francisco sfgtv meeting of the san francisco transportation authority finance committee occurring may 14, 2013, will begin shortly.

>> okay. good morning, everyone. welcome. to the regular meeting of the

transportation authority, finance committee, i'm cohen and to my left is cheng and david chiu and mark ferrill will be joining us shortly. the clerk is erica cheng. er ka, are there any announcements today? >> no announcements. >> that is great, let's start with item number two. >> approve the minutes of the april 9, 2013 meeting this is an action item. >> all right. and members of the public that would like to talk about this item, seeing none. okay, this item is closed. no public comment and motion to approve. >> commissioner chiu, a motion without objection >> keep it going. >> madam clerk, item three.

>> state and federal legislative update and information/action item. >> excellent, good morning. >> a few things to brief you on, today is the day that we have been waiting for several months, the governor in the the state will be announc budget and there is quite a bit in ay for the transportation and i will get into that deeper into the presentation and i want to talk about a few bills on the matrix today. and a couple of changes and a couple of additions and otherwise, it is a fairly static point in time for legislation. and the first draw your attention to is ab 266. and i didn't note what page that is on. and i think that it is on page seven. >> yes, thank you. >> and we can recommending a move from oppose to watch and this is the measure that dealt with the access to hiv and car pool lanes, and it was moved and the first committee provided a ten-year extension

and revised the bill back to a 346 year extension for plug in hybrids and a five year extension for cng and going to a watch position. it would provide on page 4 of your matrix would have provided a sales tax for a sustain able community strategy purposes within an npo region. sales tax is the bread and butter for san francisco and having made it available to other entity and even though they may be aligned with our interest, raised the question in our minds and we were recommending opposed position, that bill has become a two-year bill and did run into some concerns, expressed throughout this region in particular, and

in southern california and so he has put it over to next year which point he will have to the month of january to fix the bill and move forward. >> we are recommending opposed. measure, ab 1371, on page 12. deals with a measure that was vetoed last year and mixed improvements and pertains to safe passing zones for bicyclists mandate that they will provide a three foot space. under certain conditions and we are recommending watch for that to see how the administration deals with that and we may come back with a different position. >> is there any indication on what the administration is thinking or have they... >> it was a little tighter drawn last year's version of the bill and it raised the concern with the law enforcement that it was going to be tough to enforce and i think that the author is trying to come up with a mix that will

allow bicyclists to have that free passage. but do it in a way that does not interfere with the law enforcement ability to understand what is going on. >> so we will watch that one. >> yes. >> the last measure that i want to draw to your attention is ab 935. and that is found on page 8. and i believe, i forget, we recommended a support. i believe that we have. the reason that i want to raise this and bring it to your attention, this is the attempt ad expanding the weda board from five members to seven and in doing so, he has added, kind of a unique appointment process. and in each case there are three appointing authorities, the governor, has three slots, and the protem would have two and the speaker would have two and in each case he is designating particular counties

including san francisco, adding salono and contra costo to the board. for san francisco you would have the appointing power with the governor. but based on a list of three provided by this board, to the governor's office. and that is the theme for all of the appointments that would have or would be made from local government entities. the governor has two other positions that he can fill, one in labor and one in large. but the other two appointing authorities would be limited to selections from the respective county, transportation authorities that are designated to them. the sensitivity here is that there has been concern in the mayor's office about who in san francisco would provide the nomination list. so i just wanted to make sure that you were aware that this bill is moving through the process. three things that i wanted to update you on that are policy oriented outside of the

legislation matrix. cap and trade and this is something that has been unfolding for about a year and a half and auctions have been conducted and revenues have flowed in not quite at the level that were projected a year ago, last year two major bills were signed by the governor that provide the framework for how the auction revenues will be invested to benefit california. and last year, ab 1532 established a process, and sb 535 set aside up to 25 percent for disadvantaged communities. and today, the governor in compliance will be taking the draft investment plan that had been provided and developed by the inner resources board, and using that as a framework for proposing allocations to a variety of agencies who will then, i believe will have to see the details and made a revetion today and who i believe will have line item

appropriations proposed by the governor that those entities like the transportation commission, for example, or possibly housing and community development will have the responsibility to provide grants to recipient entities like the city and county of san francisco or the ta or to the mtc and so that process is under way right now. there are two bills in progress, this year. and that were recommending the watch on that were tempt and enhance or modify that process. the first is ab 574 which is on page 5, it is a watch position. and i think that the true value of ab 574 to date has been to help support the rationale that the air resources board adopted for several of the major expenditures categories, including, investments in transit, and investments in rail as being eligible for the cap and trade funding and mfk

it goes broader and allows more investment in highway and maintenance that are affiliated with the infield development and providing the certain infrastructure that is needed for infield development. a second measure, ab 1051, on page 9, would also seek to delegate or direct subject to future appropriations but some of the auction proceeds to housing development, consistent with the sustain able community strategies so there is a lot in play and a lot of the big questions about how this is going to be implemented and what the governor's real intentions and where he wants to see the money go will be answered in the next hour and we will be able to dissect what flexibility there may be for the entities like the mtc or the ta to compete for some of those funds. >> i wanted to mention briefly that the governor in january called on the secretary of

transportation to form or to address the transportation funding i guess almost crisis that we are looking at in the state both in the state and the roadways and the local roadways and the public transit and the operations and maintenance areas. he asked the secretary to convene a working group, that was done, and their first meeting of that working group met in early april and i am pleased to say that i am on it and there is probably about 40 total representatives and stake holders on it. procedurally, just to make this quick, the approach is to divide, the working group into four subgroups, active transportation, mass transit, roadways, local roads, and state highways. and those subgroups will all be taking a look at what are some of the priorities within the shortfall that we know exists for each of those four category and come up with recommendations. i was selected to be on the

mass transit committee and so i have participated in the first meeting of that. that was more of a scene setting and the real working session will be the next meeting and the game plan will be for the secretary to pull together a final report in the fall for informing the budget process in 2014. and finally, there are two measures very similar like that, i can't find the difference between them although it will be that there is, one on each house, ab and 8, sb 11 that would extend the program for clean air, programs, as well as the ab 118 program which is dedicated to alternative fuels. and those are due to expire in 2016 and this extends it ten years for both programs and including the revenues that would be needed to sustain them. >> is there any opposition to that extension? >> not direct opposition. even though there is no direct opposition, they are still having a hard time because in both cases, they are tax

increases, and when those programs first passed it proceeded prop 26 and they were considered fees and that definitional change has made it more difficult for the legislature to come to grips with. i think that both bills will manage in the next couple of weeks to get out of their original houses, but at that point, i think that we will see, the end game for both of these bills will be very difficult given that they are being tagged with the two billion dollar ten-year tax increase, price tag, obviously the programs is important in this region for some of the program and projects that the ta is involved with. and so we are very actively involved trying to get this thing through. both bills will be are either on suspense and due to be released next week. that concludes my report for today. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues, do any of you have any questions? >> no. are there any members of the public that would like to

comment on this item this informational item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i am sorry. we have one, woman coming up for public comment. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is jakie sacks and i am a member of the (inaudible) advisory and i have one question for this gentleman, what about prop 42, the state gas tax that was passed by the voters? what is going to happen to that money and are we getting any that have money back or any of that money going to be used for transit, i was curious about that. thank you. >> that is a complicated question, but the simple answer is proposition 42 was unfunded. it had been funded by the sales tax on gas, and in 2009 and

later in 2010, the legislature eliminated gasoline or the sales tax from gasoline and in place of that, increased the gas tax by a like aamount. and that allowed it to do some other maneuver and in essence the same amount of what had been collected under prop 42 is continuing to be collected at the pump from motorists with no change it is a net neutral impact and it just provided the budget folks more flexibility. >> thank you. >> and one last qualification i mentioned that 935, the bill, it is a wash not a support. >> thank you. >> are there any members of the public that would like to further comment on this item? >> all right, public comment is closed. colleagues seeing that there are know other questions, is there a motion for this item? >> commissioner tang has made a

motion, without objection. all right. please call up item number four madam clerk. >> internal accounting report and investment report for the nine months ending mar 31, 2013, this is an information item. >> good morning, deputy director for finance and administration, this starts on page 25 of your packet and this is nine-month update of the authority's financial status petition. as of march 34st, total asset, 122.5 million. liabilities 163.8 million and also includes the 150 million of outstanding commercial paper on the books. revenues to 95.8 million, sales tax to 61.5 million and this is on target to our estimate of 84.5 million for the entire year. expenditures equal to 62.5 million as of march 31st and our cash balance 74 million and

this represents approximately 76 percent of the money we have holding in the city and county's treasury pool. and in addition these investments are in compliance with the california government code and authority's investment policy and the money in the bank provides liquidity for the expenses that we plan to incur over the next six months, this is an information item and more than happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> are there any questions colleagues? >> no. >> so based on your presentation, are we on track our expenditures have not exceeded our revenue? >> that our expenditure have not exceeded our revenue, as of march 31, 2013 and right now under budget as of march 31, 2013 as well. we have one quarter to go. >> are we looking good? >> looking good so far. >> thank you, are there any members of the public that

would like to comment on this item? >> okay, see no public comment, public comment is closed. and this is an information item, so no motion is needed unless staff would like to provide any other direction? okay. perfect. do we have a motion? >> to file? >> thank you, commissioner tang, a motion without objection. okay, madam clerk could you call number five? >> preliminary fiscal year, 2013, 14, annual budget and work program, information item. >> thank you. >> this item starts on page 45 of your packet and we have a powerpoint presentation for you and i will be presenting the first part and our interim director will present the second part which will include the authority's work program for the year. if you could take a look at your presentation. as required by state statutes,

authority must adopt a budget by june 30, 2013, this is the first look at the budget and this is the prelim budget and you will see this again at the june finance committee for approval. the annual budget includes 7 key items we have our sales tax revenue, vehicle registration revenue and transportation for clean air, federal state and regional grant, capitol expenditures operatesing and administrative cost and financing and debt service cost. within your packet, on page 49, you have attachment a, it is the preliminary fiscal year 2013/14 annual budget and this is the high level executive view by major line items and funds. this is in addition there is a column that compares what we adopted as last year's budgeted amounts. on page 50 you have attachment d. >> i am sorry you said 49 there is a column that indicates? >> the prior year. yes, the change from last year it is adopted by this and

actually includes the amendment that was passed last month. >> thank you. >> page 50 you have attachment 8 which is the authority to work program throughout the six divisions. this willis all functions and project and programs that we planned to work on in the fiscal year for 2013/14. you have attachment c and this is your detailed line item version of attachment a and this is where the revenues are broken out by federal, state and regional and they are listed by detailed line items and on page 62, do you have the line item descriptions for each item. this is a dripsing of a background on each of the items in addition to how we came up with the estimates. >> next, i have a pie chart for you for the total of revenues for the fiscal year. and we are expecting total revenues of 109.9 million. and the majority of the revenues that you can see in blue are for sales tax and that

is $88.3 million and this represents $84.4 percent of the entire revenues in red you have the federal grant funding of 10.5 million and represents 9.6 percent and the majority of funding here is for the ybi improvement project and entering into the construction phase and in the green color you have the vehicle registration fees are the program and it is very similar to what we received in the fiscal year 1213. and 4.7 million and this represents 4.3 percent of the revenues for the year. and in the purple you have other revenues of 2.7 million and this represents 2.3 percent. and the other revenues includes, the first loan repayment from tita of approximately 2.6 million and the loan that we have issued back in 2008 and this was for the prelim engineering stage of the project and in light blue you have regional grant and program funding and this is 1.5

million and represents 1.4 percent of the pie chart and this includes our 736,000 of the tsta fundings that we be receiving from the air quality management district. and in orange you will have the state grant funding and here we are for 1.2 million and this represents 1.1 percent and this line item includes 629 thousand of the state funds for the island project and 491,000 of ppm projects from the state. and light purple we have interest income from the city's pool and the three operating accounts the authority holds and this is 948,000 and that 0.9 percent of the total pie chart. and on the next slide, we have a ten-year look of sales tax revenue, and you can see here in the fiscal year 04/05, we have craoepd up to high of 79.6 million in 7, 8. and then we took a dip in

fiscal year 9/10 and aamounted to 68.2 million and you can see on the chart that we are slowly catching up over the years and now we are projecting an all time high of 88.3 million for the physical year, 13, 14. >> could you take a minute and explain a little bit about why there was a dip? and the projected increase for the fiscal year 13/14. >> so back in 08/09. through fiscal year 9/10. the sales tax revenue were coming in based on the spending limits incurred in the city and county of san francisco. the projections are aligned with what the projections the city and the controller's office and the city and county of san francisco have come up with. and these are based on just the out look of the revenues that we intend to incur, this covers

like construction revenues, and covers any turnover on our property and includes retail sales. and restaurant businesses, and any projections that would fall into this category and it has been slowing by climbing up and you can see that it is recovering in the city and county of san francisco. >> and again, our city and county has a good amount of tourists coming in and we were not affected like the other counties in terms of sales tax revenue because of this. >> thank you very much. >> is there any other questions i will move over to the expenditures for the year? >> we have a total of $245.1 million. and as you can see in the blue, 96.2 percent, which is 35.8 million represents our capitol projects and the top five largest projects included in this budget are the