Welcome to the tuesday february 9there is echo on this. February 9, 2016 meeting of the finance committee of transportation authority. Im eric mar and to my right is london greedbreed and to my left is norman yee. The clerk is steve stomose and being broadcast today by [inaudible] and charles kremenak. Any announce mentds no announcement; breed present. Campos, absent. Commissioner kim, absent. Commissioner mar, present. Commissioner yee, present. We have quorum. I forgot to say [inaudible] happy year the mungy everyone. Please call the next item consent calendar items 2 to 3 are considered row teen. Staff isnt [inaudible] present if desired. If a member objects the items may be removaled and considered separately. Thank you. Lets open up for Public Comment. Anyone want to talk about the minutes . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Motion to approve the minutes. I have a question. Y r i wasnt at the last meeting so need to rekoos myself from voting on the minutes. It looks like we dont have a quorum to approve the minutes. We can continue until we achieve a quorum. Lets go to item 4 item 4, state and federal update were we going to item 3 . That is part the consent calendar. Okay. Good morning. My way of introduction if you havent seen me before i am mark watts and the representative in sacramento. Ia notice on the matrix there is a lot of temporary bills here. This is the time of year where bills that fail passage in the house of origin for one reason for or another are swept away so we recommend a host of bills to be deleted from the matrix because they exceeded the year deadline or vetoed or chapter. You will see next muchckt a whole new slate of legislation but today i have 5 bills. The staff is recommending a support position and what is customarily done if it is okay to proceed is tell the bill number and matrix page it is on in case you want to take a look at it and cover it briefly and move on so if that is acceptable ill proceed. The first measure is ab 1591, this is one of 3 major transportation finance proposals. This one was introduced in 2016 and it generate 7. 3 billion dollars a year annually, the largest by far of the 3 proposals that are circulating. It does in addition to raises gas tax and diesel fuel tax and registration fees also has significant commitment of cap and trade for transit projects that are eligible for cap and trade revenues. That is on page 18. Of your matrix. The funding is roughly split 50 50. The tax rez new funding between state and local government for dispersement for road repairs and rehabilitation. Ill continue on if you would like to come back for questions or can stop at this point you also have it on another page side by side with the governors budget and sbx. 1. 12 so that is a same bill but side by side with a couple others . Correct. The second measure staff is recommended support for is by Assembly Member chiu on page 18 and this deals with bus safety inspections. Established criteria and requires dmv to notify Public Utilities commission can when a Bus Companies first register as vehicle that isnt happening yet so this steps in and takes or addresses that gap in notification. Then if there is a inspection and not a satisfactory rating the bus is prohibited to be used from that company. The next mexer measure is special session bill, abx 1 is our framing for special session. Number 18 is found on page 25 of the matrix. This bill that mr. Linder would return state truck weight fees that are collected and used to offset transportation general Obligation Bond debt service squu mounts to about a billion dollars a year and this is a proposal to return the truck weight fees back to Transportation Services where they have been used for years and years. It has a potential impact on the general funds because the general fund has the obligation to make Debt Service Payments so that is the fiscal and policy tension bringing the revenue back. Commissioner breed, why does itwe are talking about abx 118 correct why does it say recommend support . Is there a bond that is still paid . That was consistent with where similar bills had been put forth last year so they have to find a new source of revenue to pay for bond debt . Correct. Thank you for the clarity. And on page 34 of your of the matrix is sb 12 by senator hill and this is a little more sweeping overhaul of tour bus safety what page again . Page 34. It establishes a higher priority for inspection for new Bus Companies that have a record of ill compliance with prior inspection so it puts the new buses coming into those companies at the top thofe list jujust the Fee Setting Authority to be more in line with the costs i think there is a feeling that fee setting is at a level that is too low so they are taking a attempt at providing more revenue for had Inspection Program to accommodate the higher priority and that is the suggested support. The next measure is the last measure recommended for support consideration is found on page 35. This is by senator beall, sba 24. There are several ongoing cap and trade funded programs that funds rail and transit and other programs so this is the low carbon transportation program. It is essentially Formula Program that distributes cap and trade funding to transit agencies on a basis that already exists in law and used to Fund Projects that are new efforts at reducing Green House Gas. An example would be a new line put into service that didnt exist before but for the availability of the money and so that would be a eligible project. There are wrinkles in how that was drafted originally. Now that we had one year of experience in the field with transit operators dealing with how the money is distributed, the timing and the other small elements of the program are being addressed in in the measure. It isnt in a final form but it is the form of [inaudible] support recommendation is being made. One measure that we are looking at has a history from policies that we took last year on page 17, [inaudible] by Assembly Member gomez. It increases the level of statutory required benefit to disadvantage communities in the Green House Gas reduction cap and trade program from 10 to 25 percent, setting aside whether that move is Something Worthy of support at this point intume, the issue for the bay area is in the first round of distribution of founds that have a requirement for disadvantage communities, there is the feeling in this community is the way the state defined disadvantage communities works to had regions disadvantage so there is a effort led by mtc and others to address that definition and how that all applies, so until that is fixed, the region is typically taken onposed position trying to force a change in how it disadvantage communities is defined, mr. Watts and wpt to give my two cents that if it helps east la and low income communities of color to opposing something that may be helpful for cleaning the air for low income communities even though it isnt helping us is the principle thing to do and prefer if we not take a opposition but be neutral and work towards defining communities of concern or whatever we call them more carefully so that the bay areas low income communities are included. Something like watch express concerns and convey with a letter what we are trying to [inaudible] not a opposition position. Okay. With that i draw my presentation on the new bills to a close. I would just give a highlight that the due date for bills to be introduced is theened of the month so we got a little more than 2 weeks remaining and i think probably several hundred bills will be introduced between now and then so will pull out the ones of highest visibility and priority. Any questions, colleagues . Thank you. So you were going through attachment one afterwards . That is the side by side governors budget ab 91 and sb 1 [inaudible] thank you. Amber [inaudible] transportation authority. This is quickly we were requested to provide this looking at the 3 proposals moving forward. The assembly and senate and governors proposal. As mark watts said the assimbly proposal is far and away the largest of the 3. That 7 billion, the sbx 11 is lailt over 4 billion and the governors budget is right around 3. Page 76. So, the governors budget and the assembly 1591 are the 2 that does commit funding for transit. Sbx 1 is more focused on Highway Maintenance and local streets and roads, so i think at this point we are definitely more supportive of ab 1591 but any new ruv new for transportation would be something we would love to see, so we are working closely at the state level and mtc and the other congestion man jt agencies to advance these hopefully including transit and including walking and biking and think maybe mark can add more about the political context but we get a sense the closer we get to [inaudible] the bigger lift we get to pass to the 2 3 vote. If i can follow up on commissioner breeds commission from earlier regarding the bond debt service. It is my understanding this is debt service on a general Obligation Bond so we ruproved by the public so the the intents is it it paided off by the general fund. This would shift it back and other uses typically dosuch as schools the debt comes out of the general fund the expectation is the payment of the debt Service Comes from the general fund and it is my understanding that there are concerns with our state budget and a possible major deficit and i dont understand why a decision like this would be made if there is no clear understanding of where we are going to be at where w the budget as a whole, so i guess why are we doing this . What is this about . It doesnt seem right to me. I think the intent behind it was to acknowledge the huge problem and deficit in transportation funding but it is a policy call and it is something that you dont feel comfortable until you have more information you can recommend revising the position. It just seems irresponsible so i think that is my concern, the fact it is recommended to be supported but there is no clear way to pay for the debt service and so this was the anticipated revenue for that particular service and why are we changing it without clearly making sure that we have a pipeline to cover it especially with a proposed deficit in the state budget . I just think it is irresponsible from my perspective based on the information i have. Definitely understand that. Thank you. I am wondering if mr. Watts can explain the political context of the governor versus fraser versus bell. Happy to you. A scene setting for you. The legislature started a session on transportation last summer, had full set of hearings in the fall, mr. Bell who is one of the cochairs along with jimmy gomez from la of the Conference Committee established, was able to move his bill, sbx 1 listed on the chart from the Transportation Committee and is pending hearing in the appropriation special Session Committee and he is drafting amendments to add significant new funding for transit and go beyond just a state rehabilitation and local road program but supplementing the cap and trade programs and other programs with new transit funding, so that is due to come up any day. Technically he would be able to amend the bill, the special session is one of those techniques the legislature can use for swift action so i expect when we see the language they would conduct a special session and move forwards. The governors bill and mr. Frasers bill are on a slightly longer track because mr. Frasers bill is introduced in regular session and it is just at the point now where it is clearing the first 30 day quite period and not set for Committee Hearing until sometime in march. At that point if had leadership gives a go ahead. The governors proposal is a budget trader bill and havent seen a packet like this through a budget before, but there is two wayswe are at a fork in the road, it can go quickly, they can hold a budget subCommittee Hearing on the entirety of the concept and move ahead, or they could put it into a more of a retune budget process where pieces are heard in different ujbet subcommittees and comes back together after the may revice so it is hard to see how it will go but we are waiting for senators bells maelts if tee if they fulfill what we are hoping for. That help . Thank you. I see no questions lets open up for Public Comment. Anyone from the public that would like to speak . Mr. Plantal. Bob plantal one of several people here to urge you to ovride it the staff recommendation on two bills, ab 1641 and abx 125. Staff is recommending watch and think it is highly inappropriate can you repeat that . Yab 1641 and abx 125 by the same author in Orange County, Assembly Member. They would say it is open season for shuttles to operate in transit bus systems. It may sound okay, but you have to think they are small bus company whether it is santa cruz and Scotts Valley is a tech hub [inaudible] have special commuter runs into sacramento. Smaller Transit Companies wouldnt have the power or ability as San Francisco to negotiate. Right now the Pilot ProgramSan Francisco had just ended. There is another program in place that may be modified. I think there ought to be learning provided to other transit agencies as well as the legislature, lessens learned, issues to be resolved would be writ nl into future legislation about shuttle squz bus stops. I think it better to say opposed now otherwise you give a rel tivly free or blank check to the shuttle companies. Gone, think not just of San Francisco but the smaller transit systems outside santsa cruz or mother load and foothill. They are not able to withstand the pressure. This is something you ought to be consideration. [inaudible] you have to take into account the negligentful under responsiveness. Cpuc isnt someone you want guarding the safety the passenger. It is under responsive with people with disabilities so watch isnt appropriate, it is opposed. You will hear about the multiplicity of usage of transit stop squz why this should be opposed. Thank you. Next speaker. Mrs. [inaudible] i am reiterating what bob said. Sue von. I will urge you to oppose the positions of watch for ab 1641 and abx 125. These would both amend the vehicle code to alloy privatecarias to operate in public bus stops. We know privatecarias [inaudible] and the evidence also indicates the availability of the tech shuttle buses in particular drives up housing price, eviction and displacement. With the expansion of Silicon Valley check these can be exacerbated. [inaudible]omeployment numbers by 27, 900 in coming years. What is unknown what the housing plan is but living in San Francisco and getting Free Transportation to silken Valley Companies is offered as a job perk. If the billerize passed there could potentiallythere are other bills discussed about raising generating revenue for Public Transportation and if those bills are passed there can be a lot of money to expand local and regional Public Transportation and that is what we need, locum and regional Public Transportation accelable to everyone. These two bills give no leverage to disability and low income communities to advocate for their needs. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Edward mason. The bill transfers public space to private use. You have wide turns from the buses that ubtruckt traffic. Engine and air conditioning noise are environmental deg aareidating. You have muni delays. Fuel consumption, hamp is waisted because the buses return for another trip so last year i estimate there were 1. 2 million gallons of diesel used and half was waisted. The bus loan safety and we have to board in the street. For the disabled it is a problem because if i am out there with a cane i dont want to board in the street. The bus operates, there is no legislation that prevents the bus from operating without a license. We had sfo [inaudible] for the month operate without a california license plate and dekales in the muni stop. At 24 and church there was a bower bus with no dekales a brand new bus but no dekales. Recommend that a Regional Express system set up for everyone to use it and for efficient use of consumption of fuel. I currently as it is written i recommend that this not be approved. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone esthat would like to speak . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Could we get some response from mr. [inaudible] [inaudible] just to give background on the staff recommendation, we understand the policy discussion is happening in other venues within the city and just for clarification the bill wouldnt issue a blanket authorization, it will allow local tooz make that decision that so we felt given the policy discussion going on, local control was something that we can take a watch petition on but it is up to you to amend if you desire. It seems like it is going against the california vehicle code, which is pretty clear it seems but anywayokay. Thank you. Colleagues we had a couple recommendation from the public speakers. Are there motions on any of the items . The suggestion was that the Orange County author alan trav isfrom district 72 [inaudible] abx 125, instead of new recommend watch a recommendation was made to oppose. Thoughts, supervisor campos . Thank you very much. Thank you for the p