chang, also, madam clerk, are there any other -- are there any announcements? >> there are no announcements today. >> there are no announcements, great. okay, let's call item number 2. >> item number 2, approve the minutes of the may 14, 2013 meeting. this is an action item. >> okay. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. ~ [gavel] all right, so moved. >> all right, so moved. madam clerk, will you please call item number 3? yes, i'm sorry, the motion was passed without objection. >> item number iiictiontion state and federal legislation update. this is an information update, action item. >> and i think we have a presentation. excellent. >> good morning, chair and members. i've got a brief report for you today. on the legislative matrix we have two new changes we'd like to call to your attention and highlight. there are two other bills i'd like to discuss briefly and a cap of where we stand vis-a-vis the state conference committee by virtue of some of the actions they took last night and as they get ready to wrap up the budget this week. as for the new positions, ab4 66 by assembly member silva, that deals with affirming the state law, the cmac, distribution formula, the federal funds that passed through the state to regional entities. it maintains consistency with past practice and we're recommending support of this measure at this point in time. in addition, sb7 92 is a little more complicated. this was a bill that popped up in between meetings earlier this year that would have partially undone the tax swap adjustment to the excise tax on fuel. if you might have read in the paper, the board of equalization approved the ministerial adjustment of the tax rate pursuant to the tax spot and added 3 cents a gallon to take effect july of this coming year. and a senator from southern california introduced legislation that would have afforded the ability of the board of equalization to do that on its own and would have required a legislative vote. a number of folks went to work and that bill was, i won't say killed, but it was held over until next year. however, because of its technical parliamentery nature of the bill, it is still available at any point in time. so, staff and i are recommending an opposed position to reject any ability to change that board of equalization action and go back -- and stay at current law. that would give you the opportunity in the event that the author takes the bill up in the end of session or tries to do something early next year, we would have an opposed position approved if you so concur. those are the two bills where we have new positions to present to you. i have talked from time to time about sb 11 and ab8. those are measures that would extend the carl moyer funding as well as ab 118 funding. some of that money is very important to projects here in san francisco. we have been supporting it and i'm happy to report that sb 11 by senator paply has continued to move and is now in the assembly and it has not been set for a hearing but it is intended to be heard very shortly. the dent companion bill identical ab8 by assembly member parea didn't make it out of the assembly. there was a short matter when the house was going to take it up. it can still by virtue of its parliamentery condition still be taken up at any time in the assembly so it may well move, but people may defer to sb 11. so, those bills are -- at least one of those bills is moving and i'll just make this last note on sb 11. it did enjoy half a dozen republican votes. kind of the last time we've seen a tax measure with somewhat of a bipartisan vote. so, i have a pretty good hopes that one or the other of those bills will go to the governor and thus replenish the carl moyer funding in the future. in terms of the budget, there are a cup of items of particular interest. one was the proposal by the end administration to consolidate a number of programs, safe routes to school, bike facilities, the environmental mitigation fund into a single acts of transportation program mirroring what had happened in map 21. but at the state level for state resources. ~ and the administration ran into some opposition from the bike pit organizations around the state. there were some aspects of the proposal that they didn't like. the workout as adopted last night was to go ahead and approve the appropriations, about 130 million for the next year for this new program, but not provide the program parameters until later legislation is adopted after a stakeholder meeting is convened by the transportation agency sometime in august. so, there's more work to be done on that. the appropriation is good, but now to get the framework in place we'll need to do legislation and have the governor approve it. so, that's work yet to be done this summer. i talked also from time to time about the cap and trade and, you know as you know it's gone from a billion dollar proposal a year and a half ago. it was updated this year by the governor to be a lesser amount reflective of the auction revenues from cap and trade coming in at a lower level than had originally been projected. closer to about half a billion for the remainder of this year and through next year. and then in the may revision, the governor did propose in lieu of expending those funds for greenhouse regas reduction purses, instead that money be loaned to the general fund. the senate had adopted the governor's proposal ~ after much consideration. the assembly took a different approach. they said, well, we'll agree to 400 million of the 500 million being parked in the general fund for a year, but wanted to expend the $100 million. as a result of yesterday's in a moment of a larger scale of budget agreement, one element of that was simply to agree by all parties that a half billion dollars that the governor is projecting would be loaned to the general fund and the assembly proposal is off the table now. ~ moment there's probably a lot of reasons why the governor is pushing for that, some of which could have to do with pending lawsuits and concern about making appropriations, expending the funds, and having a legal action in an adverse way and requirements that and obligation the state would be under at that point in time. so, with that uncertain if i i think he's taken a prudent course. it's disappointing a lot of agentv size would like to put that money to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions throughout the state, but nevertheless the governor has prevailed at this point in time. finally, there was a proposal aligned with a public/private partnership affiliated with the long beach port courthouse project under the department of general services. it went beyond simple reporting like you normally see and would have imposed upon the p-3 regime that's available to transportation agencies. some significant new hurdles, some burdens. we were at the forefroth of resisting that under the theme that we wanted to keep as many financing tools available. ~ forefront and i'm happy to report as of last night i was informed but all four leader's offices that is off the table now thev so, the current p-3 tool would remain available without incumbrance of a new bureaucratic process for projects to be put through. so, with that, i'd conclude my report and ready for any questions you might have. >> thank you. colleagues, are there any questions? ~ on this item? seeing none, okay. we can take public comment. public comment is open on this item. okay. seeing that there's no public comment, thank you so much for your presentation. public comment is closed. [gavel] >> may i have a motion -- actually, this is an action item. commissioner chiu. madam collect, could you please read item number 3? >> item 3 is approved without objection. >> yes, please. item number 2 is approved without objection. >> item 4, [speaker not understood] services contract with mark thomas and company incorporated 123,0 70 to a total amount ton exceed [speaker not understood] for the folsom street off ramp realignment project and authorizing the executive director to modify noncontract terms and condition. this is an action item. >> great, thank you very much. good morning. >> good morning, chair cohen, commissioners. my name is luis [speaker not understood], project management consultant to the authority. the folsom rams project is a project that is part of the transbay redevelopment program. the purpose of the project is to realign the off ramp at folsom and fremont. as you see in this -- as you see in this drawing, the ramp on the right side crosses the whole block 8, making it hard to develop that block. and, so, the purpose of this project is basically to realign the ramp, having the ramp that now goes to folsom run parallel to the one on fremont. [speaker not understood] as shown in this drawing. in september 2007, the san francisco redevelopment agency entered into an agreement with the authority for managing this project. basically the job of the authority was to conduct a solicitation to hire a consultant and to manage the process with the consultant ands caltrans. in february 2008, the authority ~ entered into a contract for $200,000 with mark thomas and company for doing the planning, environmental, and engineering services for the project. however, before the project was completed, the state decided the redevelopment agency in 2011, therefore the project was put on hold. now having completed its reorganization, the successor agency to the redevelopment agency wants to complete the design. unfortunately, in the time the project was with on hold, caltrain issued a new set of regulations that were not in effect at the time, at the time the design was ongoing. so, this additional services that are needed to complete this design -- >> what exactly are those new set of regulations? can you briefly describe them? >> well, the regulations about the ramps, how they operate, the lights, because this is going to be a signal at the intersection. so, there's a series -- they do this from time to time, they reissued the guidelines. and if you want more detail, we have the engineers from matt thomas here that can answer na question if you like. on april 30th, the successor agency's board ~ approved an moa with the authority for conducting the completion of the design and for reimbursing the authority for this work. ~ na, that and this amendment is required under that contract to add the $123,000 and extend to july 2014 completion of the project. as mentioned earlier, all the costs of the project will be reimbursed by the successor agency so it's no prop k money, no authority money will be used for this on this project. and finally, this contract has a 235% dbi goal and this has exceeded that at 28%. so, that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. there are representatives from mark thomas here and also the redevelopment agency or the successor agency to the redevelopment agency to answer any questions you may have. >> i have a question for the representative from the successor agency. thank you. hi, how are you? >> hi. >> maybe you can describe to me a little about the financing. i understand no prop k dollars are going to be paying for this, but how is this money going to move, i guess, is a way to describe it? >> sure, commissioners. mike rizzo, we're called the office of community investment and infrastructure now, successor agency to the redevelopment agency. this project not only the work that [speaker not understood] told you about [speaker not understood] is being funded by ponds issued by the redevelopment agency in 2009. it's tax increment funding which is how we're funding most of the improvements in the transbay project that are under our jurisdiction. >> okay, thank you. this is great. colleagues, do any of you have any questions on this item? okay, seeing nothing, no questions from the colleagues, let's take public comment. okay, no public comment. public comment is closed. [gavel] >> is there a motion on this item? >> so moved. >> thank you, commissioner chiu. without objection, this item is closed. [gavel] >> madam clerk, could you please read item number 5? >> item number 5, recommend authorizing the executive director to execute annual contract renewals with city and county of san francisco departments, exercise contract options for various annual professional services in an amount not to exceed $960,116 and modify noncontract material [speaker not understood]. this is an action item. >> thank you very much, ms. fong. >> good morning, cynthia fong [speaker not understood]. this is 39 of your packet. [speaker not understood]. this is ongoing [speaker not understood]. the work value staff for the year and any specialized skills the consult apt may bring to the table. on page 43 of your packet we have a table of the proposed fiscal year 13-13%backer14 professional service expenditures. this table will show you the five different -- i'm sorry, the six different contracts we're seeking approval for. the type of service that they provide, the previous year contract amount, the increase or decrease in this to the 13-14 contract amount. what the proposed 13-14 contract amount would be. how we procured and how many contract options we have for each of these contracts. the dbe, lbe, udbe goal that was set when this contract was out for an rfp or whatever the basis was at the start of the contract. and the up to date dbe and lbe percentages to date. the first contract we have up for renewal is the contract with the office of the city attorney. the city attorney provides contract advice, general advice, advice on labor matters, as well as advice on projects like van ness brt. the contract amount for if itionv axal year 12-13 is 06,000. we're not looking for any increase but to maintain this level and for fiscal year 13-14, and we'd like to seek recommendation for 60,000 for this coming year. we also have annual renewal for the department of technology. the department of technology provides video production services for the authority committee and board meetings. they're working right now during this committee meeting. the contract amount for fiscal year 13-14 is $29,6 16. we're seeking no increase. we'd like to remain at 29,6 16 dollars. the next contract we have up for renewal is the [speaker not understood] llp. they assist us during committee meetings. we have stan taylor sitting in the audience today. they also assist us in presidio parkway, advice on yerba buena island's geary and and van ness brt, other projects we have occurring during the year. >> is this in addition to the city attorney's office, specialized in -- >> specialized transportation matters. this is one we seek not advice or many times there may be a conflict of interest if we were to use a city attorney. >> how often do we have a conflict of interest? >> we feel do have some at least once per year. we're working with other city departments on various projects. they may use the city attorney to represent them. the authority uses [speaker not understood] just to get a different perspective to do a cross-check on any matters that may come before them. >> can you explain to me why you're asking for a $57,000 indrapes? >> this year for fiscal 13-14, our major project will be the treasure island yerba buena island project. we've been using [speaker not understood] to help us with all the utility agreement, the contract terms, basically setting this project out. 75,000 will be funded by moa through tida and through state and legal -- state and federal funds. that's mainly the reason why we're increasing it because we're forcing an increase in leads for legal services. >> so, what is the added benefit [speaker not understood], you need more time is that why you're increasing this? >> yes, we're entering into the construction fay, phase, right-of-way phase, reviewing of contract documents, any documents associated with the navy, the utility agreements, land agreements, property, title, transfers in using them for the last few years, ever since the project was started. tida's other party we were working with, tida is using their city attorney to represent them and all of these agreements that they review. so, we just feel that it's best to get a different perspective, have someone else since we have a contract [speaker not understood] to review the documents and frame other benefits to the table. >> so last year, or the previous contract we entered in was for -- i don't have the amount in front of me, $350,000. >> yes. >> was that completely exhausted? did we use that, all of the money that was allocated? >> we will be using all the money by the end of this month. >> so does it carry forward? >> yes. >> we don't use everything from last fiscal year, it carries forward into like a surplus into our -- >> why. >> reserve, >> right. and we're able to rebudget that amount for the next fiscal year and carry that balance forward to fiscal year 13-14. >> so, how much do you anticipate us carrying forward? >> we won't be carrying very much. we'll exhaust the contract as expected by june 13th. ~ june 30th. >> okay. >> so, the next contract we have is with sppj consultant. they are our in-house local area network and computer maintenance staffer. we have them come to our office as needed to assist with any of these types of issues instead of using permanent in-house staff. contract amount is $165,500. and we're not seeking any increase for the fiscal year 13-14 contract. >> so, do we actually use this consultant? >> yes, we do, in particular -- particularly last year since we moved offices, they were able to take our servers, network set up and move it into the new office. we need to use them from the very beginning from when we started planning for the move so we can properly get us working when we first move in. the move took four days. we were only off line for one day on saturday, and this is the consultant who brought us back up on line. >> what about the year before when we weren't moving? >> oh, when we weren't moving, we have regular maintenance for computer related items. we have them work on various updates and projects, software updates, use, bringing in new computers, just general maintenance of the computers. >> and, so, this service goes above and beyond the in-house folks that you already employ? >> the in-house folks aren't really computer maintenance and local area network type staff. [speaker not understood] deputy director for technology service. she's the one who takes care of the model, the model at the authority. she doesn't handle any of this type of stuff. that's why we consultant to best use her time. >> why don't we do it in-house? >> the need to have in-house staff to maintain this type of service would cost more to have them on the payroll full time versus contracting with them on an as-needed basis. >> okay. next one. >> next one is contract with [speaker not understood] o'connell. this is our fiscal auditors. they perform our annual audit, single compliance audit [speaker not understood]. we are looking at a contract amount for last year at 149,180. we're decreasing that contract amount to 130,000 because they're less preaward audits to conduct on behalf of caltrans. the next contract we have is a contract with three different firms. it's with nelson nygard consultants, [speaker not understood]. this is a contract for travel demand management consultant services where they're assisting us in -- helping us with the plan to help reduce emission and greenhouse gases and other pollutectiontionv. the contract amount was for 200,000. we're looking to reduce that do 150,000. they currently work on other projects like bayview hunters point and sfgt. the reason for the increase is just the need. we don't need them as much as these projects are wrapping up. >> decrease? >> decrease, thank you. with that -- >> i have a question about the first two. and i believe -- i'm curious to know why there's no dbe, lbe or udbe goals for the city and county of san francisco that relate to the city attorney's office. is it just because it's a city entity? >> yes. >> okay, all right. thank you. >> and if there is thection any other questions, i'll continue on. ~ isn't the cac, this item was brought to the cac on may 22nd and there was unanimous support. [speaker not understood] along with moas established with other city departments. the one i mentioned was tida along with prop k funds. with that i am seeking [speaker not understood] contract renewals in the amount of $960,,116 and modify contract terms and conditions. >> all right, thank you very much. thank you for your brief presentation. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? please come up. good morning, commissioners. my name is jackie sacks. i'm on the citizens advisory committee for the citizens transportation authority. i heard this [speaker not understood] mention, we heard this item last month at our meeting. and having been on the cac as long as i have, i've been involved with the finances and all that. i was the one that moved this forward and i strongly urge you to move this, move this item forward because it's very, it's very important. obviously with all the things [speaker not understood] so i urge you to support it [speaker not understood]. thank you for your patience. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on item number 5? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, do you have any further questions for staff? okay, seeing none, may i have a motion, please? >> so moved. >> thank you very much. it's a unanimous support on that motion to move forward. madam clerk, can you please call item number 6? >> item number 6, recommend adoption of the proposed fiscal year 2013-2014 annual budget and work program. this is an action item. >> thank you very much. >> on item 45 of your packet, this is a look at the 2013-2014 budget. [speaker not understood]. we had a comment from commissioner chiu who requested that we add the broadway chinatown neighborhood transportation plan work to the planning department work plan. there is approximately $60,000 in the budget right now to work on this item, but additional funds will be appropriated. this item will go before cac this month and be brought to the plans and program and full board in the month of july for additional work on this project. commissioner tang also brought an item to our attention, that's ocean and beach traffic analysis. she requested assistance from staff and is working with her and staff in order to meet her request. otherwise, i do have a presentation to walk you through if you like. [speaker not understood] or i can open it up for questions if you have any. >> colleagues, anyone interested in another presentation? okay, looks like i think we'll just open it up for questions. supervisor tang or commissioner tang, no? okay. i think there's no questions here. so, i think there is a motion -- i'm sorry, commissioner tang does having? e ~ something. >> thank you very much, ms. fong. we'll open it up for public comment on this item. again, i urge you all to support this item because one of the proponents of the item is the [speaker not understood] tax packet i helped put together and that i worked on on the subcommittee of the authority. and i strongly urge you all to support this item unanimously. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, ms. sacks. are there any other members of -- got one more, please come up, sir. good morning. my name is lance [speaker not understood]. i'm a resident of north beach. regarding the budget for the transit authority, i'm concerned about funding, the proportion of funds allocated to sfmta or muni. and concern is central subway is absorbing funds out of proportion to its projected rider ship. it's important to allocate funds to the greater muni system and its operation and maintenance and reduce the funding to the central subway which is projected to have only, at most, 5% of muni rider ship. the central subway will also have protected 422 million shortfall over its six year construction. and i'd like to recommend that munich re deuce the central subway spending, including unneeded and wasteful north beach construction [speaker not understood] at $80 million. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item? okay, seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] >> i have a question for you. this list of the budget work program that you said you highlighted, is this a final and comprehensive list? >> yes, it is. >> so, there's no opportunity for any last-minute additions? >> there is opportunity.