last year i requested a management, operational audit of the mta. at the time that the audit was requested, the mta had not been subject to a management operations audit in 14 years. as of best practice under our rules under the board of supervisors, we want agencies to undergo of management performance of it, at least every eight years. -- we want agencies to undergo management performances at least every eight years. what we have before you is the second phase of the audit. the first phase was conducted by the office of budget and legislative analyst. with respect to the second phase of the audit, we engaged cgr management consultants to conduct audit, and from my perspective the timing of the of it makes a great deal of sense. we have new leadership of the mta, and the director of transportation, someone who has a proven track record of making sure our agencies are following best practices. i know making sure we have the most affected management possible is a priority for mr. reiskin. i think of it that focuses on how the mta is managing capital p

we have a chart at the bottom from the mta. it was an appendix to a large group of documents we were given. it looks like a total fleet side demand and procurements needed -- and we cut out the section on light rail vehicles -- set up by fiscal year. we cut out the intervening years from prison until 2018. if you look at 201832019, that is when the central subway is slated to open. it has currently been pushed to a january 19 opening. the numbers are hard to make that on the slide, but their numbers project they will need a peak demand of 179th light rail vehicles for the fiscal year. however, the fleet size plan will only be 175 vehicles, leaving a deficit of four vehicles system-wide. looking at this document, it appears to ever wrote the mta response claim that they will have enough lrv's in this fiscal year was not aware of this predicted schedule. the next time i would like to draw attention to his finding 25. and richard found a lack of care in the mta is communicating of correct and accurate information. the mta disagrees

in terms of the mta, i was surprised on some of their responses. ow that ed has only been there for a short amount of time. i thought it was very enlightening, the presentation. and also a caution to members of the grand jury on your report. and making sure that they are factual as well. we have looked at the location of certain companies, you don't knowledge of the fact that this is phase two of the line. it is getting to be a controversial topic at that point in time. with the findings and recommendations in front of us, and i would vote yes or support a motion with the exception of recommendation number four. supervisor campos: that is a motion by supervisor farrell. we don't need a second. president chiu, any comments? president chiu: i am happy to second that, the only comment i would make is in regard to 3, lowering expectations from muni's performance. the mta could find a more. i would set that as an amendment to the recommendation. supervisor campos: i will be supporting that motion. what this does is highlight the fact that even when you m

the capital programs division within the mta is very small. i think we have a total of five resident engineers who do construction management. for us to break down into different asset classis would be challenging. we need the flexibility -- we do not have been of engineers, construction managers, project managers where we can take folks and dedicate them to work in a team. we necessarily therefore need to maintain flexibility to have an engineer work one day on a building project and the next day on infrastructure projects. we do not have the luxury of the numbers to organize in a strict asset management way. we are doing that to some extent. shortly before i joined the fleet engineering group was moved in to work more closely with operations with a fleet maintenance folks are. now from project management to engineering to maintenance, they are working somewhat like an asset team. our sustainable streets division, we are doing that somewhat as well. and we do not have, i do not think, the staffing flexibility to be able to do that across the b

the deficit -- look at the reports of the mta. one of the things they have not told to -- 36,000 hours of surface transportation will be cut to fund the deficits. that means wherever you are in san francisco, you will receive less service. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. i am going to be talking about the grand jury findings 118, 20, and 25 -- one, 18, 20, and 25. the response made much of the oversight that the central subway would receive from the federal transportation agency and in response 25, they claim that it -- as communications professionals, the accuracy of all his pronouncements. let's examine the accuracy of these claims. and he repeated that the central subway is highly regarded in washington. on october 18, the transportation authority staff told a citizens advisory committee that "the central subway project remains the highest-rated pre-full-funding grant agreement project in the country." there are 39 new starts projects, and -- new starts and small starch products. 14 of those projects

we found that was within the constraints of the mta. rather well organized. we particularly like the fact there have been substantial risk analysis. we liked the fact that they have regular meetings with outside bodies to give them their views, and as a result the fta has given them one of the two projects that have the highest ratings from the fta for grants. >> that said, we would like to discuss five areas of major concern. the first one is how well our projects managed -- are projects managed from looking at the results they achieve or do not achieve? so we picked 13 projects that have been up history, were far enough along, so that we have visibility either an overrun or a potential over run projected to the end of the report. 12 of those were in that state. one was under budget. i think in a normal sample like that we would expect a higher percentage. so if you look at the figure -- the comparison was done again in costs, and bass line costs include the design and construction, which is shown in the thermometer in blue. the internal cost, which would be

i will try not to duplicate what has already been presented by ed reiskin and his staff from the mta, but it is worth spending a couple of minutes reviewing some of the facts related to the project, and also to honor your comment, supervisor campos, about the fact that the grand jury reports focuses in its recommendations away from the central subway. there are some interesting policy issues and i think should not be lost. first of all, it should be crystal clear to anybody who would entertain at this very late stage in the development path of this project, which as you heard has already entered the construction phase, that if this project were to be canceled, for example, there would be no way to redirect the funds that are expected to come to this project that early. -- federally. the funding process is pretty complex. it does not start the year you get the funds, it starts a decade before that, at the earliest. it involves not just the federal government, but a series of prior decisions at the regional level, where the metropolitan transportation commission has what is currently re

individual members cannot exercise the powers of the mta board. and, of course, when the the board asks and exercises its power at a notice meeting, by means of a vote. any questions about any of that? president nolan: this year, we are looking at like a $22 million deficit in the budget. how does that fit in in terms of the board of supervisors? what are our options? >> director, as you know, the past five years, we have always had a budget deficits, and the way we have addressed it is by either not hiring or enhancing our revenues. as long as we do not go to the board to ask for more money, we are ok, and we usually have to do that. president nolan: thank you. ms? >> i know you did this ever you through -- every year through our online training. so the basic rules about open meetings is that all policy bodies operate in public meetings. those meetings must be publicly noticed, and the policy body must fix public comment at those meetings. what is a meeting? it seems painfully obvious, but people in my office spend a lot of time talking about this

the mta board has taken action previously, recognizing the immense need. when you created the mx express, because of the overcrowding on that bus. there is one last thing i would like to say. in our conversation with director reiskin, he indicated that the board has not indicated a broad support for this policy. we think it is important for the mta to say, yes, we want to move forward in this direction and then find the money. ultimately, we think the issue of overcrowding is overstated. we go back to the legislative analyst's report, which essentially indicates that, right now, if we're going to increase service, all of that $6 million cannot be allocated to the young people who are riding the buses. we do not agree with the reports that indicate it will cost $13 million, instead of $6 million. secretary boomer: gloria estevas. >> [speaking spanish] >> thank you for having me. it is an important point to say that you have spent money harassing used for the police. this program would cost less than what you are currently planning -- currently paying the po

individual members cannot exercise the powers of the mta board. d, of course, when the the board asks and exercises its power at a notice meeting, by means of a vote. any questions about any of that? president nolan: this year, we are looking at like a $22 million deficit in the budget. how does that fit in in terms of the board of supervisors? what are our options? >> director, as you know, the past five years, we have always had a budget deficits, and the way we have addressed it is by either not hiring or enhancing our revenues. as long as we do not go to the board to ask for more money, we are ok, and we usually have to do that. president nolan:

as the mta pointed out, we have seen cases in other cities around the country where they have seen a decrease in pedestrian and bicycle conflicts. i know that mta commissioner or the board member who is a wheelchair-user is also a very strong supporter of this project. we fell that jfk protected by way would be a tremendous benefit to the park and the community, and we urge your support today. thank you. commissioner buell: thank you very much. >> good morning, commissioners. i am from the office of supervisor mar. i believe that you have already received this letter from supervisor mar. it is to reiterate his suppor he is also a regular bicycle commuter, rides jfk frequently. personally, i am also a bicycle commuter in san francisco and often ride that route. i have had the unpleasant experience of riding in the gap right now that is between the parked cars, and i have had the experience of a car driving behind me and honking at me while i was not in the roadway. we think this project would be a tremendous benefit. it would really promote cycling as a way to commute. thank you. commi

the mta's evaluations program has evolved over the years as we learn more about our parking. initially, mta had agreed with the civil grand jury that an independent review panel was necessary. having done our best practices study and our outreach, we believe that the independent review panel is not only administratively burnham some, but we also believe talking to the disabled community that they do not want to have another step for the have to come and demonstrate their disability. what we are recommending, the solution, is double