>> please stand by for closed captioning. >> please stand by for closed captioning.

>> please stand by for closed captioning.

>> please stand by for closed captioning. aye n >> please stand by for closed captioning. >> please stand by for closed captioning. >> please stand by for closed captioning.

>> please stand by for closed captioning.

>> please stand by for closed captioning. >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday may 14th, 2019. our clerk is mr. alberto quintanilla. can you please call the roll? [roll call]

>> thank you mr. quintanilla. colleagues, i received the unfortunate news that commissioner ronen has taken ill and commissioner brown will be 15 minutes late. can we have a motion to excuse commissioner ronen and temporarily excuse commissioner brown. motion made by commissioner stefani and seconded by commissioner haney and we will take that without objection. commissioner yee, do you want to say something? >> i believe commissioner walton -- >> i have not heard from commissioner walton, but if you have, i am happy for you to excuse commissioner walton as well. we'll take that without objection, and next item please. >> item 2, citizens advisory

committee report. >> mr. larson, good morning. >> good morning commissioners, i'm john larson and i'm here to report on the april 23rd meeting. the c.a.c. recommended approval of item 5 on your agenda, the allocation of funds for two neighborhood transportation improvement programs or capital project requests. both the intersection immater l improvement and bikeway is an example of the projects that the funds were to facilitate. as per the update, c.a.c. members reiterated concern about business impacts along the construction zone and we're frustrated with the lack of performance data regarding the

programs targeting it. a request was made for the office of economic work and development come and brief c.a.c. during their future meetings of the effectiveness of mitigation efforts. we also heard about the progress of the subway and the plan bay area updates, where the issue of equity within the context of the upcoming pricing study was highlighted by the c.a.c. the bulk of the meeting was taken from an update on the issue of the light rail vehicle procurement. the issues that have come to light since the c.a.c. recommended approval in march of accelerated acquisitions of the vehicles. c.a.c. members wanted to know how long single cars will be in service with issues of coupling and they were also concerned that the signs alerting people that the back doors would be closed as precautions for getting hands stuck was not visible enough. in general, seat redesign and

timelines for retro fits, and ensuring safety for the vehicles was of a paramount interest to the c.a.c. and the public commenters. they were unsettled that known incidents impacting safety was not performed. objects or people getting caught in the doors did not meet a reportable standard and was not shared and was not satisfactory. they reported to the c.a.c. that after your last t.a. board meeting, a search of their central control log found up to eight possible incidents, three of which involved injuries to passengers. a full report of incidents for stakeholders and decision makers is needed moving forward and that completes my report. thank you. >> thank you mr. larson and i

can see mr. ramos is paying close attention to everything that the c.a.c. just said from everything ranging from the central subway to the l.r.v.4 matter, so thank you for that thorough report. is there any public comment on the c.a.c. report? mr. decosta. >> commissioners, i'm glad to hear a report from the c.a.c. after hearing what was discussed by this commission, i think what is paramount issue to san francisco is safety.

the new light rail trains, brand new trains are giving us a lot of problems. one of the issues was about the sittings, they're now getting to the train and it's more or less like the bus sittings. that adversely impacts many of the seniors. i wanted to bring this to your attention. also in the c. a.c. report, you can see missing is technical expertise. in the past, we had those sitting on the c.a.c., who had a lot of experience with transportation issues. that's what we have to aim at getting into the c.a.c. is the expertise. then the tendency is just for the c.a.c. to speak in

generalities, and that's not what san franciscans want. we need to -- in our outreach, try to get people on the c.a.c. that have qualified experience on transport management and more that side of operations. thank you very much. >> thank you, are there any other members of the public for this item? seeing none. public comment is closed. mr. quintanilla, next item please. >> action item -- i apologize, item 3 approve the minutes for the april 23rd meeting, next item. >> all right, are there any public comments on the minutes from last meeting?

closed. is there a motion. on that motion, a roll call please. [roll call] >> we have approval. >> next item. >> item 4, state and federal legislation update is the action item. >> mr. watts, it's getting towards the end of may, what do you have to report? >> we do have several bills we're recommending for you. i want to point out that when i conclude my portion of this legislative update, that amber crab will be providing an update on federal items as well. let me just jump into this. there are three measures we're propossessing for consideration

that would be ab by mr. muller that deals with smart city grants, we're recommending ab326, which deals with motorized carrying devices and finally an oppose on ab112 by ms. freeman that deals with shared mobility devices. >> sponsored by bird. >> yes. so i thought it would be better to take the two mobility device bills at the same time. they're similar in content and approach, but the bird bill is much broader and deeper. on ab326, the staff is proposing unless amended, and the amendment would restore the authority that the bill would seek to eliminate over

localities in california to develop their own regulatory structure in addition to the state's regulatory structure. we already initiated in sacramento. i reached out and told them this was the likely measure to be considered by the full board, to give them a heads-up. the bill is on suspense, which will be considered this week, in the assemblies appropriations committee and ab-1112 by ms. freeman was amended and expanded. it deals, really it's the local authority, with respect to a host of, a wide range of mobility devices. the san francisco m.t.a. is on record, in opposition to the bill and their staff is in discussion about possible amendments and consequently, i think we would like to be able

to be part of that negotiating effort to restore or insure that the city and county of san francisco has the authority that they are dually permitted currently. the next measure is ab-659. this bill is the smart city challenge grant. frankly, it is a structure of a grant program. it is at this point lacking a funding source and actually lacking any specific types of innovative, creative proposals that they're expecting. instead the bill would delegate to the state transportation committee via workshop, guidelines and development process, those kinds of details. the bill is on assembly, appropriation suspense file because it has no funding source identified at this point in time. so that's frequently would be

the result of the bill. so we'll see its fate later this week, but in the meantime, we're proposing to endorse that in the event the bill con -- continues to move forward. one watch bill we're looking at, and this is the housing alliance for the bay area program, which is part of m.t.c., and the casa program here attempting to jump start housing development in this region. the measure provides structure for a regional tax measure and authori authorizes a series and duties for the entity if it's enacted,

however there has been a hold up in the development of the governance structure for the haba. in the previous verse, they had mtc providing staff and governance, and now the bill was amended to take that out. so it's a bill without a driver in the driver's seat. i assume, and i have checked, there are deep negotiations to fill that in. a couple of bills on the second table in your packet, table two that are of interest, and we followed the first one, ab-147, that's been approved by the governor. that bill was the state's reaction to the way fair supreme court decision dealing with use tax, collection, and it is anticipated by virtue of the approval of this bill that sale tax measures, when this new bill

takes in effect, and i think that's the fall, you'll start to see an increase in the revenues and staff is working to identify how much that is going to be and when that will come online. so the other bill i want to update you on is ab-1605. this is the reservation system bill. it cleared the assembly, it is in the senate, it's ready to be assigned and we anticipate it to be assigned, but we're waiting for the actual designation so i can meet with the right folks and start discussions on the senate side. also, the measure you followed previously, the revision to the active transportation program. it too is on appropriations

suspense file in the senate. it has some issues, he's trying to restore what he thought he had, he and chairman frazier had enacted in a company meant with sb-1 originally. he's really pushing hard to reallocate money within the a.t.p. program, which would result in m.p.o.s receiving direct allocations based on population share, which is a little bit different than the current law. at this point, it's not clear how it's going to fair in the assembly, now that the bill is probably going to come out of suspense. the folks that have been, i guess i'll put it this way, self help folks counties are divided on the issue, so we don't know who will come out in opposition. those are the updates on the bills, between staff and myself,

that we thought were key to bring to your attention. in terms of other things going on in sacramento, they may revise, as you're well aware from your city county responsibilities, in the area of transportation, very little new or different, or major modifications to transportation law. i'm happy to say they're adhering to the elements in sb-1 that they approved in 2017. with that, it concludes my presentation. >> thank you mr. watts, before we hear from ms. crab, colleagues, any questions to mr. watts relative to the bills he discussed? all right, we'll take that resolution up after we hear from ms. crab. the floor is yourself. >> good morning, amber crab, public policy manager with the authority. so in april, tilly chang

traveled to the advocacy trip. it focused on a few different areas, which are consistent with our ongoing advocacy, as well as the board adopted transportation authority federal advocacy program. first of all, as you heard in the news, there's been a bipartisan announcement about potentially $2 trillion infrastructure bill, which would include funding for transportation, however that is completely dependent on the sources that the administration decides to fund the bill. every year we're crossing or fingers but not holding our breath that it will move forward. what is moving forward is work on the reauthorization of the federal transportation bill. this is the fixing america transportation bill, so work is

picking up this year. the advocacy that director chang pursued in d.c. and other regional state and federal partners are working with us. we're seeking continuation of the bill grant, it's a federal discussionary grant program. so we like to see that program continue. we also like to see increased funding for federal transit funding, in particular, the capital investment grant program which currently supports the electrification process, and we have identified as a source we like to support future san francisco parties, such as the transit, better market street, and the downtown extension. to pay for all of that, we need congress to act to deal with

issues of solvency that the highway trust fund is experiencing, through raising the gas tax or potentially exploring a vehicle miles traveled fee. with that i'm happy to take any questions and we'll keep at the work. >> any questions from the member? seeing none, is there public comment on this item? mr. decosta. >> commissioners, i'm shocked that when you hear this report from the consultants, i think they're consultants, one represents the bills in the state and the other telling us about the feds. >> ms. crab is an employee of the transportation authority. >> well, i stand corrected. so, while they give us this report, they're getting no feedback from our

representativ representatives. so on some issues like say the crooked street, we need some sense of how san franciscans feel why our visitors have to pay to go down this street. you travel all over the world, there's always something that we like to go and see. the tourists pay, so we like to get some feedback. it's very surprising that this impetus come from the state and not from you supervisors. so, i would like y'all to look into that. while the first gentleman was talking about one of the bills, and how you know they're trying to get rid of the metropolitan transportation commission from giving their input, we have to

be very cognisant of the fact that we have to have precise facts and empirical data and people representing. that's too much of these bills being introduced. some of them, as you heard, one or two of them, with no funding. we san franciscans have to know how this board of supervisors, which is the city and county of san francisco is giving input on this, so that we are a place of what really is going on in sacramento. thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public that like to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a resolution adopting the positions described by mr. watts as it relates to

assembly bills 326, 659, and 1112? motion made by commissioner yee, seconded by commissioner brown and we have a different house roll call please. [roll call] >> we have first approval. >> next item please. >> item 5, allocate $663,500 in prop k funds. this is an action item. >> good morning commissioners. i'm presenting to you two requests today from the san francisco municipal transportation agency and these

are for neighborhood transportation improvement projects for districts 5 and 6. the first question is for divisadero intersection improvements between turk street. daylighting willing installed, pedestrian safety zones, as you can see in the photos. longer crossing times, and larger signal lenses, which is the material that covers the signal lights so they will be shining brighter. we will be doing outreach between now and november, including door-to-door outreach, and the majority of construction will be done in january and completed by september. the next request is for the howard street project, and this

is for district 6, a portion of the funding is coming from the neighborhood transportation improvement program and it is to install or create a continuous protected bikeway from 11th street and western south market area, connecting to the embarcadero. it should be completed by march of 2021. with this, i'm open to answer any questions. >> commissioner haney. >> thank you chair peskin. i'm of course very supportive of the funds for the design and build out of the howard street embarcadero to third. it seems like a long time to me, that's two years for this to happen. i know we moved very quickly on third to fifth in part because we had designs done. why is this going to take so

long? i think it's concerning to me that we're not going to have the rest of this street built out, now especially since we done a good job on the other part of it, a lot of people will continue to use that, to use that network, that street as part of their commute, and to have part of it for the next two years continue to be so incredibly dangerous is a concern to me. >> that's a great question, let me invite mike, the project manager, to answer it. >> hello, good morning commissioners, acting program manager with the m.t.a. it's great to have your support on this project, it's definitely something we want to move forward, continuing to improve howard street, especially in light of the fatality that occurred earlier this year. i think there was an error in the power point.

the actual application and our request says the project will be open for use in 2020, mid year. so, our goal is really to have it built in the first half of 2020. the application -- or the request says july, august, or september 2020, open for use. so, sorry. that's our goal. the first half of 2020. we have a number of quick build pr projects on our agenda now to finish by the end of the year and we're going to work at this at the same time. >> so it sounds like we just got a year cut off the timeline. very good. >> you're welcome. >> that is the answer to my question, sometimes it's that easy. so the expectation is that it will be completed early to mid

year next year 2020, not early to mid year 2021. >> yes, that's our goal. so in the request, we said july through september, but really we want to get it done there the first half. >> okay, in terms of the quick build and things, a lot of people are saying what can we do right now in that stretch? are there certain things you have planned in the interim while the design and buildout of the full protected lane is being designed and put in place? >> honestly we don't. this is really a quick build for us, it will be paint and post, traffic delineaters that we implement, and we don't have a design at this point. so as we work on other projects, as well as this one, we're going to get them out there as quickly as we can. there are a lot -- it's a busy area, obviously, a lot of demands for a lot of different

uses being downtown. so, there is just a lot of design and engineering work that we need to do to get that work done. >> i get that it's complicated and there's a lot to figure out. i would say for a lot of people, including for me, a year to put what we're defining as a quick build doesn't sound that quick. it sounds like a long amount of time if it's fairly simple in terms of what the construction is. do we ever do things that we know are immediate, simple solutions, maybe even on parts of that. i know that some of the blocks are a bit more complicated for a variety of reasons, but is there a way as we determine well, you know, this block is part of the early stages of design, fairly simple. can we do something and fix it? is that block or something like

that, or do we have to wait a year for anything to change? >> sure, i think we can definitely look at that as we implement it. i think -- yeah, i think we can look at that as we work on the design and see what we can do quicker that doesn't require a longer legislative process at the n.t.a. board. yes. >> yeah, i would really appreciate that if there were blocks we could get done or simple safety improvements that we could do and whatever we can do to expedite the full completion, but i understand there is a lot to figure out for the whole thing to gets worked out, but you know, one year or longer is a long time to wait for this street that's heavily used. >> agreed. >> thank you for your work on this. i appreciate it. >> are there any other questions from commissioners? seeing none, is there any public

comment on this item? please come forward. >> good morning commissioners, senior organizer on staff at the san francisco bicycle coalition. of course we're incredibly supportive here, but as commissioner haney mentioned, the timeline is an issue here. when we're talking about timelines for these urgent probabli projects, we know that howard is a dangerous street for people bicycling in san francisco. so 72 hours, plus or minus, there was a very temporary bike lane on one block and another 6 week, by april 18th, we had a row bebust quick builds to thir the presentation was a bit off, but even a year seems excessive for this project that we know is

so crucial to our bicycle network and the safety of people riding. what we're asking back then and continuing to ask for is this project to be completed by the end of year. we think that's attainable. we have commissioner haney pushing hard on the timeline here. if we can't do it on howard faster than a year, i wonder where we can do it, so we look forward to continuing to work with you all and the m.t.a. to push this and other projects forward. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public on this item? mr. decosta, the floor is yours. >> the supervisors, it's tragic that someone has to die, for you to realize about transportation issues.

this project can easily be completed in six months. the thing is that y'all have no orientation. no project manager has spoken to you all on what goes into this. what happens in some of the city departments is that they kicked the can down the street and y'all look the other way, and y'all think it's funny. it's not funny when somebody dies. so what the gentleman said, he knows what he's talking about. this can be done in six months. now let me go to san bruno avenue, some jack ass has come down there, dug up the streets, and people are falling down, breaking their arms, they don't call the balancambulance, they have no money to pay. they're bleeding. on howard street, that can be

done in six months. in any other country, it could be done in two months. none of y'all have the balls to go and tell these people to go and do it. how many people are going to be dead or why should we put people in harm's way? who's the representative here who really has the guts? now one of your supervisors having a side bar talk there, that shows in general that you supervisors, if you really care about life and death. thank you very much. >> seeing no other members of the public for public comment, public comment is closed. do we have a motion with regard to this item made by commissioner haney, seconded by commissioner mandelman, and we have the same house, same call.

the item is approved on first read. next item please. >> item 6, prioritizing safety over traffic flow and parking when designing for street improvements. this is an action item. commissioner yee. >> thank you chair peskin. thank you commissioner haney for raising the question. this is perfect in terms of what i am going to say. this item is really a resolution to support the expedited delivery of the projects. i feel like a broken record at times, except for the fact that last week when i spoke at the board of supervisors, introducing the resolution to aggressively daylight intersections, that at that meeting, we talked about 12 people who had been killed on

our street, and now within a week, we're up to 13, another senior was hit and killed while walking in an intersection that's part of the high injury network. 13 people killed in the first five months of the year, and if our stats remain constant as they have in the past, 500 people will be severely injured by the end of the year. this is a crisis and we must do everything in our power to stop these injuries and fatalities, which are 100% preventable. we must support investments and engineering, education, and enforcement. we want to support s.f.m.t.a. as the implementing target to fast track safety projects. we must do everything in our power, such as the resolution supporting specific strategies,

such as daylighting, which by the way you will be voting on this afternoon. this resolution goes beyond just day lighting because sfmta to prioritize safety over traffic flow. if 13 people die in our street this is year, from gun violence, there would be rallies every day, media frienenzy and demandr more action. the crisis of traffic violence and residents killed by walking across the street or biking to work is hardly noticed. i refuse to accept that being killed or injured while walking, biking, or commuting is simply part of the urban living. colleagues, i refuse to pass on this resolution and commit to being aggressive in our actions and strategies to get to vision

zero. i would like to call up tom mcguire, if he would like to make any comments. >> mr. mcguire, good morning. >> good morning commissioners, tom mcguire at the mta. thank you for the invitation to speak commissioner yee and your support on our resolution efforts. we are looking to advance to quickly build projects in our high injury network. we have 10 projects we worked through with our own board, including projects like townsend street, california street. we are trying a new project,

we're not waiting two or three years for a construction contract. we're going in quickly with paint, posts, traffic signals, and using our injury tools to get proven results in the street. i think this resolution will certainly help us. thank you for introducing it. >> commissioner yee. >> i guess there are two other people. i'm finished. >> commissioner haney. >> thank you chair peskin and commissioner yee on your leadership on this. one of those individuals that lost his life over the weekend was in my district and we held a vigil yesterday and i'm very happy to see this resolution come forward and to have urgency on some of these high priority

projects. do you have a list of what the top priority safety projects are and will those be as part of this process, will those be provided on a regular basis? >> they will, i am sorry i don't have a slide with me right now but i can read them real fast. the majority are in district 6. >> is it okay that he reads the priority safety projects? >> howard street, which we already done, that's the first of the ten, and then townsend street, sixth street, fifth street, brannon street, taylor street, almani boulevard, california street, indiana street, and terry francois

boulevard. many of those projects, commissioner, you'll note that on streets like sixth and taylor, we are doing a full reconstruction of those streets and we're looking for capital funds for that. we want to get in with paint and posts in 2019 to make safety fixes. >> great. you said there were ten of them? >> yeah, there were ten, yeah. >> so, for the top priority safety projects, are those regularly updated to always have ten, so will you change them or will you add to them or will this resolution essentially sort of only be updating on the ten you just listed or will there be some flew -- fluidity in that? >> our board asked us to keep a list of ten going at any one

time, so they're going to enable us to move quickly. >> in terms of how you add those, is that a decision that's made by the m.t.a. board or by you, or how do you decide who those ten are? >> i think legislatively it's the m.t.a. board's decision, but we want to do it in collaboration with all the district supervisors for sure. it's limited to the high injury network, that's the one key constraint. >> great, i appreciate it and i would ask that whether it's a vision zero committee, or the m.t.a. board, or others, that there is some conversation publically on how those are being chosen, and how they are prioritizing them and as we hopefully complete some of these projects on the top priority ones you named, how we're adding to those and that we have a clear sense of the timeline on each of the ones that are on the list. thank you.

>> commissioner mandelman. >> i also wanted to thank president yee for bringing this forward. you know, i think i'm most familiar with the valencio street project and the experience of the first few blocks being done, when there's political will, these projects can move ahead much more quickly. i note that the rest of the project is not on the top ten, but i hope it will as you move through some of the higher priority projects, that the rest of the valencio project will find its way into the priorities, so we can move forward on those on as fast of a pace as possible. thank you. >> thank you. >> so colleagues, let me open this up to public comment. is there public comment on item number 6?

>> good morning commissioners, charles, senior organizer at the san francisco bicycle coalition. i speak in strong support of this resolution before you. i want to remind this board that the city embraced and made a commitment to vision zero in 2014. the board of supervisors passed a resolution, and several boards followed suit, from the m.t.a. to the police commission, it's frustrating that five years later, this board still needs to pass resolutions such as this, as we wait for elected leaders to give their support for critical street safety projects. people are dying, and it's made clear today. in 2015, there were 31 deaths, 2016, 32 deaths, 2017, 20 death, and 2018, 23. now in 2019, we're at 17 fatalities, that's 13 walking and biking, and 4 in other modes.

that puts us on pace for 47 this year. just last night, i joined commissioner haney, reverend williams, and community activists to recognize another life lost at tenderloin. i done this several times this year. i really hope that one day we could do more ground breakings than vigils, but that hasn't been the case this year. i challenge each of you to make real commitments to projects in your district and uphold this resolution. just last week, back to workday, mayor breed instructed the group that we needed to have 20 miles of bike lanes. thank you for bringing your attention to vision zero. we look forward to working with you and your offices as we tackle this epidemic of traffic

fatalities on our streets. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> commissioners, i think that mr. mcguire is pretty astute on thinking outside the box. now you'll take three or four years to execute something, and in the interim, you can put signs, maybe create a sign that is totally different for cycl t cyclists. a cyclist has die in that area, painted white or something, a unique sign so people know what is happening. put those signs every 100 feet or 200 feet. what we do is we look the other way around and we look at a design, the design goes to all the permits, one year, two,

three, four years, five years. i know. in certain areas, i vent to the process, took six years to put some traffic lights, six years. this is a city and county of san francisco with $12 billion. idiots heading some departments cannot do their jobs, i know them. i tell them to their face, oh, you don't know san francisco, we don't have the money. yes, you have the money. can you put a price on a life? so, supervisors, if y'all are true representatives, you need to go to that site. maybe the spirit of the person who has died will reveal something to you to do something good. so far, you know, it's like mickey mouse type of operation. we need to stream it.

i know supervisors are suffering from that accident and i thank you for representing on this issue. >> next speaker please. >> good morning, my name is cole brennan. i would like to thank commissioner yee for bringing this resolution to the front. i knee from my work at walk san francisco, i've been on the job for two weeks as the senior and disability outreach coordinator and in those two weeks, we lost two seniors that were killed in traffic collisions in san francisco. i'm new enough at this that i don't feel like a broken record yet, i just feel heartbroken. we would like to see this

measure go forward, obviously we would like to see more supervisors, more commissioners, and more public support for rapid implementation of safe street designs. we know that some other cities, including cambridge and washington d.c. are working on legislation that expedite safety improvements like these, and we would like to see san francisco consider something like that. thank you all for your time. >> thank you. >> seeing no other members of the public for public comment, public comment is closed. commissioner fewer. >> thank you chair, i would just be remiss not to add that in my district, i had two fatalities in one month and month later, a 90-year-old woman was struck on a high injury corridor in my neighborhood. i thank you president yee for bringing this forward and i want to emphasize the fact that m.t.a. also needs to do work on

the ground to talk to residents because they are fully aware of the traffic flow within their neighborhood and that is especially true in my neighborhood and also should take suggestions of district supervisors of where new arterials should be placed in high injury corridors and not wait for fatalities to happen there or collisions to happen there, and that's how they collect their data, it's through how many collisions happened at one site. so i just wanted to say thank you to president yee because i actually think there has been a communication disconnect and what is needed in our neighborhoods and what is being designed for our neighborhoods. thank you. >> thank you commissioner fewer. so commissioner yee, would you like to make the motion? >> i would. >> motion made by commissioner yee, seconded by commissioner brown, and we have a different

house, so mr. quintanilla, roll call please. [roll call] >> we have first approval. >> thank you, could you please read item 7 and 8 together. >> item 7, preliminary fiscal year 2019/20 budget and work program. item 8, internal accounting and investment report for the nine months ending march 31, 2019. >> ms. fong. >> i hope if y'all don't mind, i would like to start with item number 8 for the fiscal year update for the t.a. finances. as total assets equal

200.3 million for the first nine months, 287.2 million in lie abilities, revenues and expenditures are within budget. we're close in terms of revenues, only $1 million off of our goal for the first nine months. for expenditures, we have a 6 million difference, but we expect more coming from our fourth quarter, and i like to express that in the previous update, i mentioned we were waiting for sponsor reimbursement and they have caught up as of second quarter now. we are 66.5% of our funds are sitting in the treasure repool and we are in compliance in the investment policy. in our debt compliance, we're 18

months into our sales tax revenue bond. there is a requirement of three years to spend down the bond mro proceeds. we're at 52%. we have been spending the majority under radio replacement systems, cad projects, and trolley replacements. with that, if anyone has any questions related to the county report for the fiscal year 18/19 for the first nine months. >> we have no questions. >> then i would love to move on to the fiscal year 19/20 budge. this is your very first look at the t.a.'s fiscal year 19/20 annual work budget and work program. i will first talk about the numbers and then turn the microphone to tilly chang. we will take advantage to the

may 21st committee meeting to detail the program at the meeting. i would like to mention that you may notice the changes in the budget document, due to recommendations of the consulting performance review we received last year. thank you to all your offices for providing recommend daeatio and how we can make this more robust and more clear to each of your offices. on this first slide, what we have before you is side by side comparison of the fiscal year 18-19 and the fiscal year 19-20 budget. we are looking at an increase of 9.3%, which is $12.6 million. it is a very similar year to the prior fiscal year. we have various sources of revenue. the majority of our revenues

comes from sales tax funds. in terms of our next largest source, it's federal revenues. we're expected to receive 15.6% of federal revenues this year. this is anticipated increases in activities for the island improvement and bridge structure project, federal and state funds are coming in to fund this project. now i would like to also mention that we do receive funds from our $10 vehicle registration fee and our transportation for clean air act. those are both revenues continue to come in steadily. here i have a ten year outlook of sales tax revenues, a steady collection over the last ten years. this year's increase is a modest 1.1%. you can see in 2011 we collected

$75.2 million, and in fiscal year 2020, we're anticipating 110.9%. so this does not include any anticipated revenues for the internet collections. we are anticipating modifying any estimates at the budget amendment point of time when we have clearer information about the impact of revenues. >> here i have a slide on the expenditures, again, fiscal year 18/19 budget amendment, versus 19/20 preliminary budget expenditur expenditures. again, it's very similar to our prior fiscal year. the majority of the expenditures are related to our sponsors that we pass money to. we anticipate the highlight of the projects for prop-k would be vehicle procurements, the

project that makes up more than 87% of total expenditures for the fiscal year. our next largest percentage here is our debt service cost. we are into the third year of our sales tax revenue bond. we're anticipating to make our first principle payment, and we would have 27 remaining principle payments to make until the bond matures. we have incremental amounts of staff costs. we are looking at 2.9% personnel costs, and that includes costs for our 41 budgeted positions. we have actually 46 positions approved since the last salary survey. in terms of non-personnel expenditures, we are looking at approximately 1% and this is expenditures for our office operations, our lawyers, our