and mta's recommendation. let's bring this forward to the next committee meeting and the outreach is going to be meaningful and deeper. i do think there is a perception that the tep is about cuts and it's about expanding more services as well. there is a motion to continue not only the escalators but also to continue the tep part of this. i don't think i need to clarify that anymore. can we take the continueing the escalators without objection to the next meeting? we'll do that without objection. thank you. on the item before us, can we take this with a positive recommendation without objection? >> so moved. >> thank you. >> miss chang, please call the

next item. item no. 6. item 6: the budget and legislative analyst's office report on equitable uses for the vehicle license fee information at the request of plans and programs committee chair mar, the budget and legislative analyst's office has prepared a report on equitable uses for the vehicle license fee vlff. the budget and legislative analyst's office will present the finding of the reports at the committee meeting. this is an item no. 6. sf 612341234 this is an information item. >> it's 11:41. i know supervisor avalos should be on his way here. i asked the budget analyst office to review from the city and san francisco county to the schwarzenegger level and we want to ensure the san franciscans get the most bang for their bucks. we want to make sure the transportation system needs to be improved but with limited resources i thought it would be better to have both analysis together which is really helpful for us. i know the mayor's

transportation task force presented at our last board meeting has done a lot of work where this funded is needed. i think it's consistent in many ways with the mayor's task force is concerned about as well. also the need to expand the service and keep affordable so equity is a strong voice from the communities. the report from the budget legislative analyst office is really complimentary to the mayor's task force goals. with that fred bruce oh is from the budget legislative analyst office and he's going to give the presentation. >> ken mar, members. >> from the budget analyst office. dan will walk you through the report. for this

report request we identified funding options to achieve various transportation public policy objectives assuming the vehicle license fee is restored to 2 percent with the current level of 65 percent. it requires voter approval before that can be done and be before san francisco. we worked with the department of motor vehicles from the san francisco license fee and that enabled us to provide projection and we'll walk you through what will be included. we also worked with the sf mta to identify funding alternatives that will allow

for service improvements to achieve the transportation public policy objectives that you can outline in the request. with that i'm turn it over to gacher. >> thank you, mr. bruce oh and mr. gacher for the work. i would like to satisfy -- say the budget analyst office has provided these reports in great detail. i know we throw a lot of request at you and we really appreciate it. >> good morning, commissioners. as fred mentioned i will be presenting highlights on the policy on the expansion of the vehicle license fee. so, supervisor mar's office asked us to make a projection of the revenues that the city would

realize if it raised and vlf level to 2 percent and how it would impact income levels and asked to allocation of the impact of levels including the expansion of munis service providing more runs, investment in the maintenance of the munis fleet, street repaving, bicycle improvements, and pedestrian safety improvements. these five funding areas were analyzed based on 5 policy objectives including changing transportation mode chair from private vehicle use, improvement to munis on time performance and reduction in carbon emissions and impact on the safety and traffic of the public and capital cost.

on slide 3 you will see our projections on the amount of revenue if the vlf is increased to 5.to 2 percent. it's important to note that these projections don't include certain factors that will likely affect it and these include one time administrative cost that sb 1492 requires that the city and county pay to the dmv to set up this fee in their system. in discussions with dmv. they said it would be in the neighborhood of a half million dollars but they don't have a full analysis of what that would cost and the impact on revenue with the expected increase on the value of the private vehicle fleet due to inflation. we did look at

historical rates of inflation that the cost of rising vehicles raises about -- per year. this is not including inflation from 2013. as well we assumed that the number of vehicles in the private vehicle fleet in the city would remain constant and we don't know whether the number of vehicles would actually stay constant or decrease or increase. finally, we do not have a solid estimate of the potential for what some term leakage which is that some individuals and businesses may choose to or attempt to let reregister their vehicles in other counties because they may have a second home or other address or business address that's in a location outside of the county. and, san francisco

county is the only county in state law that is able to raise the vof. there might be an impact on the number of vehicles purchased maybe slightly based on the increased cost. below the table with the projections you will see our analysis of the impact of residents on the different income levels. on two 2 percent of the annual average fee of the average vehicle which we estimated 11$11 million or $150 more than the current $72 fee of the average very value. what residents at all income levels would be affected by the increase. the extent of the impact will depend on the number of vehicles and value

owned by the residents. those making $23,000 a year would share a larger income for an average valued vehicle. we should note that only 35 percent in the households own one or more vehicle. houses own vehicles that are valued than the value. although higher income would pay a smaller percentage on the average vehicle. they maybe likely to pay moreover all as they are likely to own more vehicles and they are valued higher than the average vehicle. i should add there has been some research that indicates higher income households are able to pay less vlf by claim of deduction from

their taxable income which lower income households are less likely to do and this research has concluded that the vlf is a regret of tax. >> can i ask you that that was a lot of information on that one chart. and just going back to the lowest income category, two-thirds of the people don' own a car and then for the highest income two categories from $88,000 and above income, many own more than one vehicle or two or more vehicles. also, this may raise roughly $73 million per year and an average person with a vehicle currently pays about $70 and this would increase that to about $150 for that person. >> it would actually be $150

increase from $72 to $220. >> is there a projection where that comes from in terms of the income groups? >> we don't have a break down where that comes from. what we do have is the vehicle types the dmv also breaks down and some of them coming from paying on time. we don't have all the information available. >> i think it would be valuable to get that information. please continue. >> and we are joined by supervisor john avalos, the chair of transportation authority. >> on slide four, you will see a high level summary of our analysis of funding potential

transportation related improvements as well as the criteria that we used of the impacts of various vlf funding options. i will go down from top to bottom. the first what we looked at was expanding munis service, adding more runs. we felt that would likely continue changes in transportation mode chair way from vehicle use which will reduce carbon emission and reduce the city's on time performance and impact on the safety of travel from the public there could be less accidents due to less private vehicle trips. we found that expanding munis service may extend the capital cost by requiring additional funds to maintain vehicles in the vehicles as a result of

additional runs. the final cost for more drivers and fewer electricity for these vehicles to run. the second funding option we looked at was investment in the munis fleet maintenance. this primarily rehabilitation of the bus light rail vehicles and transit mode chair away from the private use and reduce carbon emissions. investment is likely to have an impact on the public. it would not cause an increase from further vlf money. the 3rd is vlf street repaving which is reduce the city's capital cost will you tell unlike to to reduce transportation mode chair from

private vehicle use and it's unlikely or uncertain whether a significant investment of road repavement would have impact on munis on time performance and safety of the public. we also looked at bicycle improvements. assuming they would look at the bicycle improvements there would be a shift way from private vehicle use and possibly way from transit. by providing cyclist with a safer and more connected bicycle network. for instance, a $30 million investment of bicycle improvement could result in 50 miles of painted lanes or 300 miles of bicycle lanes. this could reduce carbon emissions. significant investment in bicycle improvement can significantly increase the cost fof -- vehicle use. and it

would have an impact on munis performance thus reducing over crowding, slow boardings and things related to over crowding. the last area we looked at is pedestrian safety. we found that it's unclear whether significant city investment of the vlf revenue of pedestrian improvement would result in a shift of transportation mode chair away from the city that has already considered pedestrian safety as well as other cities in the nation. however it may have some impact on car use. it is also unclear whether pedestrian improvements would have an impact on immune munis, on time performance or reduce emissions and capital cost. it would result in a marked improvement in pedestrian safety. for instance a $30 million investment in new vlf would

result in 150 additional intersections with count down signals and at least 25 additional crosswalks with lines. >> mr. gucher, i know we don't have that much more time. would you summarize what you think is the biggest bang for the buck of the 5 different revenue items and seems bicycle improvement is a clearly big benefit. but there is a human impact of saving lives and reducing injuries. can you just quickly summarize that before you get to the next very detailed slide? >> sure. we found that, in detail the expansion of munis service would actually result in a significant millions more

passengers a year. so, mta provided us with some estimates that if $60 million were put into the expansion, that could result in 10 percent in increased hours and almost 22 million additional passengers in a year. and also found out that the munis investment would significantly in accrues the average distance between bus failures like vehicle failures and trolley coach failures and those are detailed in the scenarios, but that would require for the entire fleet an investment of $20 million. so i will go through quickly through

three scenarios we considered. there is a number of ways that this money could be used, but based on cost provided for by sf mta and btw, this includes the minimum amounts to achieve certain service and improvements. if you look at the first scenario, this scenario is one where the board can emphasize transportation mode shift away from private vehicles and what we included is the amounts that would be required to rehabilitative each of the munis fleets and then we put in the amount that would be required for a 5 percent increase in transit services which would cost about $30 million and then we put in about $20 million of bicycle and pedestrian improvement.

the second season i don't -- scenario in the upper right hand corner to reducing capital cost and if that was the primary goal of the board that street repaving would reduce capital cost by $175 million over a 10-year period. we put in $45 million which would finish -- fill in the gap left by the gio street bonds and the mayor has plugged in about $40 million in 2014 to make-up for that but there is no secured financing going beyond the next fiscal year. this affects next fiscal improvements. and the long time performance of munis and 100

percent of the funding would go to munis. we put in the amounts necessary to rehabilitate the various fleets and then with the remainder going entirely to expanding munis runs and we can get an 8 percent increase with a remaining $50 million. and then the last slide summarizes the scenarios in one table. so, i won't go through that. but if there is any questions, i would be happy to address them. >> so i see no questions and the way that i look at your three scenarios, the first one is more of a balance of different transit improvements environmental sustainability improvements. a balance of bicycle and pedestrian improvements as well. no. 2 is focused on improving pavement

and scenario no. 3 is heavy on services but other transit maintenance and trolley maintenance and probably mta's preferred item i would get. but i really appreciate the great research. does anyone have any questions because we should move on to the equity analysis. thank you. >> thank you. >> let me ask if commissioner avalos has any comments. >> thank you chair mar. i appreciate you bringing this item forward. to me i think it's best we continue this item to see what is being proposed out of the transportation task

force 2030. i believe there could be very different scenarios coming out of that and compare what the recommendations are there in the months to company. i think that effort is gearing up towards the november 2014 ballot and i think it would be important to have an on going dialogue about how we shape our investments on we approve the ballot. >> i should have called item 6 and 7 together because of so much overlap. i'm wondering if we can call no. 7 at this point. >> the clerk: item 7: proposed approach to equity analysis of the mayor's 2030 transportation task force draft expenditure plan information* enclosure a enclosure b at the october 22, 2013 meeting of the transportation authority board, the controller's office presented the mayor's 2030 transportation task force t20300 draft recommendations which feature a proposed capital expenditure plan to be funded by existing revenues and nearly $3 billion in proposed new local revenue sources

including an increase in the local vehicle license fee, general obligation bonds, and asking voters to approve a ½ cent sales tax increase all of which require voter approval. the task force's final report is scheduled for adoption at a final meeting now scheduled for november 25, 2013. at the october board meeting, chair avalos requested an equity analysis of the draft t2030 recommendations. in response to this request, we are preparing a proposed framework for an equity analysis. we are still working on drafting the framework, but anticipate that it will include three elements: first, a comparison of documented geographic and socioeconomic equity needs to expenditure plan line items; second, policy principles to support equitable distribution of t2030 investments; and third, a look at equity issues related to the proposed new revenue measures. we are coordinating with task force staff on the proposed framework and will provide a presentation on it at the november 19 plans and programs committee meeting. we anticipate presenting the results of the equity analysis to the transportation authority board at its december 17 meeting. we are seeking input and guidance from the plans and programs committee. this is an >> the clerk: sf 71234 >> i just now that we have 7 here, i didn't call for the transportation authority to look at what the output of the transportation task force 2030 which will be coming forward tuesday november 25th and for me it's really important that we affirm the work that the task force has done around the equity are committed to that and we need to make sure that we have as many eyes as we can to ensure we are making the best decisions we can based on our transportation system. i believe the transportation authority plays a critical role in that process. welcome miss hyatt's presentation. >> thank you. hyatt. we come back to talk about the equity analysis for task force for 2030 going forward could be

analyzed. what we have today is a framework for how the recommendations could be analyzed from the perspective of equity, geographic and socioeconomic equity. this is a list of some of the equity related concerns that the 2030 staff have identified. we have had conversations with community based organizations interested in the t 2030 recommendations and have been hearing equity related concerns. the first observation we would want to make xia -- is that about 80 percent of the 2030 recommendation are what we call programmatic. they are not geographically designed at this point. they are new vehicles once would be deployed once

they are purchased, could be deployed on any part of the city and intended to be deployed throughout the city, street repaving and the locations identified by dpw on a 5-year plan basis and other citywide investments. so those parts of the 2030 plan that are geographically defined could be over the equity analysis. the tep is an example of that. as mentioned earlier in this meeting, it's to prepare the scope of the equity analysis of the tep. because of the 80 percent of the tep is programmatic, the equity of that program is going to be determined by an on going basis based on how to expenditures are programmed and based on monitoring those expenditures at in realtime or as they are

programmed and spent and then reporting back on the outcomes. so that's what we are focusing object and -- on and there is three components, analyzing the equity on the investments themselves, and the programming, the years of programming on whatever time is being implemented for the program, do these address equity concerns, and monitoring outcomes after investments are made to determine whether equity gaps and efficiencies are being closed and finally continue to get stakeholder input throughout both of these process both on determining programming investments and doing the monitoring on the

effects. we want to offer considerations of some ideas of determining equity needs and the goals for what it means to have an equitable result in those areas. the first thing that would need to be done as sort of an equity analysis or equity monitoring for any program to look at what the needs are. there is a great starting point for establishing what equity needs are for title six that only minority communities are considered as sort of the definition as to the target population. for this case we really need to broaden the definition of the population of concern from the title 6 definition. but, there are ways to do that. the goals or the

needs that will be established in the tep equity analysis which the forthcoming, the sf tp worry -- work, baseline equity needs and the starting points for confirming what the equity needs are and of course input from stake holders and speaking from organizations themselves about what their needs are and continuing to establish what the goals are. there is a couple difference ways to approach that. for each goal area or area of need, you could establish an equity target based on a policy goal, like a certain level of affordability and certain minimum level that we want to make sure that is provided throughout san francisco and we

could be monitoring performance and comparing the worst performance to the best and wanting to have no more than a certain ratio of best conditions to worst conditions. maximum levels of crowding, for instance. and then one final thing, i mentioned which when i was talking about the title six implementation the concern that we are monitoring for, there are starting points for this too. and for instance a definition of communities for concern developed by mtc, metropolitan transportation commission and we want to make sure that definition is right for san francisco and i know the planning department has offered to create a profrs -- process of taking a look at what communities defining in

san francisco would take a hook -- look at that collaborative process. we would support that. here are some examples of community goals. these are ways to measure equity, ways to set goals in these thaers -- areas that we could monitor over time. as the first analysis steps is to determine whether the proposed investment would address these goal areas and monitor over time to see whether the target levels are being reached or disparities are being reduced. this is a summary of this framework for an equity analysis that could apply for t 2030 or any investment program. establishing goals, confirming what the needs are and