francisco sfgtv meeting of the san francisco transportation authority commission occurring september 10, 2013, will begin shortly. >>

>> all right. good morning, everyone, the meeting will come to order. this the regular meeting of the transportation authority finance committee, i'm cohen and to my left is tang and supervisor david chiu will be joining us and weiner and superviser fer elwill be joining us shortly. >> the clerk of the board is erika cheng and i would like to thank the members of sfgtv that are helping us to broadcast this show, could you please call item number two? >> approve the minutes of the

july 9, 2013 meeting this is an action item. >> thank you. >> and colleagues? is there any public comment? >> okay, seeing no public comment on item number two, this item is closed. >> a motion to approve? >> okay, by commissioner tang and without objection this passes. >> item three, state and federal legislative update, this is an information action item. >> this is the good stuff what we come for. thank you very much and good to see you. >> thank you, chair, mark watts and i am here to give you an update on what is going on in sacramento. and starting first with your matrix and there are two new bills that are added to the matrix that emerged over the summer time, and one is 8401 on page 5 of the matrix, and this

relates to design build to be used by cmas and other entities around the state, and current block expires at the end of this year, and was used and five local slots were unused. original county was trying to seek a stand alone authority by a project that they have, there was a question about the constitutionality of the way that bill was drafted. the protem interjected himself and said let's try to do something more global than just authorize these projects one at a time. and as a result, the measure in the bill on the floor today provides a ten year extension of the sunset, and extensive broadening that may use the authority and that does now include the cma and i work carefully with the office and the protem staff to be sure that the neighboring statute

was referenced and if this bill passes you will have the ability to use the build on the projects and the state highway system and there had been an effort to authorize the cities and counties to use the design build on the street and roads, that was unsuccessful in the summer negotiations with the protem staff and in its place is an authority to use and design and build, and via cma on an express way as defined in the statute which is arterial if that was contained in a voter approved plan and that is the essence and there is a controversy and i expect that it will go to the governor, and it surrounds whether two factors one, whether it is constitutional or not, the alleged council believes that it is, and the other factor on the state highway system no matter who the sponsoring entity is has to have the construction inspection work

performed by cal tran and that has troubled some folks and so a number of entities and your staff have not recommended supporting this measure, but there is not enough in the measure to oppose, because it may present an opportunity and it may not, and so it remains as a watch item on your list. and the other measure that i want to bring to your attention is sb 95, or 99, which is on page 15. and this is the administration effort to consolidate, federal, active transportation programs with preexisting states, programs like safe routes to school, and, a number of other anxillary programs into a consolidated state wide active transportation program. i will note that safe routes to school even though it is consolidated into the program does have the special provision up to 24 million in the first year has to be spent on the kinds of project that have been spent and so it kept the status

quo for the safe routes to school. >> there have not been a loss in funds? >> no, it is rearranging and consolidating to get the efficiencies out of the process instead of having five or six programs of the managers every each and it will have one single program. >> and that, too, is a wash because at the time of the last amendments came out, we had some uncertainty about the impacts and so we are recommending the wash and although it is probably on the governor's desk this week. >> okay. >> two other bills that i want to highlight. one of which is very similar, for one of them was amended last week. and after we put the package together. and those are the two constitutional amendments sea four and 8 and that you took a support position on earlier in the year. and that would allow a local transportation tax to be approved by voters on a 55 percent vote. and so both of these measures are constitutional amendments being proposed by the

legislative that if successful will go to the ballot presumably in 2014 for the approval and the current status is that they are still in the initial house and they are both in the senate and there are three or four other similar measures for other policy measures like public policy buildings and education. and these have been thoroughly vetted so far in the senate and i think that so far the intention and i believe that the intention and it is bearing itself out, is that the legislature will not deal with this in a final capacity until some time in early 2014. and the amendments in two, sea four that are referenced were recommended by the senate transportation committee to both se48 and eight. and one says that you an entity that is using the 55 percent threshold for transportation would have to dedicate up to 55 percent or 50 percent of the revenues generated by that news

sales tax for sustain able community strategy projects. and the other amendment that was taken, reflects the legislature's concern with self-help county adding, invin torrey and the state not having the funds to rehab and maintain the system. it will require that the project, in addition to having the capitol funding for the improvement will also have to provide the main nens over time for the addition to the inventory. there are issues about that and i think that is something that we, we and i in the staff would like to delve into over the fall and come back to you with more recommendations so we are not suggesting a change at this point in time. but just note for the record that those amendments were taken and we will be trying to determine whether they are supportable or whether we want to make the recommendations to change those for next year. thank you. >> excuse me, thank you. >> i have several other things

that the staff wanted me to report on. and i will go through them briefly. they are not in your matrix necessarily. and the seqa modernation of the protem is in the final week, sb731. yes. and i will note that it was amended, consistent with i know of the mayor's administration, that asked for a language. and that allows for new metrics in traffic measurements beyond just whether there is delay. and that has been incorporated into the modernation bill. and so, i think that was something that actually was promelgated starting at the ta and i remember the conversations with (inaudible) more than a year ago trying to see if they could get and weave that into the sequa and now it looks like it is on the verge of moving forward. that bill is the only bill

standing that deals with updating seqa,. and it is probably going to pass this week although there is heavy discussions with the administration who are looking for some other elements and so it may stall out and it is not clear yet. and across the bay, the (inaudible) transportation authorities have requested authorization to increase their cap that is imposed on the local entities to seek the sales taxes above the two percent level, that bill was successful and was passed. and which then leads into my next update. and we have been trying since, early august to amend the bill, and it is in process right now. to authorize, the elimination of an acracic reference, that would reference to a one percent sales tax and it should be amended and could be printed

this afternoon but probably tomorrow morning and after which, we will have to go through several committees and into the assembly by thursday but i think that everything is wired but a lot of work went into getting it set up and the staff and helps to bring us to this point. and so, i have high hopes for success there. cap and trade is just, i think at this point, that is something that is going to play out in next year's budget and there have been a strong effort in this year's budget and the government as if you recall, decided to put the decision and do a cap and trade revenue and there is a lawsuit that is still in motion and there was a preliminary finding by the judge in that case, that said that the carb does have the authority to do this and is questioning whether the revenues are taxes and whether the bill was properly added and

so there is another step to the legal proceedings before we have a clear idea whether the cap and trade revenues will be available in the budget cycle next year. and now i participate on the secretary of transportation's infrastructure performance program. and we have two full meetings, and i expect another one in early october. and what they are looking at is how do we prioritize the infrastructure needs and transportation given you know the history of regarding the hundreds of shortfalls and so we are working together as a stake holder group to try to prioritize and what are the highest priorities and preservation and the areas that the secretary is the most interested in. and at some point, i believe that the secretary will also try to address the potentially, how would we address those, the

prioritized shortfalls, and what kind of revenue sources and that is the conversation that is yet to come but yet we are in midstream at this point and i did mention, the active transportation program and i think that is all thatvy i have for today. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues do you have any questions? >> seeing no other questions, this is an information item, thank you so much. >> thank you. public comment on this item? >> item number three, see no public comment, public commented is closed it. >> call item four. >> recommend changing award from the university of maryland to the university system of maryland foundation of the three-year contract in the amount not-to-exceed $222,47 a5 to conduct the presidio parkway case study to compare conventional project delivery and public private partnerships

and authorizing the executive director to negotiate contract and payment terms and non-material contract terms and conditions. >> i am robert macey, in 2013, the authority board approved the award of the contract to the team of university of maryland to the university of colorado to conduct the case study, which is to compare the project delivery and public partnerships. >> the lead partner in maryland determined that it cannot legally agree to one of the authority standard contract provisions designating california as the venue for dispute resolution, this is due to the nature of the way that the university of maryland is incorporated as part of the state of maryland. so in the typical practice, when making agreement to receive the funding from the other states, it uses the associated foundation to allow the acceptance of all of the appropriate contract terms. >> the foundation provides the grant administration and the

accounting services and the cost is unchanged after a consultation with the city attorney, we have agreed that this is acceptable. this is a technical correction to designate the system as the partner for this study but no other changes are required to the scope of work or participants >> that sounds pretty easy and straight forward. >> colleagues, seeing that you have no questions, i will open it up to public comment. >> okay. seeing that there is no public comment. oh,. there is one public comment. >> good morning, commissioners my name is jackie sacks and i was the advisory committee and i was also on the citizen's advisory committee. and the subcommittee. 2002 and following the parkway project, and system. i was deported when it came in front of you before, as supported this sit item and i

hope that you move it forward without any objections >> thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public? public comment is closed. >> colleagues, seeing no objections this motion passes unanimously. >> madam clerk, could you call item 5? >> item 5. investment report for the quarter ended june 30, 2013, this is an information item. >> good morning, commissioners deputy director for finance and this starts on page 35 of your packet this is the quarterly update for the june 30th quarter. and typically this report will be coupled with internal accounting reports but since we are in the year end the staff are preparing to close the books the audit will be start on september 30th and we expect that to be completed by early november. >> and as of now, as of june 30th, we have approximately, 68.7 million in cash, funds on

sitting in the accounts at the authority. and within, that, this amount represents 79 percent of those cash amounts is sitting in the city and county's treasury pool. and these investments are in compliance with the authority investment policy and the amount that we have are enough funds to support the expenditures for the next six months. >> i am more than happy to answer any questions on the portfolio and we will be bringing the quarterly audit before this committee in november and december and we expect it to complete in early november. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues, do any of you have any questions in the portfolio? >> thank you very much. open it up for public comment. >> i would like to take the public comment on item five. >> good morning, commissioners

my name is jackie sacks and i have been on the citizen's advisory committee since 97 and i am very, i am very informed about this and everything and i absolutely support what they are doing and i look forward to going forward without any problem. they are doing and they are doing everything, and they will pass the au it with the flying colors. >> thank you very much. >> seeing that there is no other public comment, the public comment is closed. and thank you miss fong. madam clerk, could you call next item? >> item six, introduction of new items.

>> are there any other, or any introductions? >> okay. seeing no introductions. >> are there any members of the public that would like to speak on the fact that there is no introductions? >> okay. public comment is closed. >> item 7, public comment. >> general public comment. >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> and item eight, adjournment, thank you, this meeting is adjourned everyone, have a nice day.