[applause] executive director reiskin: thank you. finally, from our finance division, i want to ask jason lee to come forward. one of the things i have found is we have strong operations people. we move people every day, and take care of our rights of way. but what we really need to move the agency forward are smart, analytical people, people who can dive into the data, analyze the policy, and come up with good recommendations based on a sound foundation. i think jason really epitomizes that within the agency. he has only been here since 2008. he is a manager of financial contract services, which i do not really know what that means. but i know what he does. he has a great understanding of transportation and transit, a great capacity with numbers and analysis. as one example, when we started looking at all-door boarding and wanted to understand fare evasion and how that might impact all-or boarding, and i started asking questions about what we knew about it, they whipped out a report jason had done two years ago, a thorough report th

director reiskin: do we know what the time line for that would be? >> i think mike rizzo is here and can address the time line. the schedule to recognize obligations need to be submitted in february? before february. then the director of finance, i think, has a certain amount of time -- we do not know how long the time line is. the director of finance will be receiving a list of recognize the obligations from hundreds of redevelopment agencies, so we expect that decision will take some time. director reiskin: it is a deemed approved situation where if they do not rule it is an enforceable obligation within days, it is deemed to be -- >> if there is no objection. the statute requires them to object. >> any other questions? just for the sake of the public, if you could go over coming in detail, in terms of how the state is defining enforceable obligation, and why you think they have a strong case to be accepted by the state. >> the state statute, ab 26, defines enforceable obligations as bonds, outstanding bonds, and other debts of the agency, and othe

reiskin is an audience as well. i want to acknowledge his presence here and thank him and his staff for their collaboration in this effort. we will be hearing from him shortly. >> mr. chairman, commissioners, my name is jim ayers cgr management consultants. we were asked to give a short overview of the audit, just as they were pressured to the point that we -- were fresher to the point that we made here -- refreshers to the points that we made here. we completed the draft of the report in march 2011. we had three rounds of the review. final presentation in november. we had a fairly lengthy review process that went on, by the agency, and by the board, because we did not want to give sfmta a report that had not been vetted through the commissioners. these are the five areas of concern. with these, we had 19 recommendations, which we highlighted in the executive summary. these were reviewed by sfmta. they concurred with 17 of the 19, partially concurred with two others. let me just highlight some of those recommendatio

executive director reiskin: thank you, chair person. i should mention a was apparently remiss in not providing an update on the church and bose construction update, which was on the agenda. chairperson nolan: i did not mean to suggest you were remiss. executive director reiskin: it was an error and i was remiss. it did not take long. the reason i did not have a report is there is no change since the last report. the project is on track. i will bring you a real update at the next meeting. on track, so to speak. moving to the strategic plan, this has been before you a number of times before. we went into it in depth in our november workshop and got a lot of great feedback from you. we are very proud and pleased to be bringing for your consideration final approval and adoption of the plan. before i have a brief presentation to work through -- before i do, i want to acknowledge some of the staff who have been leading the charge on this. it has been a lot of people inside and outside the agency working on this, but a core group drove it to w

reiskin. colleagues, any questions? president chiu? commissioner chiu: we have all set for presentations responding to audits, how organizations are handling their bureaucracy. at the end of the day, in one year, if you were to come back and say we succeeded on this, are there a couple of metrics that you can point to where you would measure your progress of all of these process these, the impact of that, going forward? put differently, with all of these recommendations, but will be the successor outcome? -- success outcome? >> the key performance indicator, for me, is the on time and on budget delivery of capital projects. that is what we have put as the key performance indicator for this. there will be many other measures, such as estimation, accuracy, change orders due to errors and omissions, scope changes over time, lots of different things to look at. but the ultimate outcome is whether we are delivering projects on time and on budget. commissioner chiu: what would those numbers be right now, if you have to say -- your budget per

executive director reiskin:

reiskin here talking about his perspective on the audit. i am delighted to be collaborating with him on a number of things. i predict that we will be a resourced to him in addressing a lot of these issues -- that we will be a resourced -- that we will be a resource to him in addressing a lot of these issues. we hope to be. i think this discussion is a sign of maturation of the mta that happened over the last decade. it is sort of inevitable that we would be at a point like this at some moment, and i am glad that moment has come. i think it is very constructive. i want to draw the connection funding because that is what i do. to a man who has a hammer, every problem is a nail, right? let me talk about funding for a moment. first of all, the issue of defining project scope as an integrated process inside the agency is the key to not having surprises like the ones that commissioner wiener talked about because the public will come up with good ideas, but a good planning process will incorporate all of the multi modal -- multimodal, planning stu

i really want to thank you for your attention to this issue and also ed reiskin for his leadership and openness to the recommendations of the audits. we know our families are hurting right out and really need accessible, affordable transit. it is a necessity, not a luxury. when we hear about the complete lack of clear processes and the huge overruns, it is really astounding in light of what our communities are faced with. so i just wanted to appreciate the conversation you were having about anticipating capital project needs from the beginning, not only because you lose trust with the public, but also because it makes it so that there is no way for the public and the mta board to actually be part of that conversation on budget priorities. what will we be able to afford? what will we be able to do? then, i also wanted to encourage you to stay vigilant on this issue and work with us, members of the community, and ask for some of those clear benchmarks, and any progress that is made, to measure that. really, the most simple way is looking at those overruns and what they are in the coming

executive director reiskin: there was a lot of feedback, not all of which we were able to incorporate. the controversy -- tim want to jump in. some had to do with the level of the specificity, and whether we wanted to get more specific and be more explicit in terms of cycling and pedestrian goals. that was one area i would say was somewhat controversial. we are trying in this plan to set the frame and not pick the winners. i think there were definitely differences of opinion on that. there were differences of opinion in the order of the goals. we ended up sticking safety first, making sure people feel safe on the system. everything else is secondary. other people thought transit first should be first, or the organization should be first. there was slight disagreement. i think we kept the plan at a high enough level where it did not really beg all the tough policy questions that implementing the plan will. you may be said it in your written remarks on the plan. it is going to be to the mta management and board to back implementation of the plan. there will be things we will do that we

myself and the controller will work with director reiskin to insure that this happens and we will get back to you to discuss what the timeframe would be. supervisor chiu: thank you. supervisor campos: i think that is the next step the four we hear from the mta. i think we need to build more into the question not so much of whether or not there are mou's that are being complied with but whether or not the expenditure is appropriate -- i think we need to delve more into the question. it might be helpful to narrow the focus of your review on the top 10 departments, for instance. that might be one way of delving into it more deeply without it being so, you know, challenging. that might be one approach that we take. how long would it take for you to do that kind of review? >> i do not have a timeframe. one thing i will say is once we have collaborated, we will definitely make it a priority and propose a timeframe and determine if it works. supervisor campos: you have an agency that is facing a deficit, a multi-million deficit for this year and even more next year. there's talk about increa