>> item 8 recommended adaptation of the draft 2014 prop k strategize strategic plan this is an action. >> we have chad here. >> good morning chad with the transportation authority the draft prop k strategic plan it includes 3 enclosures i'll be presenting i have about 20 slides in the entire presentation we've gone with a small overview of the strategic plan the basics in understanding the documents as we move into the presentation we'll go over the highlight of prop k and how much is proposed for the projects and the trends for the actual and projected funds and our program decision. >> so first why is a strategic plan it drives the prop k plan

we get a sense of how much financing we'll need for the cash flow and it also serves as an early action plan for the transportation plan or the first 5 years of the san francisco transportation plan for the funding so in november of 2003 nearly 75 percent of the san francisco electricity approved the prop b and this expertise plan provides an estimated $2.5 billion and this is intended to the evidence will then show another $10 billion to fully fund the programs and plans so after event e temple years of prop k we allocated over billion dollars to one thousand projects and that billion dollars has

leveraged approximately $4 billion on the conservative end on this slide we allocated to the project for the prop k will half to the major signature plans and on the other side it goes to citywide projects like bike and city improvements and paratransit services in a nutshell 2, 3, 4 addition to discussing what's you fund and the agencies eligible for prop k funds sets up a strategic plan and the 5 year plan, which ann presented straeveng plan is a guide for day to day administration of the

prop k program it has 3 elements revenues and expenditures and policy for the administration of the stewardship of the prop k funds the focus is on the minding of the expected prop k with the schedules for when the project sponsors need the cash and how much cash will be needed through financing so why now it is something we do every 4 years and prop k has the benefit to wrap the transportation plan and the san francisco transportation plan i've houchd touched on earlier so the policies of the strategic plan they're the points out from the day to day operation they address allocations and for the 2014 update largely unchanged

with the allocation project as another item on the project it is around 3 principles and have served the program well those are first optimized leveraging of tax fund and support deliver and maximize cost of financing so we'll dive into numbers on this slide here was not legible on the screen sorry about that well, it would show on the screen there's 3 colors the 2014 strategic plan is the green it shows the long term growth rate of projected revenue and that's different from 5 years the 2009 has a presumes of 4.5 percentage we've dialed that down to be more realistic the blue color is a bit find

baseline that's what m t c uses and another sales tax revenue baseline actual historic growth rates 2005 which included doctors and sales tax revenue around 2009, 2010 this next slide shows our actual revenues to date there's a doltd line to the left is the prop k revenue and for the next was or seven years is the projected on the 2013-2014 it is actually $91 million we've topped $90 million for the first time in the fiscal year there's a lot of information on the next slide i'll go through

it line by line revenue is up a million dollars since the 2013 baseline actual revenue was higher the next is total available funds it is north off a few costs like the transportation authority authority costs for program administration and finance costs of projects that are grandfathered into the prop b the costs absorbed with those are born by the prop k program and not the programs within prop k finance costs have decreased since the 2009 statistic plan and the 2013 benign i by an where it fund more projects to a higher amount of programming i'll touch more on programming finance costs because of lower

projected actual costs it means we've been able to delay a bond from 2010 and seen detailed allocations as well as from the program and anticipated expenditures for the actual projects finally the last line there's a lower capacity in 2014 we're programming so many constitutional programs in than in 2013 highlights in terms of programming one of the biggest categories over the thirty years of prop k this slide shows the street resurfacing and the 5 categories about 2/3rd's of the programming in the entire programming of prop k similarly instead of 3 years but the next 5 years in terms of the programming those categories will 5 hundred and 07 o 70

employed million dollars those categories alone and i want to note a blue box box in the upper right hand corner replacing the fleet is better performance the 2 hundred and 93 will the evidence will then show that effort all right. we see a list of the number of categories that run out of money sooner or later and by looking at the category that are giving more or less years where the funds are happening since 2009 those categories are shown with a negative number for instance, and as was mentioned earlier the expenditure plan the metro we are van a ton of money over the next 5 years to fully fund van ness and the geary construction and put a

substantial amount towards the initiative categories with additional years are where interests more programming capacity because of the lower fivents costs and sometimes paratransit for instance, wife seen money reinvested back into the program so this is information on this slide the 2 thousand 9 baseline we've prepared for the 2013 baseline and the doctors financing we looked at the additional programming so we're lessor are the list of the big projects the first number $45 million that's the additional prop k premeditating that is for that project in the 2014 strategic plan vs. the 2009 strategic plan you saw a chunk

of that so those numbers are in the italics to the left of the slide so we talk about financing a lot here's a list of feinstein's over 15 percent 178 percent of prop k over the thirty years of prop k is beaten up by finance costs this is a again example because it is business transit this is to the first few years of projects the curve ramps or trees we spread out the funding to the end of the prop k so fund can continue to exist for the programs related to the total prop k

program wise thirty year debt one the policies those categories that advanced fund pays for the proposition of the debt that's advances so if the programs want to use the funds that category will pay the proportion ail costs what it takes to finance the cost moving the fund the last slide shows the available funds being used for financing and those are the categories driving the prop k program in terms of dollars we'll be working a lot with project sponsors to know how much is how the i out there and how much we'll have to pay the projects to adequately manage the paperwork. >> getting towards the end here's the end of the first slide this shows the picture of high ends of revenue it is

$620 million to note 9 percent of revenues will be for refinancing companion slides shows this at the end of the thirty years there will be enough to pay the expenditures we have to pay and the program notification is 15 percent of the total expenditures including the operations reserve so the slide shows that the first and second year of each 5 year programs has dramatically higher than cash flows from the 5 year period this is a combination of rolling projects forward so the expenditures from the existing allocated projects whether you see in the blue box 40 percent of the cash in the early years

2015-2016 is from looltsz prongs the prop k sponsors have been slow to allocate the expenditures to balance that it has in some cases be able to spend other funds ramble the prop k this leads to refinancing the costs and funding for the projects so to note here over the last 5 years there was a spike in the first two years of projected cash flow and what the sponsors in 2009, 2014-2015 and there's a discrepancy before what we actually spent on the capital projects all right. with that, i'm happy to take questions on the strategic plan. >> so any questions colleagues. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i know that the

downtown extension and electrification came up and i know there's a large discussion in terms of how to insure alignment likes caltrain and the high speed rail and the transbay terminal i want to ask a little bit about the thoughts on making sure that as part of a body we're insuring the limit i know that caltrain is considering or rfp in january for new transcripts in order to prepare for electrification they're looking at for trains that are 25 feet in the boarders platform our current platform and their is current so the major changes to all our stations but the high

speed rail will only work on a 50 inch platform i'm concerned we are setting up a system it's not annexed lines e lined with san francisco and what we can do with the leveraging in that region ail go decision i know we're a small piece of electrification and downtown is incredibly expensive but the city is going to be transmitting to the project we want to make sure it's in line with our final goals. >> ms. chang. >> tilly chang to supervisor kim through the chair it's incredibly important working with the transportation authority and our caltrain transbay joint powers authority board our partner with the state

and federal agency supporting those promotions to make sure we're in the alignment to have the coordination the one technical initial is one to make sure we're in compatibility issue it's been raised by the working group and the region ail body i believe the agencies are meeting i have a meeting next week is a a t c and other members of the joint powers no right i suggest we organize and hearing i believe it called for one at the tjpa and we might want to hear the transportation authority. >> it is an important issue that the board, you know, fully understands the technical issues it seems like a kind of booelg rfp going out they needed to

electrify their trains it is going to be difficult to get the trains approved down the road it is a lot of issues everyone has a lot of feeling about but it's important in terms of our leadership to get a full understanding of all the steps that would impact the ability to bring high speed rail finally to san francisco we don't want technical issues in the next 10 years to sidestep us. >> absolutely on the larger investment scale the downtown extension of transbay it would be that we look at it as an integrated rail project so it's a voter mandate to deliver the projects into together within san francisco and together with our sister agencies within the

region we appreciate our leadership on that and i look forward to bring the whole set of issues city of not only the heights it's the potential cost increases and the integration of high speed rail and the ability to partner with san mateo and santa fe as the blended high speed rail corridor investment plan in the south bay area. >> thank you, ms. chang. >> thank you for getting through the 20 slides of 37 slides he provided anyone from the public wish to speak on this item. >> i believe this morning i ruined my camera it is the third camera i've ruined this year the cannon i put it in a washer with

the other things and so it's not functioning so we have a protect our cameras and bad accidents see so we have to have caution to all detailed from the money adaptation of the strategic plan you must put it all consideration into consideration so the more on the detail and consideration the more professional that the statistic plan. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed we have a project statistic plan, sir call a role. >> excuse me. mr. chair, i wanted to make a quick comment it is important to not only do the strategic plans with something of this large

magnitude but in my of our city departments to have a clear understanding of what we need to think about moving forward in the future we're not randomly supported things we know clearly where the needs are and what money is available for project, what the projections are you think this is great planning and wholeheartedly support that. >> sir an voerlt. >> supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor yee that item passes. >> next item. >> item 9 recommended approval of delegation policy for the 2014-2015 for dedicated

authority. >> we have chief donating. >> i'll try to be brief you've been power pointed to death i've got to down to 8 slides in the scheme of things it is important as bryan talked about it is a lengthy and engaged discussion on a split vote recommending approval of the pilot policy one is the approval the policy and one an approval of the list of projects that are for the approval in the years 2014-2015 this to the strategic item also wanting to acknowledge the input to our project sponsors to mta and voilg u jonathan should be on the committee. >> all right. and in our

packet with you to get more details attachment one is the actual policy and attachment two a two page list of projects so first and foremost where did this idea come from any want to start with the mta staff of the request we know that prop k was crafted as a voter measure that had transcript as a hallmark the program will at the same time as i recall we have during the executive director around the performance reports by the controller's office we had feedback with the prop k process was needing 0 improvement this is one of the concerns we noted a couple of things we're working to extremely the invoicing process we've done electronic

cross out continuing to simplify procures this is a policy that requires board approval this is a process that is carefully crafted it will expedite the timeline for allocation with the timely delivers and balancing the accountability i won't go into detail i'll quickly witness no. run you through the annual process this is based on a policy every year the astrological approves a list of projects that is approval once the list is approved they could submit a question we'll review it at the staff level like all allocation projects and

once it is meeting stds this will not go through the board process we'll monthly post it on our website and interact active form so if people want more details we'll share the list we have a consent calendar with the l ac m this is a special pilot every year we'll have an annual report on the performance of the pilot right now this is supposed to end in january 2016 to go through one cycle to evaluate whether or not it's successful. >> so benefits of this policy i'll say that on one hand it's not the most silver bullet that

will improve project delivery the benefits that come out are shortening the timeline timeline when the requests are from 4 to 6 weeks sponsors are not working on the project during that time the staff time is not having to attend the board two or three committees that said time saved by the project sponsor staff is a good thing on the transparency accountability does what is lost is the program to weigh in on a project at the time of allocation this is a pilot i think we've done our best shot and a at developing this to see if it works. >> actually almost done with the slides here

process for doing this is a eligible project that is a 5 year allocation program the idea of 5 year prioritization program is to lay out a road map for the projects to fund we're chosen the projects and the phase and the mta has abbreviated the process there's a scope of funding included so that's probable one of the most important eligibility criteria because this is just been adapted we know it is particularly was is going to happen as it gets to the 4 and 5 accounting year the intent of every year do an unanimous call to give the project sponsors to

update the more specific projects here's the meat of the project the ignite criteria beyond needing to be listed in a 5 year plan to make sure that the projects are sufficiently well-designed and supervisor mar asked what was in group 3 of the t p they need to be projects and i'll put up another one that staff feels it wouldn't faces a a lot of controversy we know this committee comments on we'll pull off the list the list comes to the cac and to you if you see individual projects you feel should come to a committee process we've pulled them off the calendar

this one is a 5 power point judgment i'll leave it for reference those are the 6 categories or types of projects that a project fits into one of the categories to be allocated for the category the first one is the annual activities like the sidewalk replacements it is a clear process and the third presence we have street repair and cleaning equipment equipment for installation of translate like a bucket but not signals you want public input on the signals who special ones we call out are the second to the last bum a small request for $75,000 or less those should be eligible but unless it's a straeveng

analysis report on bicycle sharing and lastly the one that doesn't fit tends to be well-defined walk first place holders we put this one in we have a bunch of place holders for construction of walk first projects we don't have the location but we know the importance of vision zero so those projects are dedicated as well as the vision zero committee has approved those schedules for budget last thing is that to balance out the transparency and the accountability was added additional oversight requirements i've mentioned month of them in introduction the cac recommended approval they want us to come back with specific metrics this is

difficult to measure the success of the pilot because at the end of the day it's difficult to say that was the deleted allocated authority it's not meanwhile the fault of the policy one of the things the project sponsors we're working with to try to engage their precipitation of how well, this is working last thing the project lists the perspective has 25 projects will will be projected allocations it represents about a third of one hundred and six some projects we have in rfp in a problematic categories and the total of $5 million in prop k fund and for per inspection for 2015 we have $4 million it's a relatively small process the cac approved