clean or unmodified opinion, which means that there were no audit adjustments and the whole audit process was very routine. the second opinion that's towards the back of the report, the government auditing standards opinion is where --

is where the auditors, where we would be reporting what's called auditing control materials with respect to management going about preparing the accounting records, and that would be a way of us telling the public, the directors, that they don't know what they're doing, that the adjustments were necessary for the financial statements to be fairly fitted. i'm pleased to report to everyone that we have no such deficiencies in internal control. that is what we also called unmodified or a clean opinion on the financial statements. the scope of the audit from our perspective, the scope is to come in after the fact, ask a lot of questions, and to validate that the accounting is clean and accurate. it is the accounting team that is responsible and do all of the work throughout the year to prepare the accounting records to prepare the financial statements, so they deserve

recognition for preparing them. i'm happy to go into the financial statements and discuss what we've done in more details if you have any questions, but that's basically what we've done for june 30, 2018. so i'm really happy to just take any questions at this time if there are any from the group. >> okay. >> we do have one member of the public who wants to comment on the item. mr. patrick. [inaudible] >> oh, all right. okay. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, nathan. >> thank you so much. >> all right. item 12? >> go ahead, call it, please. >> approving the fiscal year 2019-2020 preliminary operating budget -- projection in the amount of 29,832,213. >> directors, merv prior with

n.w.c. consultants. >> i'm mary prior. the lease and use agreement with sfmta requires that the tjpa approved an operating budget in january for the following fiscal year. at this time we're presenting the -- [inaudible] >> we are anticipating several changes to both costs and revenues, and we will discuss those with muni and a.c. transit staff on january 18. following that, a revised projection will be presented to the board. this slide shows the original projection for the -- on the cost side. in green, we showed some potential savings in several categories, including the transit center operations and maintenance, the asset manager and park administration, security, and reserves and

contingent skis, and these savings are being developed in order to offset some likely increases shown in red, including the leasing payments. this change is due to timing issues. it's not reflective of an overall cost increase to the program. also we're ekt speaking increases in i.t., cyber security and other costs. just to note the red on the tjpa on assurance is due to assurance. the projections for last fiscal year were lower than the actual costs due to market conditions. we'd expect that to continue for fiscal year 20. and this slide shows anticipated revenue changes. in red, there are decreases for retail revenues due to the changes in the actual leasing schedule compared to what was projected in spring and summer

of last year. this is also a timing issue and doesn't reflect a decrease in rents at full occupancy. we're also expecting decreasing in the transit center. due to closure, we'll need to restart the ramp up period, and also, there's lawsuits related to r.m.-3 that we're working to resolve as soon as possible. in addition, we show additional funds may be available from the c.b.b. that partially fund the park expenses. the neutral staff licensing fees in fiscal year 20, some additional revenue for rents and subleases that includes greyhound, amtrak, and the 201 mission sublease. and also depending on how things shape up for fiscal year 19, there may be additional

o.n.m. reserves available at the start of fiscal year 20. so under the lease and use agreement, a.c. transit and sfmta provides a lease of the contributing funds, we continue to look at all cost savings and revenue enhancements to reduce that need. we will be working with a.c. transit and sfmta and will provide a revised projection to the board in the coming months. questions? >> questions? >> statement. i appreciate you acknowledging that conversations need to happen with a.c. transit and sfmta. based on that, i'll be voting no on this today. the projections are significantly greater than when a.c. transit and sfmta entered

into this agreement a decade ago. these are numbers that a.c. transit cannot tolerate, and based on that, i'm voting no on this today. >> why is this an approval action? it seems like it's information? >> the lease and use agreement requires that the board approves the preliminary operating projections, that's why we're bringing it to your attention. >> a date certain? >> that's -- that's part of the agreement. [inaudible] >> no, the lease and use agreement with a.c. transit requires that the board approves preliminary operating budget so that the a.c. transit and sfmta have a pretty good idea of what they need to include in their budget for the next fiscal year. >> have you sat down with both agencies and tried to work that out? >> yeah. yeah. this is -- no, no, we sat down with them in september. this is, again, work in progress. what we're presenting to you is what we presented in september to their staff.

it's -- and this is the same pronltions, what the board approved, when the board approved the annual budget back in june. it had in it the board had attached in it the schedule showing the forward projection for the next two fiscal years, and that's the same information. >> i'll just -- reading directly from the staff report, staff will -- will consult with the transit center and primary tenants a.c. transit and sfmta in the coming weeks regarding latest details for the up coming projections and details. sfmta staff anticipates larger contributions will be needed. i'm not going to vote for something that acknowledges that future discussions need to happen to seek greater contributions. >> i would like to note that also the staff report says we're going to come back to you in february for another approval when we have better

numbers. >> should we just table this to next -- >> well, my theory is that we have an agreement that says the board needs to take action, so it's up to the board. >> if the board is comfortable continuing the item, maybe that's what we -- >> yes, of course. >> well, i don't want to speak for the two representatives here from the two agencies that are the holders of that agreement with tjpa, but would a delay of a month be something that would be helpful to this process? >> yeah, i think -- i don't see the point in taking this action today. i'd -- i'd -- as much as i'm concerned by the -- the prospects here, as -- i know director hursh is even more so, i guess three times more so, i -- there's a certain fiscal reality that we are going to have to kroconfront, so it's n really the substance of the issue. the board taking this action is meaningless. i understand you're just

following what's in the gr agreements, and we asked for this in the agreements. i don't see any substantive benefit to our taking this action, so i would move that we continue the item. >> just a question for deborah. that's okay? >> so i'll let you know what the a.c. transit lease says, and i believe there's nearly identical language in the m.t.a. lease. it lays out a schedule for consultation between the prospective juror pa and the primary tenants on a projected budget, so by september of such and such date, we have to meet and confer. a month or so later, the primary tenants have an opportunity to object. if they have concerns with the budget, there's another meet-and-confer process, and we're at this point, which is the board shall adopt the projected budget no later than january 31 of each year for the next fiscal year. so that is the statement that

is in the lease. i think the action that's being asked of the board today is to approve the budget as it was presented to the primary tenants, so not approving the changes that mary's highlighted. that's sort of that we acknowledge that, we're likely going to have to come back to you and asktor a variation on that, but i think the action before the board is being asked to approve what's before the primary tenants. >> if we take a vote on it, we can't approve, because we don't have the support, so what happens? >> so you're saying if you call the item now, and it fails. >> yes. >> we will not have satisfied that statement in the lease. there may be reasons why we haven't satisfied it, and some of the folks who are parties to those leases have an opportunity to vote on that. >> directors, i'm sorry, but you approved that agreement.

in 20 -- the lease and use agreements. >> and i think there's still -- we're going to be -- our taking an action today is approving a budget that everybody acknowledges is not a realistic budget. now it's not going to get better, necessarily, but i just -- i see no value in our taking an action. >> is there, perhaps, a way to satisfy the obligation under the lease but acknowledge your concern and make it express, perhaps approving the projected budget but acknowledging that further work is going to be required in the upcoming months and expressly acknowledging that this board isn't approving a final operating budget until -- [inaudible] >> -- in june of 2019, so meaning the letter of the lease which says that you're anticipated to approve a preliminary budget in january but expressly acknowledging that nothing is final until

june? >> i don't share concerns that our missing this one requirement in the lease is problematic, but maybe it's best for those other than director hursh and i to weigh in on any -- whether they have such concerns. >> but if we table it to february , i mean, that's okay, too, right? >> not what the lease anticipates, but i hear there are concerns about it. >> it just seems there are a few more things that need to be worked out between mark and the agencies. >> yeah, i mean frankly, you have from now until june to work it out because june is when you're scheduled to adopt your final budget. it's not even february when you have to -- >> yeah. i know, but considering we have a station that's not really doing the things that it's supposed to be doing, there are some concerns, i think --

[inaudible] >> there are some concerns that kind of need to be worked out or figured out. >> absolutely extraordinary circumstances. >> through the chair, if i may, i believe the intent of that provision has been met. the idea of giving a heads up or at least having some information chaired, that ahead of the budget process, and these negotiations and discussions absolutely will proceed. so the intent of that provision, i feel, has been satisfied. the fact that we could take a vote and it may fail, we would then not be satisfying it, so there's no real difference between continuing it and taking a vote, so i would second director reiskin's motion to continue. >> so i think we should continue the item to february , yes. >> looks like we will be continuing the item. we did have a member of the public that wanted to comment on it even though it's ae been agendaized -- okay. he still does want to comment.

>> good morning, directors. jim patrick, patrick and company, san francisco. can i encourage you to all speak on the microphone? we can't hear in the back. that would be nice. i kucall your attention to two things. security, and operation of maintenance. we have an expense level of $7,975,000 for security, and maintenance. if i divide that by 365 days, that means for security, we're paying $21,000 a day for security. i can do a lot with $21,000. i believe that -- that's just

for security. another $21,000 a day to clean the bathrooms. that does include utilities. the costs are out of line, so we're looking on the wrong side. we're worrying about approval of budget. the numbers just aren't good. i think we can manage these resources a lot, lot better and make better decisions the way we spend our money instead of just budgeting whatever money we have. we throwaway a lot of money in this organization. i see the money go oozing out the door every time i'm here, and here's another one. thank you. >> all right. that concludes numbers one and two on that item, and the board has decided we'll continue that item. >> call the next item. [agenda item read] >> directors, i'm pleased to introduce to you our candidate for the c.f.o. position, erin roseman. erin did not hear the last

item, so she's still interested in the job. i promised we would have an approval -- i'm just kidding. erin comes with 18 years of experience, 14 of which is with government finance. most recently she's been director of public finance for the city of arlington, texas. she has a master's in public administration and a master's in regional planning and she's also an active member of the government finance officers association. i do first want to thank the san francisco controller's office and director hursh and the c.f.o. for a.c. transit. they did help me in the interview process, provide me with valuable information, and i'm very pleased to introduce to you erin roseman. >> good morning, and thank you for having me here. clearly, i have some big shoes to fill and big issues to tackle in the next coming months, but i look forward to

the challenge and working with you on this project. >> welcome. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> do you want to change your mind on number 12 or -- i'm just kidding. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> no members have indicated they wanted to comment on the item. do i have a motion? >> move approval. >> second. >> second. >> first and second. [roll call] >> that's seven -- however many ayes, and item 13 is approved. >> okay. and this will conclude our meeting. [inaudible] >> yes. >> come up to the mic. >> one -- one moment. >> come over -- no, come over.

just one second. come to the podium. just one second. i have granted him discretion. >> okay. >> so my toname is tony and wee a contractor on the sfmta. i heard the sfjrc report. i just want to mention to the board that there's a lot more pertinent information that that report did not include, and we would like the opportunity to bring it up at the next board meeting. we have gained -- we have assembled a team of experts from around the country that they're really experts in this kind of work specifically, and they've kind of -- they kind of investigated and in conjunction with tjpa, we'll provide -- we have provided support to the tjpa. we really want to get to the bottom of this understand and what's happening.

but as i said, there's a lot more information that the report did not include. i just wanted to bring that up to the board, and as i said, i'd like the opportunity for our experts team to really address the board in february . >> so i would recommend you send that information to our executive director, and then, i always meet with him before the meeting and we'll make that decision. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. okay. we can now adjourn. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> right before the game starts, if i'm still on the field, i look around, and i just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical, not knowing what the season holds holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful, but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013 season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply.

i was so nervous, i never lived anywhere outside of fridays know, andfridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that altogetl r together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players.

and then i'll talk to lucille, can you take the shirt gun to the bleachers. i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team. we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day.

renelle is the best. she's all about women in the workforce, she's always in our corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than

i think i've grown in my entire adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful learning >> good morning. my name is sophia, i am a founding chair of women's rights san francisco. [applause] this is the first time i am the emcee, and the first time i am at an inauguration. it is the best one.