Skip to main content

tv   BOS Budget and Finance Committee 42716  SFGTV  May 1, 2016 3:35pm-4:31pm PDT

3:35 pm
>>clerk: accept and expend gift estate of norma parenti laguna honda hospital and rehabilitation center gift fund. >> sponsored by supervisor yee. >> norma parenti requested 26,000. we seek approval to accept this donation. the donation will be deposited in a miscellaneous gift fund and used for special and cultural events, catering, of lunchings and other special needs for our residents. >> can you restate the total amount again? >> the total amount is 26, 6
3:36 pm
>> we can take that without objection. >> madam clerk, is there anything else? >> no, mr. chair. >> okay, we'll see you at 1:00. we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] ligh streets illuminating our ideas and values starting in 2016 the san
3:37 pm
francisco public utilities commission is xhoefl that light with new led with the did i audits for better light for streets and pedestrian and they're even better for this vitally lasting longer and consuming up to 50 percent less energy upgrading takes thirty minutes remove the old street light and repeat 18 thousand 5 hundred times while our street lights will be improving the clean energy will remain the same every san francisco street light is powder by 100 percent godfathers hetch hetchy power in one simple word serious as day turns.
3:38 pm
3:39 pm
3:40 pm
>> good afternoon, everybody rk welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budged and finance committee meeting for april 27, 2016. my name is mark farrell, i will be chairing this committee. i am joupbed by our committee vice chair, supervisor tang tank, 94 man yee and supervisors 94 man kim. madam clerk, any announcements. >> please silence any cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards and any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. actions taken today will appear on the may 3, 2016 agenda unless otherwise stated. >> we have 3 items here, we will be continuing the first two so we will be hearing from dcyf if you kault items 1 and 2 together and we'll continue them. >> item no. 1, hearing to
3:41 pm
receive a budget updot from the department of public health from 2016, 2017 and 2018. item 2, hearing to receive a budget update from the human services agency for fiscal years 2016 to 2017 and 2017 and 2018. >> anyone wish to comment on items 1 and 2 that we will be continuing. colleagues, may i have a motion to continue items 1 and 2 to call of the chair. >> so moved. >> we can take that without objection. >> item no. 3, hearing to receive a budget updot from the department of children, youth and their families and first five commission for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and 2017 to 2018. >> okay, thank you very much. we do have maria sue today to kick off this meeting. thank you for being here.
3:42 pm
>> so good afternoon, chair farrell and members of the budget and finance committee, i am maria sue, i have the privilege of leading the department for children and their families. i will propose to you the budget we presented to the mayor aoffice in february for 2016, 2017 and 2018. cyf brings together city government, schools, community based agencies to help our cities, children youth birth to age 24 and their families lead lives full of opportunity and happiness. back in 1991 the people of san francisco made a unique and historic commitment to ensure that children and families have
3:43 pm
funding that's available to them on a regular basis. they passed the children's amendment and back in november of 2014, that commitment was renewed through the children and family first initiative and that was passed by nearly 75 percent of our voters in the city. the revamped children and family first initiative included several upgrades. it included increase of the fund, it extended the eligible age for services up to age 24 and that includes services for our disconnected transitional he youth. it created a 5 year planning cycle, it established an oversite and advisory committee, created a service provider working group, and most importantly, it extended the children and youth fund for 25 years. once again i just want to thank the members of the board, the mayor's office and other community stake holders in
3:44 pm
helping to ensure we pass this very important legislation. so i want to provide you an overview of our budget proposal in very extensive detail here. i think most importantly i want to call your attention to the expenditure line. >> sfgtv, can we cover the monitor? >> most importantly, i want to call your attention to our two largest budget line items. the first one is grants to cbo's and the second one is work order expenditures. all these work orders to other city departments result to tlepl doing services to cbo's. we do this primarily to leverage our sister cities expertise. we send funds over to the department of mental health it provide mental health services in our public high schools as
3:45 pm
well as violence prevention strategies. we partner with first five san francisco and the human services agency. the other highlight on this slide is the children and youth fund revenues. and as ux see, the funds are growing and that's because of the scheduled growth that was written inside the charter. and i will be focusing the rest of my time on details of our grant making since that is the core of our function. last year, fiscal year 2014-2015, dcyf allocated approximately $20 million to serve 20,000 individuals in the city. that's over 450 programs. due to the scheduled increase that i had referenced earlier, we are looking at almost $18 million of
3:46 pm
unprogrammed funds over the next two years and we are working very closely with our stake holders, including our staff, our grantees and our oversight and advisory committee to determine the most appropriate ways to allocate these funds for vital children's services. i want to note that due to timing constraints we have already moved forward in allocating additional dollars to fund summer programs because as we all know, summer for our school district is going to happen next month, it's going to start next month, so we wanted to work closely with our cbo's to make sure they had the resources necessary to hire up, prepare and train more young people in their programs. we also awill he -- allocated more funds for tay services.
3:47 pm
we felt confident we would be able to quickly bring on the additional number of proposals that we receive through the rfp process. once again last fiscal year, fiscal year 14-15, dcyf allocated approximately $60 million for direct service grants. as you know, the primary areas of dcyf funding are early care and education, youth employment, youth empowerment, teen afrses, health and wellness and violence prevention. our investments are holistic offering aefrs to enhance learns while also creating healthy family and environments to support our young people. both direct grants and work orders to other city departments including first five, office of early care and education, department of public health and the human services agency ends up resulting in
3:48 pm
grants to nonprofit agencies. the pie chart here shows age information about the youth we serve. of note, the bulk of our services currently go towards school aged children, so 50 percent of our budget goes toward school aged children, but due to the new legislation changes we are going to start focusing on services for the 18 to 24. the other piece that you don't see on this chart is the birth to 5 population, and that's because we send our funds over to the office of early care and education and they are the ones who manage those funds on our behalf. then finally i want to share with you a graph of the race/ethnicity information that our nonprofit agencies are providing. we measured this,
3:49 pm
we measure our population served against the school district's population and the city's overall children population and i think of note here is that although the city has 7 percent of our city children are african american and 10 percent goes to our public schools, our cbo's, our nonprofit agencies are serving 16 percent of our african american young people and the same goes for our asian pacific islanders, 31 percent live in the city, 41 percent goes to our school districts and we are serving 38 percent of our api young people and our latino young people, 23 percent live in the city, 30 percent goes to the school district, 29 percent are served in our programs. and you can read the rest. in closing, we strive to make san francisco a great place to grow up and we look forward to working with all members of the board of supervisors to ensure that we will have sufficient
3:50 pm
resources to make this happen. and with that i am going to close and end my presentation and i am available for questions. >> thank you, miss sue. colleagues, any questions or comments on the budget for miss sue at all? okay, well, thank you for being here. appreciate it. i look forward to the continuing discussions as we get into the heart of budget season here. >> thank you so much for the opportunity. >> i'm sorry, are we having a separate first five? okay,
3:51 pm
great. >> hi, i'm ingrid mosquito with first five. thank you for having our presentation done separately, although i think we could have combined it with dcyf our presentation is going to be very brief because we are, a lot of our work really is, we're interdependent with the other city departments, the department of children youth and families, the office of early education as well as the department of hub health. first five, which i actually provided you copies of our presentation, has just gone through a strategic planning
3:52 pm
process and for the next 5 years our focus is really gooing to be much more laser focused as we are driven by our values, we're really honing in not only of our values but our mission and that is going to influence the impact areas that we're going to be working on for the next five years. as many of you know, first five was created back in 1995 by prop 10, the tobacco tax. when it first started the collection of that revenue was considerable. the idea behind tobacco tax was that there would be actually less smokers and there's been a lot of success in that. the consequence to it is that there's less state tax revenue
3:53 pm
and so with first fives across the state are experiencing the same tax base decline. and so for, we have developed a financial plan that looks out into not only 5 years but 10 years out and also looking at the projections for that tax revenue as it declines. much of our organizational strategy is going to focus around being very strategic around what we fund, not only in the near future but in the next 10, 15 years out. so we consider ourselves being a much more strategic funder and invester, really focusing on areas that we can have the most impact with and in order to make that impact we actually have to be sort of thinking partners along with the larger city departments that can have the
3:54 pm
resources to be able to do that. so for the next few years, what we have done is leveraged other city resources and as you can see in the following chart, which is our two year budget outlook, our prop 10 allocation, as i explained earlier, is on a little bit 6 a short decline. for this year our funding was 5.ate, we expect in 16-7 for it to be 5.3 and in 17-18, 5.1. we also receive grants from first five california and we expect a little bit over ar million dollars over the next 3 years in each fiscal year. we piloted a federal grant which was a race to the top, it was to implement a quality rating and improvement system. the state of california is now
3:55 pm
starting to fund the quality rating and improvement system as that federal grant has phased out, so the next line item is those state grants for the quality rating and improvements system. we do have to use our reserve because of the tax revenue decline. we actually set up a reserve over 10 years ago and so every year we use a little bit of that reserve with the expectation that that reserve will be depleted. like many other departments we actually have work orders with the department of children youth and families, the human services agency and the mayor's office of early care and education. so our total budget for 16-17 is a little bit over 28 million versus what we have this year, 15-16, of 15 million. and that variance is mostly due to our transition of the preschool for all
3:56 pm
initiative over to the mayor's office of early care and education. and so a major expenditure's, at least in 15-16, have been around early childhood and that again because of the preschool for all initiative. in outer years that will be managed by the office of early care and education. we still are going to be the lead for the family resource initiative in the city and again that partnership includes the human services agency and the department of children, youth and familiarly. and just to show our just prop 10 revenue and how that is categorized, we are going to be leading -- well, co-leading -- with the office of early care and education but our investments in child development are going to be honed in in the further development of the quality
3:57 pm
rating and improvement system. that investment is going to be over $3 million dollars in early childhood health, home visiting, inclusion for children special needs, house screenings and also san francisco's own healthy kids program through the department of public health and family support. so this actually this slide actually just highlights the prop 10 or state funding. and that is it. >> okay, supervisor yee. >> thank you, ingrid, for your presentation. i'm curious, in terms of the human services agency funding of $4 million or so, i didn't hear what you said that was for. >> that's for the family resource center. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, any further questions? comments? okay, thank you for being with us
3:58 pm
today, miss sue, we look forward to continuing conversations as we go forward here. with that'll open up on public comment on item 3. anyone wish to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, likewise, can i receive a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> motion byee ?oo ?a item 4, resolution approving and authorizing the execution through the tax exempt revenue commercial paper certificate of participation and tax exempt and/or taxable direct placement resolving certificates of participation in a combined aggregate principal of amount not to exceed $260 million to provide interim financing for
3:59 pm
phase i of the transbay transit center project frplt item 5, ordinance appropriating 260 million, item 6, resolution determining that certain property in the future annex area namely assessor's parcel block no. 3721, is annexed to the city and county of san francisco community facilities district no. 2014-1. >> i just want to acknowledge the work of many different agencies to bring forward this solution. it took place over many, many months but i do want to recognize been rosenfield from the controller's office, nadia sesay as well as our staff at the transbay office,
4:00 pm
thank you for taking on the leadership during this time of transition and of course to our community director, scott lay, who is also here. i think this is a good balance and a partnership along with the metropolitan transportation commission to help make sure that the transbay joint powers authority is able to complete this project on time and able to solve the cash flow issues in the midst of the construction while we await future land sales that are dedicated to the construction of the terminal and of course eventually to phase ii of the downtown extension of caltrans. so i believe the presentation is with the controller's office. >> mr. rosenfield. before we begin, i apologize, supervisor wiener is on the mic. >> thank you, mr. chair. i also want to thank everyone who was able to make this
4:01 pm
happen. it's actually, we're making the best of a bad situation where we have a project that incurred substantial cost overruns and where we've really already, frankly, stepped in and taken over a lot of the project management so that we can make sure that we don't continue to have the progress problems the transbay joint powers have experienced. i don't think any of us ever wanted to be in a position where the city and county of san francisco was acting as back stop to the tune of a quarter billion dollars for something that is basically a regional project. that's why we created the transbay authority because it is a regional project but sometimes we have to step in and solve a problem that was not of the city's making and we're doing that because this project, the
4:02 pm
transbay transit center, is so critically important to the future of transportation of this city and this region. it is going to be at the heart of our future transportation network as the region grows by two million people, the heart of our rail network. so we have to get this done. because of the cost overruns in building the transit center, because of the cost overruns incurred by the tgpa, we are now having to use funds to help complete phase i that is not a good result but it's a situation that we face given the management and cost management of the project by the tgpa, so we're stepping in
4:03 pm
to fix that. this morning i was down at san jose at our monthly mtc meeting and we voted unanimously to loan a hundred million dollars or purchase a hundred million dollars worth of the cop's from the city so the mtc has played its role in helping clean up this bad situation. now it's our turn as a city. >> okay, thank you , supervisor wiener. i hesitate to call ben rosenfeed up. >> ben rosenfield. (inaudible) mayor lee, supervisor kim and wiener and supervisor david compos, our office has been working on this interim breach financing package for many months now.
4:04 pm
it endeavors to solve a gap that has become apparent on this project totaling will $250 million. we're somewhat reluctant to bring this forward in the sense it is an unusual place for the city to be stepping in to effectively provide the funding solution for another governmental entity, but at the same time we do think the package that our office, working with tjpa staff and the mtc, has pulled together minimizes risks to our government and to the mtc while providing a financing vehicle frankly that's necessary to complete this project that is well underway and in construction in downtown san francisco. with that brief introduction, though, i will turn things over to sarah deboard and nadia sesay that can walk through the challenge and the proposal we have for you. >> good afternoon, supervisors,
4:05 pm
sarah deboard. i know you are all familiar with the transbay project, but just a brief refresher. we are building a multi level transit center in downtown. included in phase i is building the core and shell of the train box, first and second levels with formation, ticketing, retail, a bus deck level for ac transit and muni from treasure island to come in from the bay bridge and of course the roof top park. sfgov tv, can we put this on the screen? this is a map of the project area. the blue highlighted parcels show the parcels that were transferred from caltrans as part of the co-op agreement between the city, caltrans and tjpa transfer of this land has enabled us to, in cooperation pars3
4:06 pm
with oc in 2010 we received a 400 million grant be that allowed us to move construction of the train box from phase ii to phase i. previously before receipt of that grant the train box was going to be built later under a more difficult construction method. in 2013, following receipt of multiple s that were overestimate largely due to very active construction market in the area, we increased the budget to 1.9 and then in late 2015, as i believe you are all aware, the mtc
4:07 pm
conducted a cost review and came to a final cost estimate of 2.59 billion, which is an increase. this slide states the reasons mtc included in their report for the recommendation of the 360 million dollar increase. i would like to note all of our now interim executive director, as well as the dpw staff person working with our project now both have no intention of needing to spend $360 million to finish phase i and both with state today that they believe they can finish phase i with just about 260 million of that 360 million increase, thereby saving a hundred million for phase ii. this slide shows our myriad and various funding sources. we have a federal grant, we
4:08 pm
have multiple fta grants, we have sales tax from san francisco and san mateo, bridge tolls, a federal tifia loan, land sales and tax increment. this shows how we get to the 247-250 million need. the difference between the 2013 budget and the mtc recommendation is the 360 million. a parcel s sale will close within the next month or two and provide approximately 160 million, which gives us a net shortfall of 200 million. however, we had previously anticipated receiving about 194 million in cfd special tax proveeds. the city has updated those projections and they have come down to 146 million that's expected to be received during the construction period, so we also have a shortfall that, 47 1/2 million, and that gives us
4:09 pm
the 247.5. we anticipate meeting most of that in near near 17 and that would be calendar year 2017, i anticipate, before we need to draw down on any city financing and then a small remainder to the extent it's needed in fiscal year 2018. and with that i will turn it over to nadia >> good afternoon, supervisors, nadia sesay, office of public finance. in working with the mtc, as well as the tjpa with several option it was clear that tjpa on its own would not be able to seek financing on the market so the city is proposing this structure. what the city is proposing, in partnership with mtc, is to provide short term interim financing to fund the 247.5 million in shortfalls just
4:10 pm
talked about. that would result in a not to exceed amount of 260 million in short term financing. it would be a variable rate financing and the intent would be to draw in kind and amounts necessary to meet the funding needs of the project. additionally mtc as a sister agency will be purchasing a hundred million of the 260 million in proceeds to hold as an investment through a competitive that we con did you telled in january we were able to get 7 s and wells fargo was the current low bidder, so we are working with them on getting the 160 million of the remainder amount. i think what is interesting of mtc they are willing to go for a term of 5 years, where the normal term is 3 years. the other interesting factor is mtc is willing to stay with the city for up to 10 years depending on the timing
4:11 pm
of revenues generated within the district. as a result the differential between the two facilities is 5 basis points to allow for the three sets of 5 year differential as well as mtc taking up (inaudible) to wells fargo. sarah alluded to transbay is also funded by a tca loan, and that is a loan secured i think in 2012 that is secured by future increment generated by sale of parcels. we've been working with tjpa and the idea would be the city's short term financing would be on parity. as you know we also have cfd oh proceeds. the board of supervisors approved the formation of tfd for authorization to issue up to
4:12 pm
1.4 billion secured by special taxes within the district, so those would be made available to pay down the outstanding loan amount as well as the tax increment being used to pay interest on the outstanding short term certificate. as you know, the fact that the city is using its general fund credit as a security for the transaction, if the revenues that are projected do not come in the city general fund will have to step in to secure that. on the next slide i will talk about some of the analysis we've done to make sure at least we're covered and that we have protected the general fund from having to front the dollars up. the idea would be that this is short term, thinking it would be 5 to 10 years. before up to 10 years the intent is that we take it up with long-term financing, most likely the tjpa
4:13 pm
tax implement within the district have matured. as part of this interim financing as well the city is proposing a cost review committee and that got approve ds at the tjpa board meeting early this month and additionally the public works is also providing construction management oversight and that agreement was approved on april 22nd. and just, the budget analyst has recommended that we acknowledge that approval in our recommendation and we're accepting that recommendation. the next slide is simply to demonstrate that we've done extensive analysis. as you know, the extensive, the cfd revenues, professional tax revenues as well as net tax interim revenues that are supposed to be generated within the district as well as the
4:14 pm
redevelopment plan area, what this is showing there's sufficient revenues showing they're just not coming in the time frame needed to complete the project by 2017. so the intent would be what we've been able to demonstrate through due diligence if revenues come in in the time frame we anticipate, we would be able to take out the financing in 5 to 6 years. if the recession based on some analysis we did with professional, it would last an additional 3 years. at most it should not be holding the paper for longer than 10 years, hence the partnership with mtc where they have agreed to stay with us for 5 years with an renewal of an additional 5 years within the district to mature. the next slide shows just the uses. the a typical format, it shows you a not 20 exceed
4:15 pm
amount of 260 million, it also shows you while providing (inaudible) as well as mtc's hundred million and the 247.5 million for the project and cost of issuance and then some reserve for market uncertainties. this is a variable rate debt, it is tied to (inaudible) plus a spread. we know there will be fluctuations in interest so we wanted to allow the greatest flexibility in meeting those needs. we've done extensive analysis and due diligence. there is other things we should consider as we're moving along. if development doesn't occur in the time frame that we anticipate, the city will be left holding on to a higher outstanding amount for a longer period of time. we know we've tried our best as a city to really get costs by all the mtc review that's wepb done to date, the public works
4:16 pm
partnership with the tjpa to deliver the project and we also created the cost review oversight committee to address and make approved change orders and so on, so those are things we've tried to address. those are things we'll have to keep an eye on as we move along. additionally we know by providing these fundings up front, over 600 hill 81 from phase ii is shall pushed to phase i, so it means the project revenues available for phase ii are reduced by that amount. the next slide is the last item. if you recall the board had approved the cfd district as part of the approval they also approved a future annexation of parcels within cfd it turns out a portion of parcel f, which is owned by
4:17 pm
tjpa now, we're trying to annex that into the district and the document allows that unanimous approval (inaudible) annexation for the district. so tjpa has done so and this is simply acknowledging that the board acknowledging such annexation. what that means is parcel f, which is supposed to be coming in partnership with block 4, the developer that is purchasing will get the entire parcel. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. and we also have (inaudible) from mtc who is available to answer any questions. thank you for your partnership with the city. >> thank you, supervisor tang tank. >> i wanted to echo my colleague's comments to everyone who is involved in
4:18 pm
this difficult situation. i know on page 6 of the presentation you went over -- this may not be a question for nadia per se, it may be for other staff. but i know there was the list of reasons why there were the cost increases but i would like to drill down on that a little bit more and find out what led to all of these factors leading to the increases and how do we think that the new oversite committee will help address this for the future. >> good afternoon, i'm mark daniel, interim director next week, i'm on probation this week. >> congratulations. >> thank you. i do first want to start by thanking supervisor kim for her leadership and the tjpa board for providing me with the opportunity to be interim director. i do intend to deliver this project by the end of december 2017, advanced stage 2, working collaboratively with the department of public works
4:19 pm
manager rhonda lamida there are several factors that led us to where we're at right now. i can't assign any particular percentage or number to what led to what, but i can tell you in ranking overall the core estimate was the major driver of the cost overrun. our estimate did not reflect market kpbs, was not adjusted properly to keep up with the market. the second driver is the complex design and the construction market itself. our design is pretty complex, pretty unique, and the construction market in the transbay district, as you know, is very busy, which limited the amount of contractors willing to on the project. so we were having several s that came in
4:20 pm
with only one or two s, versus three or four s that normalize the costs and having only one or two s toward the margins, very high. in summary that's what led us to where we are now. >> even with an oversight committee do you think those same factors many impact phase ii? >> i think we're going to be working very closely with the cost committee. when we move on to phase ii we're going to make sure our cost estimates reflect the market conditions and we need to continue to have a really robust risk management plan to see what's coming out ahead of us and be able to plan ahead and be more proactive. we were less proactive with phase i and wae need to be more proactive as we move on to phase ii. >> i'm glad to see public works will be giving some oversite, that gives us a
4:21 pm
little bit more reassurance. >> yes, they came in about six months ago and we will be working hand in hand to make sure things work out properly and we deliver on time. >> thank you. i guess this might go back to either nadia or ben now in terms of financing. nadia mentioned, i wanted to make sure i had it down on record, what would be the impact of phase ii. 600 million, is that correct? >> over 600 million. >> str some sort of deadline or timeline associated with the tafia loan and when we need to access it before it goes away or as long as we meet the 3 criteria we're able to access it. >> you have until, bryant, complete me if i'm wrong, one
4:22 pm
year after substantial completion of the project. we would plan to access it first, we'll be able to draw down on that once we can demonstrateful project funding to tefia, which we can do once the financing and parcel ask are closed. >> last question, because there is this impact on phase ii, what are some of your initial thoughts about how we're moving 600 million from phase ii to phase i. >> mark has been doing a lot of work on that. >> we started developing a funding plan from phase i to phase ii. it's still in rough development. we hope to share it in the next 2 or 3 months. so we're looking at funding sources and trying to identify additional funding sources.
4:23 pm
we're making progress but we're not ready to present yet. >> thank you very much. . >> colleagues, any further questions right now? okay, mr. rose, your report, please for items 4 and 5. >> mr. chamber and members of the committee, on page twechl of our report we have a table 4 and that shows of the total not to exceed 260 million in financing, 247,500,000 would be for the interim financing of the project and up to 12.5 million to fund the cross issuance and related costs. on page 13 of our report we state that the transbay joint powers authority is responsible for the financing, design, development, construction and operation of this project and due to numerous errors including inaccurate engineering estimates, the cost of phase i of the project has
4:24 pm
risen from 1,189,000 in 2008 to 2,259,216. that's a rise of 190 percent. because of the significant cost we are facing a shortfall to complete the project costs in phase i, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2017. on page 14 of our report we state that given the construction and financial history of this project, coupled with the unique request for the city to provide interim financing for the transbay joint powers authority for phase i of the project, the board of supervisors should have numerous assurances of direct construction, management and (inaudible) of the city and as you know the tjpa has just
4:25 pm
approved an interim agreement with the city department of public works to provide all construction and management and oversight services for the project. so our recommendation, as has been stated on page 15 of our report, we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution filed 16-0364 of the enter governmental agreement between the city and the transbay and dpw to provide construction oversight services for the transbay project. we consider approval of the proposed resolution as amended and the proposed ordinance to be policy decision for the board of supervisors and we'd be happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you, mr. rose. colleagues, any questions for our project analyst? seeing none, why don't we open this up for public comment. anybody wishing to comment on items 4, 5 or 6, please step forward. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, my name is jerry
4:26 pm
kottman, i'm here on behalf of the bay area group. we're not going to say anything against either rangement that would help either one. when we've done it, i will say one word in defense of the existing tjpa and staff, though raised something on the order of 2 billion dollars. they have no fund raising authority of their own, no taxing authority, but they managed to bring in from the state, who is very generous with this property transfer, and the feds, who kicked in somewhere around 600 million dollars, a great deal of the money for this project. i'm not an architect and i'm not going to talk about the architecture, but if the complaint that you have is related to design, it's done. it's finished. right now there's construction management which is in very good interim construction so i doubt the overruns once the business are in are going to be particularly
4:27 pm
horrendous. i'm sure the amount you have set up would be adequate so we're not opposed to that at all. supervisor tang says something that resonates with me. it would be good since there's been so much generalization about these irresponsible overruns and risk management, it would be nice to drill in and see exactly what we're talking about in each case. in many cases there are reasons for those overruns. and i might say one other thing. central subway was back in 2010, its budget went from 1.2 billion to 1.6 billion. that is not solved by a loan, that was solved by a (inaudible) unless you kick in 150 million and mtc did that.
4:28 pm
not alone, it was an allocation. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, i'm tim half, i am been a cassandra about this project, since it was a 1 billion dollar bus terminal with no money for the train. i want to make a couple points. this project is not and never was a city project. the authority was artfully put together to limit the city's influence and information and in fact during may newsom's time the city was frozen out of the project for several years. to the decision makers until very recently were all amateurs. no one had any experience building a building or a public works project and being of the bennightd soles that sat on the board of supervisors didn't know what was going on, were not fully briefed and did not ask serious
4:29 pm
questions because they knew they would get push back. 3, this project suffers from grandiosity. 250 million was spent for a security system that would be fuepb for grand central station in new york, a hundred million was committed to the public ride program that maybe could have been postponed. so you have a whole list of problems that have been listed but also the project suffered from grandiosity. the city spent all the funds put together for the extension and to quote steve heninger, we cannibalized the funds. it is time for us to control this project and figure out what we are going to do with the behemoth of a
4:30 pm
building and we should figure out what we're going to do with it during the period of time where there is no train. there is no money in the future. >> anybody else wishing to comment on items 4, 5 or 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, colleagues, we have in front of us 3 items, budget analyst recommendation on i believe it's just one of them. mr. rose, can you repeat that recommendation, just the item itself? >> mr. chair, members of the committee, on page 15, this is a reference to fall 160364 where we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to reference the addition of the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the transbay joint powers authority and that is for dpw to provide construction and oversight services. they've done that, we believe you should just reference, codify that in writing