Objection. Item 8. The Strategic Plan recommendation and an information item. Good morning, i will do a very brief introduction. In part i want to acknowledge the great staff work in this great effort and collaboration of great sponsors we have had. As you may recall this prop vehicle Registration Fee is probably the only new in a decade made possible by senate bill 83. In november 2010 San Francisco voters approved a 10 increase in the San Francisco vehicle Registration Fee and in expenditure plan that went with it. Chad will give you a quick o. View, seeing this a couple times, what we are bringing before you is the heart, exciting, we will get money in five years in the program. A couple things in what the commissioner just said, this is tiny, compared to prop k, bringing in 70 million a year. It is about 5 million a year. We expect it to be pretty flat. We can do less with it. It is a payasyougo so we can fund what we can pay for each year. On the other hand it is lot more flexible
if they are ready to go, they are funded first. there are strict projects on the line. if like in prop k if we have programs in the fifth year and the sponsor doesn t come in the board can say you have a good story, we will let your funds rollover or could program them to other eligibility projects ready to go. the timing is also very good. we are about to embark this year on an update of the five-year priorityization programs, covering fiscal year 14-15, the next five. that is picking up the tail of prop a. we will be able to complement in two categories, the biggest opportunity are the rt, tps category and prop k where we can have the ability to advance a lot of funds if there are projects ready to go. same thing on street repair. may be able to advance funds to backfill the projects. thank you. colleagues, any other comments or questions? commissioner kim? i apologize for being away from the meeting. could you discuss maybe you already went over there through vario
street pavement recommendation. for those watching and you on page 96, attachment 5 with mini project description, you can add to this if you need, from market to division and bryant from 18th to division streets. we probably need to change the project name so it is a little more descriptive. okay. division and what? i don t have it. on market. ninth from market to division and on bryant street, from 18th to division street. okay. that will explain. in terms of the tep i think the placeholder is essential. the tp under eir is about six months under schedule. it is a big undertaking, something we are very supportive of. but one of the messages to the voters was we want to deliver the projects. if they are ready to go, they are funded first. there are strict projects on the line. if like in prop k if we have programs in the fifth year and the sponsor doesn t come in the board can say you have a good story, we will let your funds rollover or could program them to other
costs are only deducted out of that particular line item that only impacts the caltrain guideline. also what courtney was saying there is a trade-off. we are getting capital projects, which is good. costs more if we delay. a what this does is accelerate the need for the city to come up with a permanent source of funding for the caltrain capital match. still have a need but haven t found what the right. but we are having to look at the look at perhaps the opportunity to find the rest of the funding the city has committed to the caltrain electrification project, providing an opportunity to deal with the ongoing capital issue. how many years do we have to figure this out? running out of funds in 2024 or 25. okay, thank you. colleague, any other comments or questions? let s open this for public comment. any members of the public like to comment? please come forward. seeing none, we will close public comment. this item is open before us, motion to move forward with
areas that are of high concern. the one we looked at was through the priorityization criteria specific to that category. we give priority to projects identified the through the walk first effort, or that may be identified as corridors, projects or inter dictions through successor efforts, given what they have given consideration to date. i m looking at this chart. these are total funds we are talking about in terms of fiscal year 2012-2013. part is double a funds. we don t have that much funds that are here. the overall available funds, if you add up all three, that is what we anticipate being able to program out in prap aa dollars, including 12-13. if we had enough in 12-13 to we do. after understanding our revenues in terms of what was projected in the expenditure and seing from the department of motorvehicles, putting that together, these are funds being able to program out in given years by cash flow. not on the programming side. that is clear. so if you have yo