availability? second full week of august. >> dandy. [laughter] >> the week of the 12th? chairperson hur: the 13th. that week. it sounded like commissioner renne was not available on the 13th. >> are we talking july? chairperson hur: august. >> i apologize. my phone died, so i do not have my calendar, but i think i am available that week. chairperson hur: we can hold a couple of dates and see. what about the parties? >> the second full week, beginning with the 13th? chairperson hur: not the 13th, but the 14th through the 17th.

>> early in the week is better for me. the 14th would be a preference. i have obligations that week. chairperson hur: is it avoidable? we do not have much time. let's deal with available. >> i am not available on the 17th. >> the 14th or 15th would be preferable for us. either of those dates. >> what date is our regularly scheduled august meeting? chairperson hur: i believe it is the 27. -- 27th. >> it looks like that week from the 14th through the 17th is -- the last two weeks of august, i know are not very good for us. chairperson hur: i am sorry, mr.

kopp. you said? >> i believe that week is ok. the rest of august is problematic. chairperson hur: ok, let us schedule it then. are you talking about daytime availability? one thing i am thinking is, if we can do it during the day, we do it during the day, so we make sure we get it done. >> we will do it during the day, if need be. chairperson hur: ok. >> during the day, i do have a couple of hearings. i have to look and see exactly what dates i have hearings in august, if it is during the day. >> i have a charger if it is an iphone. >> it is a phone i have had problems with, so i think it will take forever. thank you, though. chairperson hur: do the parties

have any unavailability, where absolutely things cannot be moved? >> no. chairperson hur: if you can hold those, why don't we plan to talk on monday? i will talk to the parties about scheduling. we can get a commissioner -- get commissioner liu's calendar and look at when we can have our last meeting on this. commissioner liu: thank you. chairperson hur: any comments from the commissioners or objections from the parties about the schedule we have discussed? >> neither of us is available to consult with you on monday. chairperson hur: ok. we can do it tuesday. >> or tuesday. >> we can work out a time. >> what time are we scheduled to start on july 18 and july 19? chairperson hur: those are

evening sessions, i believe. we have not set a time. that is a good idea. we probably should. why don't we plan to start at 5:00? are you available at that time? >> i do not have a calendar with me. the 19th is a thursday. many times, the room may be taken until 4:30, 5:00. perhaps on the thursday we can start at 5:30. chairperson hur: why don't we do this? we will send out the notice, or you can contact us by cc'ing. we will get it figured out. reserve evenings the 18th and 19th. >> if it is possible, i would

request, when we are hearing witness testimony, if we could be in this room. i know it is limited by availability, but it is better. chairperson hur: i agree with you. this room is much better, and much cooler as well. >> also. chairperson hur: the rooms, apparently are hard to come by. we will do our very best. anything else? ok. as is our practice, i recommend that we take a vote regarding the rulings that the commission has made today. is there a motion to approve, on an interim basis, the rulings the commission made today? commissioner renne: so moved. chairperson hur: all in favor? opposed? ok, the meeting is adjourned.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor wiener: welcome to

the transportation authority finance committee. are there any announcements? >> no announcements. supervisor wiener: can you please call item no. 2? >> this is an action item, approval of the previous meetings minutes. supervisor wiener: any discussion or public comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? second? done without objection. that will be the order. item #3. >> item number three, information item, state and federal legislative update. >> i will give you a brief update and then introduce the legislative advocate in sacramento. several issues are circulating

around the budget legislation. conferees have been working on bills to reconcile the house and senate versions of the reauthorization. they're making formal offers between the chambers. it is unlikely that we will see a bill that is final by the june 30 deadline, meaning it is likely that we will see another short-term continuation and not a longer-term bill until after the november elections. many of the senate proposals are said to be the same as included in 21, the original senate bill. house republican conferees have been reviewing and plan to respond in pieces, but at this point the democratic conferees do not appear to be included in

the negotiations. somewhat undermining the process, john boehner announced that if the bill was not completed by june 30, he would prefer a six month extension to december 31. that would push considerations into a lame duck session following the november elections. pushing the trust fund to the brink of insolvency. these conversations are leading to complicated discussions around the federal fiscal year 13 budget. the house and senate passed the full committee. the senate subcommittee passed bills that would continue appropriation levels at fiscal year 12 levels, which would not be sustainable with highway trust fund revenues anticipated throughout the fiscal year.

the house and senate bills include different funding levels for the new starts program. both the house bill and senate bills are cut to the current proposal of budgeted amounts. with that, i will introduce plans for high-speed rail, cap and trade, and other issues that the state level. thank you. >> good morning, chairman and commissioners. i feel like i am testifying in front of a committee. apologies, a mental lapse. but keeping that has changed legislatively is that the date has passed four bills to come out of the house. a number of the bills that did not move are being washed out of the matrix.

we are not recommending new positions on bills. i do have a couple of bills i want to highlight for your interest. 8057, of which we followed all year, has not been changed. that is the measure that allows or requires the representative on mtc be a resident of san francisco. >> is that a separate -- supervisor wiener: is that a separate hearing? >> yes. supervisor wiener: do you anticipate that moving forward? >> i do. the only entities opposed at this point remained bcdc perspective and solano perspective. no one else seems to have emerged in opposition. talking to the chairman about it, he believed that he could support it as well.

could be a surprise, but i think it is on a good path. i am going to wrap up two budget items. cap and trade is the sale of the additional balance is provided o regulate -- regulated industries auctioned in the open markets to see if the process works, they plan to have a full auction in november. they anticipated about $1 billion in the first year coming from that resource. the legislative analyst said that it could be between 600,000,003 billion. the governor has expressed a path -- preference of maintaining a great deal of control, with at least have dedicated to offsetting general funds, greenhouse gas reduction programs. the legislative analyst to look

at that did not see half of the billion in that kind of expenditure. we are not sure how it will turn on the budget. the legislature has instead said that they would like to do something different. that they would like to have the resources board adapt to an annual program in certain categories, bringing it to the legislature, rather than beating in the government's hands. that will be sorted out this week. the government made his part -- governor made his proposal in the budget. however it has been negotiated as the budget moves forward to a conclusion this week, i believe that it will probably be more in favor of the governor's approach. at a later date, the legislative approach, program allocations will be made, subject to the

third, fourth, and fifth year of cap and trade. the stakes are big. 1 billion is the first year. so, we will have to see how that turns out. in terms of the state budget, in the area of transportation, because of the work we did in the field tax, i mentioned this before, things are favorable in transportation in contrast to prior years. the state transit assistance program is still projected to receive over $400 million to be distributed throughout the operators in the state and there has been no change to that estimate without a proposal to redirect. one interesting area for cities and counties over the last few years, the amount that was supposed to go to local roads was not quite the amount projected.

we could not figure out why, but we now know why. the department of finance is sequestering money attributable to the gas sales tax. motorboats, off-road motorcycles, and the like. that has amounted to about $300 million. it is not subject to the article 19 protections. the legislature seems ok with that. i think that that is going to happen. they also proposed that that continue for several years. i worked with them to impose a sunset on that redirection there for a three-year sunset was imposed and will be imposed, which allows for a new conversation. the budget is clear in three years, when not keep the money in transportation?

there has been a long series of discussions surrounding northern california mou's and how they interfere with the construction projects. the governor said that he would provide funding, but only if his construction segment is funded. i believe that we are at the press of this the day of seeing several things happen in terms of funding for high-speed rail. the assembly budget committee is scheduled to meet sometime today to the call of the chair. it is my belief, and i think i am correct, the governor will get his 5.8 billion federal and state money for the initial segment, allowing that to go forward to contract. i also believe that the mou's will be funded. the no. 4 this region in the southern, to the tune of $1.1

billion, largely for the electrification of caltrans, with 500 million for a series of projects in southern california that would facilitate the blended service concept that the high-speed rail authority has adopted. a more direct, near-term importance to san francisco is a convergence of two things. the transportation commission has been looking at the 1 8 transportation connectivity funds. they were presented on friday. they have been requested and they intend to adopt a program. on that program would be central connectivity funds. i believe that the governor's budget, or the one put out by the legislature will contain the full appropriation for the connectivity money. it will be presented and appropriated by the end of this week.

it looks like a high-speed rail business plan change has facilitated a better reception in the legislature for the different funding strategies. that would conclude my report for today. >> thank you. that is very positive, about high-speed rail. specifically senate bill 878, as related to the metropolitan transportation commission, the mtc i believe will be coming out in opposition on grounds. can you give a brief description of that? >> apologies, i had intended to raise that, as well as bill 49. it was amended during the process by the senate chairman, with much consternation in the region. he eventually agreed to hold the

bill back. creating a regional commission that would have laid over dcdc and the like. he agreed to hold that over with conversations in the interim and come back next year to address where he is trying to go in a more collaborative approach. surprise, june 4, we woke up to see the amendment to provide for the joint -- i always forget the name of it, the jpc, established under legislation a year or two ago. under the new bill, that would require them to develop economic strategies, in essence what the bill would require. there is a feeling for those working on 1149, we thought that the entire discussion would be put off until next year.

the appearance of 878 midstream, with timing for a committee meeting, has brought consternation in the region. >> -- supervisor wiener: i have asked the staff make a full agenda on this for the mta and i hope that staff recommends opposing 78. >> i will write an analysis of that for the staff. supervisor wiener: questions? supervisor mar: i know that the senator presented to the joint policy committee a few weeks ago, where he said he would withdraw his legislation, a 1149. i think that he held it in committee, which pretty much killed it. but 878 is still moving forward and there are still questions over the relocation of the empty building to san francisco. is that right?

>> that measure is still in play. i forget the number of the top of my head, but that measure is alive and viable. he is pressing for the auditor general's report. the financing structure and the appropriateness of that investment. so, that is out there. 878, as i indicated, is alive. was in position when he gutted and amended it. 879 is formally dead by virtue of not having passed the june 1 deadline. which does not mean that i do not think he would at some point, but he would not have the parliamentary ability. i think he is not going to do that in an occasion other than what he has done with 878. >> any other questions or comments? any public comments? supervisor wiener: seeing no one, public comment is closed.

this was an information item. please call item no. 4. >> item #4. recommend affirming the executive director's prior authorization to substitute the existing credit facility for the $200,000,000 commercial paper program, and approving and authorizing the execution of a new credit facility agreement with wells fargo bank, national association, the amendments to the associated legal documents, and all actions necessary in connection with such amendments . this is an action item. >> good morning, commissioners. as you may remember about this item, before the committee in february of 2012, it was to allow the director to substitute the 200 million commercial paper line of credit. at the time, we were concerned that the current line of credit was not at its best. we were expecting it to be downgraded and we anticipated it would need to go out for rflp. we went out for one in december

2011 and received six proposals from various banks in january of 2012. the following six were partnered with the bank of tokyo. goldman sachs partner with [unintelligible] corporation. wells fargo responded to our rfc. bank corp. responded. bank of the west, jpmorgan partnered with u.s. bank. each offered a one year or three year term, with fees ranging from 45 to 100 basis points. each offered liquidity or a letter of credit -- credit. we were able to negotiate with wells fargo bank for a lower basis point on fees, but wells fargo had the most changes to their authority. we were able to negotiate fees down. they have the highest credit rating amongst the six banks. with the letter of credit, wells

fargo bank's would be responsible to pay for interest and principles on the investment holders. with a lot of credit that is an investment, the investors would be looking to the authority to pay when the commercial paper rolls come due. we are also providing enclosures to the item. the letter of credit reimbursement agreement was reinstated and include in the item in update. with that, i am looking to reaffirm the executive director authorization to substitute the commercial paper program, allowing the authority to amend and update the associated documents with commercial paper programs. supervisor wiener: thank you. colleagues, questions or comments? ok. is there any public comment?

seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward with a positive recommendation? >> i had one item that i forgot to make. they had an anonymous support with additional impacts and a line of credit for 90 basis points. with entering a letter of credit, we are merely cutting our costs on the line of credit by 50%. this will be a cost savings of $3.3 million over the next three years. this new letter of credit will cost $3.2 million. supervisor wiener: colleagues, can this be forward -- move forward without objection? that will be the order.

item #5. >> item #5. internal accounting report and investment report for the nine months ending march 31, 2012. this is an action item. >> this starts on page 31 of your packets. a quarterly update to the authority financial statements. as of march 31, this is the full fiscal year. we have a balance of $150.5 million in cash on hand, total assets equaling 200.3 million. total liability was $182.2 million. as you are aware, that includes the $160 million in offset commercial paper. but in terms of sales tax revenue, we are slightly above target in terms of collection and anticipate collecting a full $72 million at the end of the fiscal year.

total revenue equal to $88.1 million, with expenditures equal to $51.2 million. in terms of the amount of cash in the city, we have 88% in the city pool. i assume that there is enough on hand to cover the expenses incurred over the next six months. supervisor wiener: colleagues, any questions? is there any public comment? seeing no one -- please step forward. >> so, i was listening to the report before the smart business community. the smart business commission. this is what i have to see.

the fiscal report kind of gives you an idea of what the san francisco transportation county authority is doing. i used to, at one time, attend all of the metropolitan transportation commission meetings, where moneys are allocated to san francisco. this is what i have to say. we have the money. that does not mean that because we have the money, that we do not have to do -- judicially spend it correctly. so, the small-business commission did not approve or was not in favor of what is going to be done.

i know that some of you are not paying attention, but that is fine. you can multitask yourselves. but the point is, we should not be spending money on the gary corridor without some do deliberations. we saw that when money was spent on the market street. small businesses were compensated. when money was spent on church street, 85% of businesses, we lost 85% of the businesses. we do not know what will happen on van ness. we know that the central subway businesses are hurting. thank you. supervisor wiener: is there any additional public comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed. this is an informational item.