funding the current operations. so these are our fundraising to recommend sources for each of those resource needs. option number two has an initial administrative step, and we project, therefore, an additional cost associated with option two both on the direct expenses side as well as

potentially on the resident side. so next, i'll focus on the organizations. the organizations include the catholic chariti mobile support for critical houses and food services. we do recommend that the board consider evaluating this program and adjusting it at a minimum 2500 units or what would be 2027 because we

project that the types of nonresidential land uses will change more quickly than the current residents' population, and so there may need to be changes to the program sooner than the midpoint development. the first option is a cash phase support for these businesses or nonresidential uses. it would be a payment from timma to the business point of contact -- the commercial leaseholder point of contact, and then, that -- that use could apply the subsidy to their greatest transportation needs, whether their primary cost is, you know, compensating their workers for additional

commute costs or for their vendors for additional delivery costs or even for visitors. the intent is to provide a flexible resource. there would not be any tolls associated with handling this option. we would recommend -- we need a basis for the amount that -- of the subsidy, and we would recommend basing that amount on the number of employees. the $600 figure here proposed here is found by assuming one peak roundtrip for a commuter on and off the island five times per week.

to put this program into practice, we would need a partnership to some extent with these businesses or nonresidential leases, tida to verify the leaseholder point of contact, and then us to be in touch to enroll that person to distribute the cash benefit, and then, on how much we need, and then, they would be responsible for distributing that cash subsidy as they need to. the second option would be a toll tag-based option, and thinking here was to mirror as much as possible the toll tag-based option that we've offered for residents, current residents. so that would be focused on

low-income employees, and we would provide businesses with a toll tag for each of their low-income employees. this would be prefilled to fund the assumed incremental costs of one roundtrip daily five times a week. the business responsibilities involved would be to provide timma with an indication of the number of low-income workers that they have. they would then need to handle the toll tags, so distributing them to their workers and then redistributing them when they have changes in employment. timma would be responsible for the auditing associated with this, making sure that we

hahave, for our auditor purposes, proof of the number of employees and of distribution of these toll tags to the employees. this chart shows the five-year total costs that we project, and we project a higher cost associated with the toll tag option because there is more administration required there. the toll tag handling is a cost compared to just a cash-based approach, fewer proofs that need to be provided in the audit trail. so for that reason primarily,

we recommend a mobility cash approach. it is less administratively burdensome, especially on the businesses themselves. but in each case, our next step is to continue the outreach that we had started last year and to seek feedback from both the current residents on these options for the toll exemption as well as from businesses and workers on the options for toll support. i would say that through the outreach we did last year, we heard many ideas that were not toll permitted that were related to other types of commute benefits and making other types of commute benefits

accessible to workers, and those things are still very much things that we support that timma, in many cases plans to provide but can provide in our scope of work. these things are focused on the toll-related support as a subset of the overall range of business and worker supports that we will provide. the last thing is that future low-income households are a remaining policy area that we haven't yet made a recommendation, and the reason is because we want to bring recommendations to you that are consistent with and developed together with san francisco's downtown congestion pricing study. in the sfcta board last -- in just the previous meeting, we described means-based and other

types of exemptions and discounts for the downtown potential corridor price. we would -- we recommend that treasure island be as consistent as possible with the downtown program, and so would -- so consider the same range of options to -- for affordability here for treasure island's future residents. our outreach time frame, most of this will be done after the holidays, circling back with the specific businesses that have contacted us with questions and feedback so far, as well as reaching back out to the business and worker base more broadly to kickback up on where we started the discussion last year. in parallel outreach to current

residents to seek their feedback on the toll exemption technology option, and in both cases, learn more about a demographic question such as how much vehicles does each household have, how many workers does each business have that will allow us to refine the program costs in each case. in spring, when we conduct the next phase of outreach for the downtown congestion pricing study, we will also take that outreach to treasure island and develop, through the co-creation approach, availability for future residents. these are some of the publicity methods that we anticipate

using for the outreach. future low-income travelers, i mentioned consistent with downtown congestion pricing study. we already know that, at a minimum, our downtown scenarios include a 100% exemption for our very low-income residents and a 50% at minimum for low-income, as well as some others that go into the moderate income boand. thank you very much, and i look forward to your feedback and questions. >> thank you, deputy director hyatt. we greatly appreciate it. i have a number of them, but

before i do, i'll check to see if any of my colleagues have questions. [inaudible]. >> supervisor walton: are low-income residents that come in the future are also protected, so just looking forward to that continued work. >> supervisor haney: great. thank you for that work, and i do want to thank the timma committee members, commissioners walton and mandelman, for your strong support on this to make sure we did have a clear plan for

residents, employees, and business owners to ensure that they had an exemption, a fair exemption from this toll. this was a big priority for me, having heard very extensively from residents, especially about concerns around the toll, and i do think that these options that are on the table here are really providing us with a set of opportunities to address that concern, and ensure that we have, overthe long-term, a congestion management plan, but that we are not putting undue and an unnecessary burden on current residents and business owners or employees before the transit opportunities are in place and before congestion is -- can

even be an issue at all. i do really appreciate that the revisit milestone is still 4,000 units. that's what we had said previously, and i think that's really important. i do want to give the -- just flag that there may be data that tida currently has that can also help us understand some of the questions that have been raised. in particular, residents that already have vehicles are required to register those with tida for parking management purposes, so that could help to reduce the new burden. it could help us understand how many leaseholders have, for example, more than one vehicle. my guess is that if a number of the units have multiple leases

or vehicles, they're more likely to prefer option number two than option number one because they have multiple people in the home that are continuing to commute. i also wanted to flag that for -- i really think mailing an island-wide survey would be a good thing to do, and also a good way to do it would be tech surveys or ways of getting to people directly. tida has a long history of getting ahold of residents and probably has the best way to get feedback. on the question of the current worker and business affordability option, i know you're getting a lot of feedback as my office is around getting information on what folks prefer. my question is therefore a number of organizations that are not part of treasure

island -- for example, ymca. would all nonprofits be eligible for the cash subsidies or how are we determining which nonprofits -- for example, there's the ball field, the museum, and there are other folks who are out there who are nonprofits who have been operating on the island for sometime and likely will continue to. >> yes, thank you. so -- and we heard that same feedback from the tida board and tida c.a.b. when we gave this presentation in november, so that is something that we need to understand and better understand which of these land uses will continue to be on the island through the development. that information from tida will help us really be more specific about which land -- we know

that these land uses, as proposed here, will continue to be on the island, but adding in and understanding the other land uses not captured here, that we'ill continue to have tt nonresidential space and not continue to occupy that space will -- that that will indicate -- that will complete, you know, the picture of who -- which uses meet the benefit. >> supervisor haney: got it. and obviously, i think once we do have to decide that. i wanted to ask about the transit option. what is the anticipated ferry

service state date currently? >> we anticipate the entire program to launch late 202 2. >> that would be subject to available programs but -- 2022. >> that would be subject to the available programs funding gap, but that is the goal, assuming that there would be island residents by that time chain chachain -- by that time. >> supervisor haney: so the toll for people with exemptions, would it begin even with the ferry services

available? >> the toll would be after -- so according to this schedule, it would not be until 2020 -- what is it? 2023? 4? >> no, so 2022. so all -- the transit service and the toll would start together. >> chair haney: there are -- there are buildings that will

open, my understanding, that, you know, i guess the -- especially the -- the bristol and the y.b.i., and there are others that would be subject to the toll, as well as people who are not [inaudible], but we're saying we're going to start it together with the transit option. >> correct. the toll together with the transit option. >> chair haney: we are all very excited with the transit options. the ferry is going to be a wonderful addition, both for the residents there, and to bring people to the island, i think it's going to be a positive thing for treasure island. great. well, i appreciate the continued outreach. i know that -- i'm sure that businesses and employees and, of course, residents will be able to process these different options, and i've heard from a number of nonprofits and

businesses, many of which have responded positively to the mobility cash stipend option, so i'm hopeful that we get additional feedback and thoughts on these things. with that, if there's no further comments from my colleagues, i would like to open it up for public comment. >> operator: there is no public comment at this time. >> chair haney: no public comment? well, that is a surprise. well, hopefully, people will have the opportunity to give comment in a number of other venues, and again, i appreciate all of the work that has been done on this. i do think it's really critical that we provide effective, smart, efficient ways to exempt current residents and provide relief for businesses and

employees. i think what you put forward here is thoughtful and will be further informed by the feedback by island residents, businesses, and employees, and certainly, i'm looking forward to finalizing this in the near future and being able to -- to settle what has been a long process, and i appreciate all the hard work that has been done. with that, i believe there are no further -- oh, hold on real quick. there's one more thing -- >> clerk: we're on item 5. >> chair haney: what about -- oh, there are other businesses

on the island. there are wineries and other businesses on the island. have you thought about which businesses you would include? >> so tida, we've looked to tida here for their help in conveying to you -- to us which noncommercial uses will continue to be on the island so we have an understanding of which uses are -- they'll have their leases continued and be part of the ongoing use that the island has developed. if we are -- if -- as there are changing changes to that, if there are changes to that, we should update our proposal so they're correct about which businesses would be there, and we'll and

support. >> chair haney: got it. great, and i do think it's important to have, you know, in the early next year, some open meetings with targeted specifically at businesses and making sure that's a part of the plan. they have a pretty tight network out there effectively, and with that, i think my comments and questions are done, and i look forward to continuing to partner with you all, and thank you again for all your hard work on this. are there any further final comments or -- deputy director? no? okay. great. thank you so much. madam clerk, will you please call the next item? >> clerk: item 5, introduction of new items. this is an information item.

>> chair haney: colleagues, are there any new items? seeing none, is there any public comment on new items? >> operator: there is no public comment. >> chair haney: great. madam clerk, will you please call item 6? >> clerk: item 6, public comment. >> chair haney: are there any members of the public that would like to speak on item 6, general public comment? >> operator: there are no callers. >> chair haney: great. madam clerk, will you please call the next item? >> clerk: item 7, adjournment. >> chair haney: great. thank you so much. this meeting is adjourned.