remain. i hope that there is a process going forward this this item is revisited before the item is implemented, the new rules are implemented august 1. i would ask my colleagues that we can't to item to the call of the chair so that if there is a decision to move forward as currently proposed that we have the ability to come back. i'll be hun honest, i think that if this moves forward as it is, and even though i respect why it's being done, i certainly would be interested considering a legislative solution to this

problem. i would hate to inject legislation on this issue but if we need to we must be prepared to do that. so before we take any action on this item i wanted to just give the /tk-p -- department -- if they wan to say anything else, give the opportunity to say anything else. thank you for multitasking today. >> i want to say i appreciate supervisors for calling the hearing and having more dialogue in this and good input from you all as well as from the community. we'll continue to work with our partners and providers on this. it's not the intent of the department to create barriers to housing and shelter for families. it's simply an attempt to try to

responsibly deal with a limited resource for the most needy and for those are here and want to live here, so with that goal in mind we'll continue to work with our par /tphers on this. >> i find you to be very responsive and i appreciate that. so in terms of going forward, the pro pose proposal is to begin august 1. is that still the plan? >> next step is to work on the issues that arose today and last week and see if they can be addressed and write solved in a responsible way by august 1. if not, it's not etched in stone, just a date we're working towards. thank

>> thank you very much if we can have a motion to continue to the call of the chair. so moved without objection i want to thank everyone for coming out for their comments and mr. clerk, is there any business before the committee. >> that concludes today's agenda. >> thank you, meeting adjourned.

>> welcome to the regular meeting of the transportation finance authority. my name is malia cohen. to the left is commissioner katy tackvthv. joining us will be supervisor chiu. and to my right are commissioner scott and i think mark farrell is going to be coming back shortly. i would like to thank sfgtv, charles and jessie for their service behind the camera. madam clerk, today is erica chang, also, madam clerk, are there any other -- are there any announcements? >> there are no announcements today. >> there are no announcements, great. okay, let's call item number 2. >> item number 2, approve the minutes of the may 14, 2013 meeting. this is an action item. >> okay. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. ~ [gavel] all right, so moved. >> all right, so moved. madam clerk, will you please call item number 3?

yes, i'm sorry, the motion was passed without objection. >> item number iiictiontion state and federal legislation update. this is an information update, action item. >> and i think we have a presentation. excellent. >> good morning, chair and members. i've got a brief report for you today. on the legislative matrix we have two new changes we'd like to call to your attention and highlight. there are two other bills i'd like to discuss briefly and a cap of where we stand vis-a-vis the state conference committee by virtue of some of the actions they took last night and as they get ready to wrap up the budget this week. as for the new positions, ab4 66 by assembly member silva, that deals with affirming the state law, the cmac, distribution formula, the federal funds that passed through the state to regional entities.

it maintains consistency with past practice and we're recommending support of this measure at this point in time. in addition, sb7 92 is a little more complicated. this was a bill that popped up in between meetings earlier this year that would have partially undone the tax swap adjustment to the excise tax on fuel. if you might have read in the paper, the board of equalization approved the ministerial adjustment of the tax rate pursuant to the tax spot and added 3 cents a gallon to take effect july of this coming year. and a senator from southern california introduced legislation that would have afforded the ability of the board of equalization to do that on its own and would have required a legislative vote. a number of folks went to work and that bill was, i won't say killed, but it was held over until next year. however, because of its

technical parliamentery nature of the bill, it is still available at any point in time. so, staff and i are recommending an opposed position to reject any ability to change that board of equalization action and go back -- and stay at current law. that would give you the opportunity in the event that the author takes the bill up in the end of session or tries to do something early next year, we would have an opposed position approved if you so concur. those are the two bills where we have new positions to present to you. i have talked from time to time about sb 11 and ab8. those are measures that would extend the carl moyer funding as well as ab 118 funding. some of that money is very important to projects here in san francisco. we have been supporting it and i'm happy to report that sb 11 by senator paply has continued to move and is now in the assembly and it has not been set for a hearing but it is

intended to be heard very shortly. the dent companion bill identical ab8 by assembly member parea didn't make it out of the assembly. there was a short matter when the house was going to take it up. it can still by virtue of its parliamentery condition still be taken up at any time in the assembly so it may well move, but people may defer to sb 11. so, those bills are -- at least one of those bills is moving and i'll just make this last note on sb 11. it did enjoy half a dozen republican votes. kind of the last time we've seen a tax measure with somewhat of a bipartisan vote. so, i have a pretty good hopes that one or the other of those bills will go to the governor and thus replenish the carl moyer funding in the future. in terms of the budget, there are a cup of items of particular interest. one was the proposal by the end administration to consolidate a number of programs, safe routes

to school, bike facilities, the environmental mitigation fund into a single acts of transportation program mirroring what had happened in map 21. but at the state level for state resources. ~ and the administration ran into some opposition from the bike pit organizations around the state. there were some aspects of the proposal that they didn't like. the workout as adopted last night was to go ahead and approve the appropriations, about 130 million for the next year for this new program, but not provide the program parameters until later legislation is adopted after a stakeholder meeting is convened by the transportation agency sometime in august. so, there's more work to be done on that. the appropriation is good, but now to get the framework in place we'll need to do legislation and have the governor approve it. so, that's work yet to be done this summer. i talked also from time to time about the cap and trade and, you know as you know it's gone

from a billion dollar proposal a year and a half ago. it was updated this year by the governor to be a lesser amount reflective of the auction revenues from cap and trade coming in at a lower level than had originally been projected. closer to about half a billion for the remainder of this year and through next year. and then in the may revision, the governor did propose in lieu of expending those funds for greenhouse regas reduction purses, instead that money be loaned to the general fund. the senate had adopted the governor's proposal ~ after much consideration. the assembly took a different approach. they said, well, we'll agree to 400 million of the 500 million being parked in the general fund for a year, but wanted to expend the $100 million. as a result of yesterday's in a moment of a larger scale of budget agreement, one element of that was simply to agree by all parties that a half billion

dollars that the governor is projecting would be loaned to the general fund and the assembly proposal is off the table now. ~ moment there's probably a lot of reasons why the governor is pushing for that, some of which could have to do with pending lawsuits and concern about making appropriations, expending the funds, and having a legal action in an adverse way and requirements that and obligation the state would be under at that point in time. so, with that uncertain if i i think he's taken a prudent course. it's disappointing a lot of agentv size would like to put that money to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions throughout the state, but nevertheless the governor has prevailed at this point in time. finally, there was a proposal aligned with a public/private partnership affiliated with the long beach port courthouse project under the department of general services. it went beyond simple reporting like you normally see and would have imposed upon the p-3 regime that's available to

transportation agencies. some significant new hurdles, some burdens. we were at the forefroth of resisting that under the theme that we wanted to keep as many financing tools available. ~ forefront and i'm happy to report as of last night i was informed but all four leader's offices that is off the table now thev so, the current p-3 tool would remain available without incumbrance of a new bureaucratic process for projects to be put through. so, with that, i'd conclude my report and ready for any questions you might have. >> thank you. colleagues, are there any questions? ~ on this item? seeing none, okay. we can take public comment. public comment is open on this item. okay. seeing that there's no public comment, thank you so much for your presentation. public comment is closed. [gavel] >> may i have a motion -- actually, this is an action item. commissioner chiu.

madam collect, could you please read item number 3? >> item 3 is approved without objection. >> yes, please. item number 2 is approved without objection. >> item 4, [speaker not understood] services contract with mark thomas and company incorporated 123,0 70 to a total amount ton exceed [speaker not understood] for the folsom street off ramp realignment project and authorizing the executive director to modify noncontract terms and condition. this is an action item. >> great, thank you very much. good morning. >> good morning, chair cohen, commissioners. my name is luis [speaker not understood], project management consultant to the authority. the folsom rams project is a project that is part of the

transbay redevelopment program. the purpose of the project is to realign the off ramp at folsom and fremont. as you see in this -- as you see in this drawing, the ramp on the right side crosses the whole block 8, making it hard to develop that block. and, so, the purpose of this project is basically to realign the ramp, having the ramp that now goes to folsom run parallel to the one on fremont. [speaker not understood] as shown in this drawing. in september 2007, the san francisco redevelopment agency entered into an agreement with the authority for managing this project. basically the job of the authority was to conduct a solicitation to hire a

consultant and to manage the process with the consultant ands caltrans. in february 2008, the authority ~ entered into a contract for $200,000 with mark thomas and company for doing the planning, environmental, and engineering services for the project. however, before the project was completed, the state decided the redevelopment agency in 2011, therefore the project was put on hold. now having completed its reorganization, the successor agency to the redevelopment agency wants to complete the design. unfortunately, in the time the project was with on hold, caltrain issued a new set of regulations that were not in effect at the time, at the time the design was ongoing. so, this additional services that are needed to complete this design -- >> what exactly are those new set of regulations?