Administer Oath of Office to Director Joanne Sanders

Secretary of the District Janet S. Tarantino administered the Oath of Office to Joanne Sanders, appointed to the Board of Directors of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District by the Sonoma County Mayors and Councilpersons Association, representing the County of Sonoma.

Director Sanders addressed the Board and expressed her appreciation at the honor of serving on the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Board of Directors.

Status Report on State/Federal Legislation

Acting General Manager Denis Mulligan reported that the California State Legislature has passed the state budget, and that the budget includes a reduction in funding for public transit.

Mr. Mulligan also reported that on the federal level, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) has passed through both the House and Senate conference committees and is now ready for the President’s signature. He noted that the WRDA includes language that calls for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin the evaluation to take on permanent responsibility for the dredging of the Larkspur Ferry Channel. He noted that if the bill is signed, it would be important for the District’s long-term financial viability, since the costs for disposing of dredging spoils is escalating due to tightening environmental regulations.

Action by the Board – None Required

Approve Participation in the San Francisco City-Wide Energy Conservation Event, Lights Out San Francisco

In a memorandum to Committee, Public Affairs Director Mary Currie and General Manager Celia Kupersmith provided staff’s recommendation to approve participation in the San Francisco City-Wide Energy Conservation Event, Lights Out San Francisco. The report stated that the City and County of San Francisco (City) is participating in a one- hour program similar to what took place last year in Sydney, Australia and have requested, through Director McGoldrick, that the District also participate in this program. The proposal is to have all non-essential lights throughout San Francisco be turned off during one hour on the evening of Saturday, October 20, 2007.

The report also stated that the Lights Out San Francisco program is being developed in support of the City’s efforts to reach their greenhouse gas emissions target of 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels by the year 2012. It has been determined that turning out the lights for this one-hour period throughout the City could result in up to a 15 percent reduction in energy consumed on an average Saturday night. During the Lights Out San Francisco event, free energy-efficient light bulbs will be distributed to City residents. As part of this event, only non-essential, non-safety sensitive lighting at the Golden Gate Bridge would be turned off, similar to what was done during the energy crisis of a few years ago. A copy of the report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Mary Currie summarized the staff report, noting that the time of the Lights Out San Francisco event has been changed from the time first reported to take place between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

Discussion ensued, including the following:

• President Moylan commended Director McGoldrick for providing the opportunity for the District to participate in the Lights Out San Francisco event.

Staff recommended, and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors MOYLAN/COCHRAN to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

The Governmental Affairs and Public Information Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve participation in the City and County of San Francisco city-wide energy conservation event, Lights Out San Francisco, by authorizing staff to turn off all non-essential, non-safety sensitive lighting at the Golden Gate Bridge on Saturday, October 20, 2007, between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

Action by the Board – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

AYES (13): Directors Cochran, Eddie, Grosboll, Kerns, McGoldrick, Middlebrook, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Reilly, Sanders and Stroeh; Second Vice President Ammiano; First Vice President Boro; President Moylan
NOES (0): None

Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Approval to Implement Phase II of the Partnership Program

In a memorandum to Committee, Marketing and Communications Director Kellee Hopper and General Manager Celia Kupersmith presented the results of the Phase I investigation and development of a Partnership Program, the fruition of months of work by staff, the Partnership Advisory Committee and the consultant, Bartram Sponsorship Strategies, Inc. (BSS). The report recommended approval to proceed with Phase II implementation of the Partnership Program, which would entail seeking out and negotiating partnership opportunities, identifying tasks to be undertaken in implementing and administering the program, as well as defining the responsible party for each task.

The report stated that the Board of Directors, by Resolution No. 2006-061 at its meeting of July 28, 2006, approved the issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2007-D-2, Consultant to Provide Development and Implementation of a Corporate Sponsorship Program. Subsequently, the Board of Directors, by Resolution No. 2006-092 at its meeting of November 17, 2006, awarded RFP No. 2007-D-2 to BSS, to undertake Phase I of a potential Partnership Program. At that time, the Board directed that consideration of any sort of partnership program must be sensitive to the fact that the Golden Gate Bridge is a public facility owned and managed by a public agency with the duty to preserve the Bridge’s dignity and safety. In addition, any potential partnership program would have a guiding principle to enhance the value of the Golden Gate Bridge “brand” and its image as an internationally recognized icon of historical engineering and architectural significance. The Partnership Advisory Committee was also established to provide guidance to staff and the consultant during Phase I.

The report further stated that due to the complexity of the subject matter, an Executive Summary of the Phase I findings is being presented at the August 24, 2007, meeting of this Committee. The report noted that in order to provide sufficient time to review the materials presented and to respond to Committee questions and direction, this matter will be presented to the Board at its September 14, 2007, meeting if approved by the Committee.

At the meeting, the Executive Summary was distributed to the Committee. This Executive Summary highlighted the purpose and premise of the potential Partnership Program, outlined the proposed program principles, described what a potential program would look like, presented the proposed valuation for a potential Partnership Program, and identified the resources needed to move forward with the proposed program. Copies of the report and the Executive Summary are available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Chair Boro provided background of the development of a potential Partnership Program, an idea which originated in 2002 during discussions related to the Golden Gate Bridge toll increase and the Strategic Plan for Achieving Long-Term Financial Stability. He noted that at that time, it was suggested by members of the public that the District consider revenue opportunities from non-traditional sources, including a partnership program. He acknowledged the hard work of Marketing and Communications Director Kellee Hopper, Public Affairs Director Mary Currie, General Manager Celia Kupersmith and the members of the Partnership Advisory Committee regarding the development of Phase I of the Partnership Program.

Acting General Manager Denis Mulligan summarized the staff report and introduced Kevin Bartram, Principal of BSS. Mr. Mulligan stated that Mr. Bartram has been assisting the District in determining whether or not a partnership program, similar to those that have been implemented at the Statue of Liberty and the Washington Monument, would be applicable, appropriate and beneficial at the Golden Gate Bridge.

Kevin Bartram stated that the proposed Partnership Program will be known as the “Partnership to Preserve the Golden Gate Bridge,” with the goal to promote the history and preservation of the Golden Gate Bridge and enhance the visitor experience. He described the proposed Partnership Program as a “cause-marketing campaign” that will be to increase public awareness of what it takes to maintain the Golden Gate Bridge. Mr. Bartram stated that a small number of corporations would be recruited as strategic partners, and that these partners would pay an annual fee to the District for various promotional benefits, such as association with the Golden Gate Bridge, appropriate and limited presence in visitor areas, web site presence, as well as bus and ferry ads, only in locations where advertising currently exists. He noted that the proposed Partnership Program will position partners as overall supporters of specific Golden Gate Bridge preservation projects, such as the Main Cable Restoration project, for which a corporate partner will be sought to provide a minimum 10 percent of the estimated $30 million project cost. In addition, the District will seek both corporate and non-profit partners to redevelop the South Visitors Plaza and to support the development of a Golden Gate Bridge interpretive center/museum.

Mr. Bartram guided the Committee through the Executive Summary, describing in detail its sections, as listed below:

Section I:   Join the Legacy
Section II:   Purpose of the Program
Section III:   Premise of the Program – “A World-Class Campaign”
Section IV:   General Program Principles
Section V:   Partner Benefits
Section VI:   Partner Recruitment
Section VII:   Program Levels
Section VIII:   Program Values
Section IX:   Timeline
Section X:   Fiscal Impacts
Section XI:   Conclusion

Mr. Bartram provided the estimated value of the proposed Partnership Program, as follows: 1) First year gross revenue is projected to be $1.3 million; 2) Second year gross revenue is projected to be $2.6 million; and, 3) Third year gross revenue is projected $4 million, then continuing at $4 million per year. He noted that partnerships will be sought with terms of three to five years.

Mr. Mulligan discussed the proposed timeline and fiscal impact for the proposed Partnership Program, noting that approval of Phase II, the implementation phase of the Partnership Program, would result in a fiscal impact of $252,446, including campaign materials, consultant fees and costs of a new Marketing and Communications Specialist position to provide additional staff support.

Discussion ensued, including the following:

• Director McGoldrick made the following comments and inquiries:
  • He inquired as to amount of the District’s annual operating revenues. In response, Joseph Wire stated that the District’s annual operating revenues range between $140 million and $150 million.
  • He expressed his opposition to the proposed Partnership Program, noting that in his opinion, the amount of potential revenue to be gained would not be worth the cost of potentially commercializing such a culturally significant icon.
  • He advocated delaying a decision on such a sensitive matter until after extensive public outreach is undertaken to gauge the public’s response to the proposed Partnership Program.

• Director Middlebrook made the following comments and inquiries:
  • She commended the members of the Partnership Advisory Committee for all the hard work they have done over the past several months collaborating with staff and the consultant on this project.
  • She inquired as to how the advertising component of the proposed Partnership Program would dovetail with the District’s existing bus shelter and bus side advertising programs. In response, Mr. Bartram stated that a certain amount of advertising would be purchased through the proposed Partnership Program, and that the advertising companies currently under contract with the District would be compensated accordingly.
  • She commended the choice of the Golden Gate Bridge preservation projects that would benefit from the proposed Partnership Program, noting that the Main Cable Restoration project is a vital project that needs to be undertaken as soon as possible. She also expressed her support for an interpretive center/museum, which would be an important way to share the history of the Golden Gate Bridge with the public.

• Director Ammiano made the following comments and inquiries:
  • He inquired as to the extent of the public outreach envisioned for the proposed Partnership Program. In response, Mr. Mulligan described the public outreach undertaken to date, which included notification of public meetings, media coverage and web site announcements.
  • He suggested that the District consider holding “Town Hall” type meetings regarding the proposed Partnership Program to seek public comment.
  • He inquired as to how much would be spent administering the proposed Partnership Program before the District would receive any revenue. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that Phase II expenditures would only occur if there is a decision by the Board to continue the program into Phase II, and those expenditures would be offset by monies generated by the program. Mr. Mulligan further stated that until Phase II is approved and undertaken, the District will continue to pay the consultant for his time, under the terms of the Phase I contract.

• Chair Boro noted that the District is still facing an overall budget deficit of $81 million over the next five years, and that any revenue generated by the proposed Partnership Program would serve to reduce that deficit.
  

• Director Reilly made the following comments and inquiries:
• She inquired as to whether the special logo for the proposed Partnership Program would be created by BSS or by the District’s Marketing and Communications Department. In response, Mr. Bartram stated that the logo would be developed by subcontractors under contract with BSS, in cooperation with the District’s Marketing and Communications Department.
• She inquired regarding the ability of corporations to do their own promotion, for example, if Target chooses to be a partner in the Main Cable Restoration, would they have the ability to run their own television commercials and reference their partnership. In response, Mr. Bartram stated that companies that choose a higher level of engagement would be able to promote their association with a project by stating that they are an “official partner of the Partnership to Preserve the Golden Gate Bridge.”

• Director Sanders made the following comments and inquiries:
  • She requested examples of promotional materials for Partnership Programs undertaken for other national landmarks, such as the Statue of Liberty and the Washington Monument. In response, Mr. Bartram described some of the program components created for other landmarks, and stated that examples would be provided to the Board of Directors. He also provided the example of the initial concept for the Main Cable Restoration project, for which an interpretive center, directional signage and/or an informational kiosk would be installed, with appropriate and understated reference to the corporate partner included. He further stated that any such program components would only be temporary and would be removed after the term of the partnership and the completion of the Main Cable Restoration project.
  • She inquired as to whether the Board of Directors would be able to pick and choose between program components, rather than having to choose a single complete package. In response, Mr. Bartram stated that any program components would be chosen through an ongoing process involving staff, BSS and the Partnership Advisory Committee, with final approval by the Board of Directors.
  • She inquired regarding as to whether the proposed new staff position would be responsible for recruiting the necessary high caliber of potential corporate partners. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the consultant would be responsible for recruiting potential partners, and that the District staff position would not be filled until after those partners are selected and revenue is generated from the proposed Partnership Program. He further stated that the District staff position would be responsible for administrative tasks related to the program.

• Director Cochran inquired regarding ancillary income such as merchandise sales to be generated from the Partnership Program. In response, Mr. Bartram stated that the District will be seeking a non-profit partner, potentially the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, to assist the District with ancillary programs such as an interpretive center/museum or merchandise sales.
  

• Director McGlashan inquired as to when the Board would be able to review the list of possible corporate partners, and when the recommendations for the Lead Partner, logo and ancillary partnership program would be presented. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that if the Board chooses to proceed with Phase II of the proposed Partnership Program after appropriate public comment, then the specific program components would be presented first to the Partnership Advisory Committee, then the Governmental Affairs and Public Information Committee and then the full Board of Directors for approval, perhaps by spring 2008.

Public Comment

Marcie Keever and Milo Hanke, members of San Francisco Beautiful, expressed their opposition to any corporate ads on or near the Golden Gate Bridge, and expressed their concerns regarding any attempts to commercialize the Bridge.

Jerry Grace expressed his appreciation for the Golden Gate Bridge, stating that he hopes the Bridge will last for 100 years.

Following an extensive discussion, a motion was made and seconded by Directors McGOLDRICK/AMMIANO to continue the matter of, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Approval to Implement Phase II of the Partnership Program, for 60 days, in order to allow time for further public outreach on the matter.

Failed

AYES (4): Directors Grosboll, Hernández, McGoldrick; Second Vice President Ammiano
NOES (13): Directors Brown, Cochran, Eddie, Kerns, McGlashan, Middlebrook, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Reilly, Sanders and Stroeh; First Vice President Boro; President Moylan

Following further discussion by Committee, a substitute motion was made and seconded by Directors MIDDLEBROOK/McGOLDRICK to continue the matter of, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Approval to Implement Phase II of the Partnership Program, to the Board of Directors meeting of September 28, 2007, in order to allow time for further public outreach on the matter.

Carried

AYES (17): Directors Brown, Cochran, Eddie, Grosboll, Hernández, Kerns, McGlashan, McGoldrick, Middlebrook, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Reilly, Sanders and Stroeh; Second Vice President Ammiano; First Vice President Boro; President Moylan
NOES (0): None

Status Report from the Board Appointee on the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA)

Chair Boro, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) Board Appointee, provided a status report on recent activities of the WTA. The following items were provided to the Committee:

1.   Minutes of the March 22, 2007, meeting of the WTA Board of Directors;
2.   Agenda for the April 26, 2007, meeting of the WTA Board of Directors;
3.   Minutes of the April 26, 2007, meeting of the WTA Board of Directors;
4.   Agenda for the May 24, 2007, meeting of the WTA Board of Directors;
5.   Minutes of the May 24, 2007, meeting of the WTA Board of Directors;
6.   Agenda for the June 28, 2007, meeting of the WTA Board of Directors;
7.   Minutes of the June 28, 2007, meeting of the WTA Board of Directors;
8.   Agenda for the July 26, 2007, meeting of the WTA Board of Directors;
9.   Minutes of the July 26, 2007, meeting of the WTA Board of Directors;
10.   Agenda for the August 23, 2007, meeting of the WTA Board of Directors;
11.   Notice of Rescheduling for the May 9, 2007, meeting of the Planning and Development Committee;
12.   Agenda for the May 16, 2007, meeting of the Planning and Development Committee;
13.   Minutes of the May 16, 2007, meeting of the Planning and Development Committee;
14.   Notice of Cancellation for the June 13, 2007, meeting of the Planning and Development Committee;
15.   Notice of Cancellation for the July 11, 2007, meeting of the Planning and Development Committee;
16.   Agenda for the August 8, 2007, meeting of the Planning and Development Committee; and,
17.   Notice of Cancellation for the September 2007 meeting of the Planning and Development Committee;
18.   Agenda for the May 8, 2007, meeting of the Administrative/Legislative/Finance Committee;
19.   Minutes of the June 13, 2006, meeting of the Administrative/Legislative/Finance Committee
20.   Agenda for the June 12, 2007, meeting of the Administrative/Legislative/Finance Committee;
21.   Minutes of the May 8, 2007, meeting of the Administrative/Legislative/Finance Committee; and,
22.   Notice of Cancellation for the July 10, 2007, meeting of the Administrative/Legislative/Finance Committee.

Copies are available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Chair Boro distributed copies of brochures and reports that were presented to the WTA Board of Directors at its August 23, 2007, meeting. He stated that design work for the South San Francisco terminal site is moving forward, with substantial funding from the Proposition 1B infrastructure bond measure.

Action by the Board – None Required

Public Comment

Public comment was received relative to Agenda Item No. 4, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Approval to Implement Phase II of the Partnership Program, as noted above.

Adjournment

All business having been concluded, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:35 a.m.