tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 8, 2018 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT
program goes forward. it is it is to insure that what they see is the city and county working together to provide services to help people get around. that was the number one project that came out of the initial t.d.m. strategy and was also one of the top early ideas for the t.d.m. plan. in terms of the cost, it is staff time to manage the contract, to and to engage multi-city agency effort. we have a lot of agencies that touch and offer t.d.m. that a lot of coordination that goes there. and this is about $60,000 who and to increase the power of our outreach. >> with all due respect, and the
committee came l come up to me and say, what is this? and if they don't know what it is. if anything, they just don't know what it is. they keep thinking it's -- the traffic congestion and that is what is existing today. so i'm not understand iing the logic of that department doing t.d.m. and it's like a public -- the public doesn't care about whether it's m.t.a. or t.a. to be straight. so why are we spending money on this? >> an i guess i would say if we are successful, hopefully the public who does need to interact with us would know what it is and who cares about the fact that the public doesn't know
what it is and that is the problem that we are trying to solve. so we're engaging in this to give that brand that is something that allows people to interact in a meaningful way and with the set of circumstances and programs and to have that program. >> thank you. i'm not going to support this. >> all right. >> hopefully my colleague can support this. when we don't have crossing guards at every school in san francisco that needs it. why do we need to do branding? it doesn't make any sense. the employee time, the money, it is a waste. so all right. why don't we sever out the t.d.m. branding matter at $154,200, and is there -- can we sever that out.
and by commissioner yee. and seconded by commissioner breed. we will do that without objection. on the balance of item six, is there a motion to move that forward? made by commissioner breed. seconded by commissioner yee. we can take that same house, same call. and now on the balance of item six, $154,000 -- i'm sorry? mr. taylor, the action was that we just approved the allocation of $2.53 million. we just approved the signal modifications at $1.218 million. the signal upgrades at $175,000 t business relocation, t.d.m. at $383,000 and the signal upgrades at $65 # 5,000 and did not yet consider the transportation demand management program.
and which we will now consider is there a motion one way or the other on the main $154,200 of the prop k request. >> i will make a motion to disapprove it. >> motion made to disapprove the $154,200. seconded by commissioner sheehy, and on that item, a roll call please. >> on item 6 to sever the $. >> already been severed. >> it is approved. >> there is a motion to deny. so if you vote yes, you are voting to not fund that $154,200. if you vote yes. yes means no. >> on the commotion. commissioner breed? >> aye. >> commissioner cohen? >> aye. >> a commissioner fewer? >> aye. commissioner kim? >> aye. >> commissioner feskin? >> aye.
>> commissioner ronen? >> commissioner safai? >> commissioner sheehy? >> aye. >> commissioner stefani? >> aye. >> commissioner tang? >> aye. >> a commissioner yee? >> aye. >> that item is disapproved. the item pass which is means the money does not. next item please. >> item 7, adopt the vision zero ramp intersection study phase one. this is an action item. final report. >> all right and we have our speaker today. >> i am here with t.a. and i will be and to study findings as a recommendation to get the overview of that study this, study is funded by prop k and funds for district six and the purpose of the study is to
improve traffic safety at the zuma ramp intersection and develop low cost, easy to implement improvement costs at the location. here are the five examples district and they are on dime and harrison street. at first we took existing conditions to look at what are happening at the locations, and what we found are there are missing bike infrastructure, confusion among drivers and lack of industry. and here you can see a picture of the ramp intersection where there are multiple lanes going with heavy traffic in multiple directions which creates unsafe environment for almost all modes of transportation. when we concluded the existing condition, we worked on proposed improvement plans to address the issue that we found.
for example, to increase the pedestrian visibility, we propose proposed shorten crosswalk or open crosswalk when possible. on the left hand side you can see the collision pattern and the specific improvement at that location. throughout the project we have done outreach with neighborhood and advocacy groups. some include a commissioner safety advisory committee, bike coalition, and we worked with commissioner kim's office to identify the stake jb holders and where we met the represent tiff and got the with the
representative and share the plans and get the feedback. and on the positive feedback, and here is some that we are proposing to include in our construction budget as the study moves forward. and communicate that with the sfmta vision zero team to be included in the broader reach and education and enforcement effort. project funding and is estimated to be causing about $4.4 million. and sfmta will be the implementing agency who will be constructing this improvement at that location. sfift street improvement mans
wi plans are part of the street improvement project and the other three will be included in the draft and just expected to be approved by summer of 2018. as of right now, these improvements are funding to implement the use improvements. >> and phase ii is study 10 new freeway intersections and you can watch the video and take the survey where we are asking participants on how to improvement the intersections and what are the experiences they have as they use the study of the ramp intersection. we conclude the initial outreach
for phase ii with proposed safety improvements and will hold open house in um summer to get public feedback. and we are expecting to con cluz the phase ii by january of 2019. with this, any questions? >> are there any questions from members of the authority? seeing none, thank you for that presentation. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to adopt the vision zero ramp intersection study? made by commissioner sheehy. seconded by commissioner tang. on that item, because commissioner breed -- commissioner breed is in the room. same house, same call. the study is adopted. next item please. >> item 8, adopt the 2019 prop k
strategic plan baseline. this is an action item. >> an i am pleased to present the prop k strategic baseline plan to you today. you last month approved the overall approach to updating the strategic plan and five-year priorization plan and i am pleased that we can now with adoption of the baseline pivot to adopting the five-year prior tiization program with the implementing agencies. just as a recap, the five-year plans and the strategic plans to determine what projects will be funding with prop k over the next five years. and it is an community and from the funding landscapes and to insure local match available to leverage discretionary grants and the early phases of work for
future funding sources. from year four and the need to engage the board and the public and to identify the projects on july 1, 2019. the recap of the process is the iterative process, the sick circular arrow, but first, we are in step one to establish the baseline. and and to determine by the end of the program and what goes into it is the revenues and expenditures since the last update. we have updated revenue forecast and debt assumptions and to the packets and update the strategic
plan policies and from the paratransit and the categories do not have multiple eligible projects and only one project that can request funds to take care in the strategic baseline. and with three policies and on the policy side, this is the third update and now in 2019. and minor updates are proposed with clarifications purposes and reiterate guiding principles which guide our process to optimize the leveraging of non-prop k funds that support timely and cost effective project delivery and maximizing the cost effectiveness of financing so we can make sure as much money is available for projects as possible. on the revenue side, it is made up of sales tax primarily and investment income. and to recap of where we thought we would go over the last five
years and where we have gone over the last five years. it should help boost this slide and shows how good we were with the revenue forecast. we are outside of conservative and so the orange line is lower tharn the green line to have enough money for projects and we don't want to deline projects like hahs done at the state level in the past. and we forecast $28 million in revenue coming in than what we estimated. but as you will notice, the revenue increases are tapering over the last few years. and not -- the growth is slowing. so how that is reflected in the long-term projections is over the next few year, we have a conservative growth estimate in the ball park of 2.1%. and we are expecting that we are overdue for some type of a decline. however, in the long term we expect robust growth in revenues. and back to more historical averages of around 3%.
and the expenditure side, our expenditures of the prop k program are made up of operating expenditures which are percent of revenues and taper off at the end of the program. capital reserve which is what i will talk about in a moment. and project costs and financing costs. these are the expenditures that we see. a recap of where we thought we would be and where we have been the last five years. and this is very demonstrative of what we have seen in the last strategic plans and agencies have come in for less money than they thought they would in the strategic plan and they have requested reimbursement at a slower pace than they thought they would. that does not niecely mean projects are not being delivered. and they might be delivered with the general obligation bond funds which have become available during this period and as far as slower than anticipated expenditure, it reduces our financing costs when reimbursements come in slower. which ultimately makes more
money available for projects. on this side, this is a comparison of where we where and where we are in the baseline. this is over the 34 years of the program. and on the revenue side, the revenue projections are $50 million less than in 2014. so out of 3.3 billion and holding steady on the revenue projections. and it's lower and to stay constant and on the long-term proceed side, we thought we would bond a long time ago. we thought we would be bonding in 14-15 and just issued the first bond this past fall. on the expenditure side, program administration is a function of revenue, so revenue is from the
program administration is slightly down. i will come back and available for projects. and with the financing costs down as a result of lower bond proceeds expected. and the costs is lowered as maturing in the program and will be a mere 15 of the 30-year expenditure plan period. the capital reserve is 10% of annual revenues. in 2014, the last 20 years of revenue as well. we are anticipating we are five years in and five years more of 10% freed up, and we are also recommending to the second to last year and the net result is a lower capital reserve and the long-term debt is down. package that up and it means there is $50 million over 30 years of a there are 3 billion program for $50 million more for projects.
so we're holding constant. we're holding steady is what this says. also in the baseline, we take care of the major products in the paratransit category. central subway, these are the four major projects and these are the categories and prop k that have the big, big ones. and central subway, we have allocated all the funds available and updated the strategic plan with cash flows and expenditures. and all available funds and cash flows and we are overprogrammed slightly in the baseline, but we are hoping this will resolve itself with the updates to the program and financing costs go down. presidio parkway, all the
funding obligations have been met. there is some capacity leftover holding in reserve for claims potentially. and transbay transit center and caltrain downtown extension is phase one and phase two in the same category. all the funds are for the downtown extension per board policy. it is the only major capital project we do expect further changes in the strategic plan. the remaining centers are not programmed yet, but once the board is comfortable with the direction of the project which which we anticipate will be in the next few months possibly, we would recommend to amend the baseline to make funds available possibly as soon as 18-19 and advance the design to 30% and value engineering of the project. and paratransit side, we're recommending to increase the annual amount of funds, to continue current funding levels through 24-25. and that amount is about
$400,000 higher than it was when commissioner yee recommended increasing the funding to reduce the wait times for some of the group van services. we will continue with that funding level. and an increase over the next three years to find a chopper shuttle in the ramp taxi commission. and sfmta would still need to come back to the board to request the funds. i just want to highlight that. and last year of funding for paratransit is 25-26 and that is a partial year of funding. the will wrap up step one and we are going to turn immediately and work with agencies with the five-year program and the survey of the public to release later this week to say how do you want to spunned the sales tax and
back with straft -- how to spend the sales tax funds and we will be back in the fall with the budget going into the budget cycle. and with that, i can take any questions. >> thank you, ms. la forte for that thorough presentation. commissioner yee? >> i have to concerns. one of them is the paratransit in terms of possibly investing into purchasing vans. can you talk about that? >> i will ask about the second question later. >> for paratransit operation and goes through the broker contract. and we would be looking into funding more vehicles from the
programmatic category for muni vehicles which has a five-year plan. that was my reference to work to figure out what the needs are for the capital investment for vehicle. >> thank you for that explanation. the other thing is as i was glancing through the different projects and so forth, i don't get a sense that in the outer districts, i can speak to district seven, it doesn't seem to be a lot of categories that would support the increased population and public transportation would need to meet in the next 25 years. as you know, essentially you have some major developments and residential developments out there.
san francisco state, youngstown, and the board reservoir. and looking at the capacity now from the m-line and i keep talking about it during the commute hours is pretty much at capacity. and you are not going to be able to add frequency enough to meet the demands in the future, so what are we doing in terms of addressing that issue? >> director chang will respond. >> we recognize growth happening in the southwest and it comes down to planning and allowing the planning that we are doing to assist sfmta. we received a grant from the region to look at a city wide transit plan and looking at freets and freeways as part of
the upcoming program and jeff hobson are working closely with the sfmta and the questions are important about areas of the city and growing and continuing to experience that area. and one of the things that we can do is work in some of the things in the near term can set us up and those are the planning activities and capital improvements that are more near term and can help with extending capacity, safety, particularly as the vehicle complex builds up in some of the areas. >> thank you. all right. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and is there a motion to adopt the 2019 prop k strategic plan baseline? motion made by commissioner
tang. seconded by commissioner sheehy. and we can take that same house, same call. the item is adopted on first read. next item please. >> item 9, update on emerging mobility services and technology report. this is an information item. >> mr. logan, the moment we continue to wait for. >> not a power point, but i think it will work. i am warren logan and the transportation planner with the transportation authority, and i am extreatmently excited to talk -- extremely excited to talk about the emerging mobility sector. you may have noticed over the last 10 years that we have seen a lot of different services in our streets car sharing, bike caring, and including a possible
bike path. we learned how to determine how we were impacting the streets and today a coup of different topic. the first is remind iing everyo of the guiding principles we adopted in june of 2017. and then we will go into how the transportation authority connected the valuation to understand how the services are helping us meet our goals and how they might be hurting our goals as well. and finally, we have some really great recommendations about how we can guide the sector towards long-range transportation planning effort. it's really familiar, but urgent mobility services and technology inand scooters to electric mopeds, e-bikes and microtransit and in june of 2017 we adopted
in the transportation authority 10 guiding e.p.a. technology and these are based and a number of adopted policies, plans, and strategist. as an example, safety is vision zero for policy t transit principals and last and should be strongly rooted in the goals that we have and to conduct evaluation, we took each and developed series of evaluation criteria. i will step through this process to be clear about how we did eval and these are specifically related to the direct outcomes in the guiding principles, so in this case i have highlighted safety. looking far reduction in collision rates. others identify connection to transit and so on nond and many
are relieved to the operational safety and measured distracted driving and whether or not the drivers are operated an trained and so on. let's talk about the result. i will keep it high level, but happy to dive into any questions you might have at the end. first and foremost is companies that partner with sfmta and san francisco public agencies are better at providing data and providing experience so that we are able to create logical service types to better neat the transportation goals. what is interesting is this pipeline to date is very informal, so we need to har mornize that data.
why we are collecting good data, we are not collecting the same data across the board. it is not an apples to apples comparison. we need to do a better job of tracking user behavior and asking the same questions of each one of these in the results section or questions section is many of the services operate late at night, 24 hours a day, on demand, in areas that are less well served by transit. that means there is a great opportunity to bridge some of the gaps that we have identified in this meeting and in many others. there are conflicts with public transit, the first of which is as you have identified early on the, they are and we also study that some of the services while they say, hey, we're good for transit and connecting people to transit, but when we ask them, are you providing that information in the app or incentivizing the behavior, they are not. so those are the negative
findings. and all the services except for chariot and none of them test the operators and this might be in direct connection to the curb management, impact on bike and safety line. and there are impacts on congestion as well. and from the data and also from new york that demonstration for companies pulling off into private transit and that means that the mortgage is on the road, and that is less. that is a problem for congestion. let's talk about recommendations. a lot of these are great
standards. and we want to encourage the city to actively partner with companies and with future companies as well. we want to create the framework for pilots to on board new companies at our discretion instead of addressing them piecemeal. the second is to continue conducting research in the space to collect travel behavior data and ultimately measure how they are interacting and with public transit services, bikes, walking, etc. and we would like to address costs and harmonizing the exists permits we have and creating a framework for future permits so that the next service comes down in six months, we are ready for it. we would love to bridge whatever gaps we see. and for people who are joultd
side and with the # signals and six, enforce safe streets. and however, we can't just throw man hours at this issue and a recommendation to automate some of the systems as well. we can use fancy computers to address and lastly, we want to move toward congestion pricing and manage with the comprehensive curb management strategy. with that, i am happy to take any questions. >> colleagues, any questions for mr. logan? >> a commissioner colen. >> commissioner cohen? >> supervisor cohen: what are we doing to be proactive about our approach instead of reactionary to the new tiend in technology that are rolling out on the streets and sidewalks? then i have three other
questions. you can start there. >> is the question, how with we currently doing that? want to make sure. >> well, yeah. >> and we have worked with the companies as they are moving forward the city. we went to all the companies and asked what are the goals and what are you looking for? and there is a the proactive outreach. and surely that can be made stronger. >> you said a lot there. let me take back a bit. >> working with the mayor's office and the organization and what are the goals? what is the answer? >> that is a teaser. >> and what are our goals or their goals? >> when you reached to the tech companies, what did they say? >> some of this truly want to connect users to transit. i think everyone said that, but some have demonstrated that more
than others. and secondly is the profit motivation. and third is many of the services and seeing this with the market right now are tracking towards what is called mobility as a service. so you might have noticed that uber now owns jump. jump is -- and lyft probably does the same thing and tracking towards each other and ultimatecally what we are likely to see is companies that control a very large section of the market and not with one type of service but with several others. >> all right. what rule does the mayor's office of innovation play in supporting the t.a. on understanding te merging mobility -- the emerging mobility services and technology? >> we did not coordinate with mayor's office of innovation, but with the sfmta office of innovation and are happy to consider partnering with the mayor's office as well. >> i am just raising questions because i don't know the answers. so what about the planning department? is the planning department involved in this discussion? >> they are. and so maybe i will take you through a little built of the
way we see this works. throughout each step of the process we used what is called design thinking to have several different shots. in the development of the -- excuse me, in the policy framework, the guiding principles, help from the industry stakeholder, community stakeholder, and also different agencies that includes sf environment, planning department, an and the mayor's office on disability, and the sfmta. we used the same groups of people to continuously work together towards not only developing and the right answers towards the evaluation efforts. everyone is step by step a part of the process. >> everyone but the mayor's office of innovation. that is a rhetorical question. how do you quantify congestion impacts on safety? and the diversion of ridership from public transportation to
the eengineered mobility services? >> have you an to quantify. >> and commissioner, i can answer both. >> for congestion, two ways to look at this. for our study, a strict guideline that data that was in san francisco for services, for services in san francisco, we continue confirm that. and that said, there are studies about the broader san francisco bay areas and i will the point to u.c. and all the study iing d perhaps to course year network services that are pulling riders off transit and adding more vehicles to the road waist. we are not pretend -- to the roadway. we are not pretending that the studies don't exist, but we can't talk specifically about
safety and highlight chariot trains and tests them regularly. that is a really big cold star. many of the operators are not providing the operate to and no warning about how to pick up people from the curb at the right stop or what a bike lane might like in san francisco or a bufferer or what a red carpet line does and an muni and versus a bus and taxi lane. we are happy to partner with any of the companies to work on developing that, but to date those are issues that are comprising the safety of our streets. >> phenomenal presentation. did a lot of work in the last ant a year, so i am excited even
when you first came to the chamber and made the proposal and i think you are doing a lot of good work. i wanted to bring the team that includes scooter, bike share, and obviously going to be the future of mobility and at least it feels that way when i read your report. i am wondering if we know if there are additional mobility technologies and that have not been conceived yet. or are still in the development stages? and so i want to express my concerns that i am not sure that the team is big enough. that the team that is working on understanding this industry is large enough. it has the capacity. it is you and just you, right? >> can i jump in? thank you so much, commissioner, for asking that question. i believe the forces and the trends that we are seeing and
the forces behind some of those because they are so powerful, cities around the world are really struggling to address that in terms of the capacity to do data collection. and so if they don't give us data, we have to spend more time to design surveys and conduct them ourselves in terms of observing directly the industry or contacting folks through survey. i think the capacity of technology and the training that is needed to develop a cadre of planner s and advisors and city attorney's office, those folks are expert there is and training us in many ways and bringing all areas that we have to them. but it is a very important question you are asking. to have the capacity on the part of the public sector to do our jobs as planners, as broker, as regulat regulator, and as partners in some cases to the pilot where the collaboration is there to do a pilot and learn from that. >> i totally agree --
i totally agree with you and that is exactly why i was raising the question from my perspective it seems like a regional issue. the same way we do regional transportation for high-speed rail and to think about this and make sure and is theres -- to the branding concept that was earlier on the agenda. and just seems like this would be a stronger and better and more efficient use of our tax dollars that would actually go to studying and understanding and ultimately creating a solution for a future current as well as future, but transportation problem. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, commissioner. quick opportunity to thank both darden and danielle from the office of innovation. they have been wonderful partners in this.
i want to laud our effort to bind our agencies together. they have been with us throughout this entire process. a big shoutout to them, too. >> thank you, mr. logan. commissioner yee? >> thank you, commissioner cohen, for your comments because my comments are really related to yours. what brought up this issue of don't almost two years ago and i said this is where we're running into problems with this. we need to get ahead of the curve on this. and at the same time i realized that that was just one issue. as you commissioner cohen mentioned, this could be a lot of issues. commissioner breed mentioned scooter and so forth. and so more recently with the announcement at the time that i would do this, but it took a
create this task force that would be led by the city administrator and kelly creating the task force now and the purpose is to look at exactly the issues that commissioner cohen is mentioning. but actually, even beyond transportation or mobility type of devices. it is more of the emerging technology and what we are finding out more and more is we're always running behind and trying to figure out what to do about it once the technology is already introduced instead of working with industry and say what are you planning and which is the committee permit process that we need to have. the other thing i found out was that with new companies come
into the city, new departments have different perspectives. and nobody knew who was supposed to provide permits and we need for information from the city. the outcome of that task force or the work group -- i can't remember if it was a work group or task force -- to come up with recommendations to possibly develop or have the city f v a department of emerging technology to look at the issues. try to get ahead of the curve. figure out what type of permits we need to do and need to have before it hits the ground. and from the utility and with that report. and something that will be what we will all be supporting. i just wanted to share that information. >> oh, and then also one other
-- wanted to appreciate from -- and in providing some of the guiding principles for the task force to look at, much of it came from the efforts of this emerging mobility effort that has been presented today. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner fewer? >> yes, thank you for this. and i just wanted to ask if we are collecting any data around enforcement with the police department? in my district they said 80% of the tickets are coming out. and just about that impacts and safety and violations and that was interesting about the training and to give recommendations with what we are seeing in the violations around our city. >> thank you. great. seeing no other commissioners,
why don't we open this up for public comment. >> i have one speaker card, and if there are other individuals who would like to come forward, please do. clarissa. i apologize if i did not pronounce that well. >> good morning, chairperson and commissioners. i am the mobility policy director at transform. i just want to applaud warren and everyone else for leading this effort. it has been a very important and important effort that sets a precedent across the nation for how we deal with new mobility as it kind of comes to our cities. this report says it is an important way to tackle issues that arise in the public right-of-way. and because we know left unto themselves, these companies will
not prioritize the need of the most vulnerable. today i want to highlight two of the things i will provide formal comments to on later. but one, community engagement. as the prop program introduced with the outreach, what we found is when you lead with sensitivity and the right messeng messenger, we can steer the companies to provide real, meaningful benefits to lower income communities of color. so out of that outreach, we are seeing 97% of people of color receive memberships before gold bike as well as 70% making under $15,000. that and so we need to where other transit agencies haven't been able to provide. >> thank you. next speaker please.
>> and proud of the report and we strive to do better in partnership with the city, and in that vain, i would like to share with you some of charity's current and -- chariot's current and ongoing commitments to san francisco. we are committed to work with the city. that can be exemplified in the private transit vehicle permit granted to chariot a few weeks ago. as part of that prment, we agree -- as part of that permit, we agreed to complement and not compete with transit. and we are paying a cost recovery fee and sharing data in realtime. i am proud to say that we are the first provider to receive this ptv permit in san francisco. we're also committed to investing in our community. nearly half of the drivers are from the bay view hunters point. we pay for all the drivers to go
through commercial driver license training. we pay for the program itself and pay $16.50 an hour for folks to go through the program. we are committed to the labor harmony. we are proud of our partnership with the team stares and local -- teamsters and local 65 that set the bar for microtransit in the bay area. we are committing to reducing congestion. one chariot takes on average 10 single occupancy vehicles off the road. we are committed to safety as the sfmta report showed, chariot has low as 3.2 collisions per 100,000 miles driven and we're also committed to accessibility. we have a fleet of wheelchair accessible vehicles and on app functionality. and we are developing service for areas of concern as we speak. thank you for your time. and we look toward to working
with san francisco. >> thank you for your comments. are there any other members of the public on item nine? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you, mr. logan, for your work and your presentation. we look forward to continue dealing with this emerging mobility sector. mr. clerk, next item please. >> item 10, preliminary fiscal year 2018-2019 annual budget and work program. this is information item. >> good morning. cynthia fong. what i have before you today is information item. this is your first look at the t.a.'s preliminary fiscal year 2018-2019 annual budget and work program. i will first walk you through the number rs and pass it over to director tilly chang to wake you through the agency's annual work program. as you are well aware of, the
t.a. has five to six responsibilities. the prop k, c.m.a., the prop a programs and the timma program. and revenues this year were forecasted to total to $123.2 million. this is $4 million lower than last fiscal year, so the current fiscal year in right now due to funding for the island and the project will be island improvement project. that project will be wrapping up in the summer, this coming summer of 2018. we also have federal and state planning and the state programming and mon norring funds. this is -- and the monitoring fund. this is typical where we have one year we don't feoff it represents part of the nay federal grant revenue revenues
representative and the island projects and the timma projects and the projects like the stone freeway, ramp intersection. and the vehicle registration fee represents 4% and holding steady for the past years and followed by planning and m.t.a. departments, and the tide plans and providing funding for the island and with other projects. a look at sales tax and we have been study and from $102 million
in fiscal year 15-16 and in the growth the last two year of 2%. in terms of expenditures, $263 million and this is $135 million les than last fiscal year and was an anomaly. we issued the first $248 million bond that is mainly the reason why we have that with the capital expenditures. and mainly the majority of the projects are for the sfmta projects like the vehicle pro curement, central subway and the computers needed for that system. and we have the service expenditure costs and this is the costs that will pay for the
annual payments and the outstanding or credit loan to maintain the debt service program. and in terms of personnel, and that represents 2.9%. this is the full-time equivalent staff we have at the transportation authority. we have no changes to the personnel expenditure. nonpersonnel expenditures have increased increase of $400,000 and this represents 1%. and this is really for costs related to our office rent, legal, and i.t., and our equipment, software, and the office supply. everything that keeps the office running. i would also mention this budget anticipates us to draw down another $121 million in the credit revolver. and in addition to using bond proceeds to fully fund and any time we draw down from the
revolving credit agreement, we will come back to the board for the approval. with that, oh, i have one more other slide. this is a slide i like to bring back once in a while. this is information from march 31 and this shows you the plan, ordered and in service in terms of the different various vehicles we were using prop k funds to fund the item. i will turn it over to director chang. >> thank you so much. so continue on the work program priorities for 2018-2019, these are the eight or nine areas the board has continued to ask us to work on. and from the planning function and delivery and from the city is a big year. and will be diving in and following the vision and setting that planning department. and into the transit and the freeway side master planning.
and the transit plan and down to park merced, east-west, along geneva to better connect with rail and that includes potentially subway rail as well as rapid bus as we heard feedback from you all last month to better connect across the whole network and to nondowntown destinations. and they have further along will be diving into the freeway vision study and that was requested by commissioner ronen. and we are looking there at the short, medium, and long-term options to make that area more livable and accessible for folks on foot. and improving safety. and also trying to read this. to revisit the communities devised by the major freeways. the neighborhood transportation improvement program and from
district two and the continuation of visions and soma and the mobility management district 10. we enjoy working on these on your mbehalf. we want to keep these going. they seem to be working well to have the planning work followed on by capital projects funding and hopefully we can renew and re-up that funding source for you in the coming year as part of the prop k strategic plan work. moving on to the topic we just discussed, the emerging mobility study, we are deepening the efforts on research to tie and better provide the research data and the state-based evidence based on the link. t.n.c. in transit operations and performance. and in equity. there is a lot of issues in the questions. the only way to really shed light and advise you from the policy standpoint is to have data. we are making a big investment
in the models and the travel forecasts and surveying the data warehousing today. and as much data we collect, and we are having the online tools that the public can see how does this effect me and part of san francisco. and the citizens advisory to to be active throughout and the last time going in and we lie on the area to look forward to and get the message to the district folks and the newsletter rs and support on the outregion side. and from the efficiency and portal is the tool and sponsors and visibility and behind the scene. it will help to have that moved online. and so response from d.p.w. and
when they make prop k and from prop aa is the vehicle registration free to implement the strategic plan from the regional and state level. from the topics and to plug in to efforts across the bay area and the ministry and improved by voters in the general election. and thereafter we make sure we protect sb1 funding and approved by the legislature and if they choose not to do so, for whatever reason, we will be challenged to back fund that
funding and further fulfill those efforts in san francisco and across the bay area. turning to the delivery side t focus is on the ramps and structures project. they will be procuring those projects. and the city project we just approved and that is fixing and finishing up the final amounts and making sure there is an evaluation of that project. and from the 3p and traditional delivery methods that will be in comparison of the two methods. and the ocean avenue, southbound offramp and potentially the northbound geneva onramp and commissioner safai asked us to look at that and be involved in the community work and improve the safety of the ramps. and the connector road in the bayview is something we will work with on the real estate side. the project delivery report.
and the downtown extension and to move that project forward. and from the positive control and caltrain and other niche toughs that we are working on to -- and other initiatives to set the stage for high-speed rail and now by 2029 is what the business plan is what their authority has just released an estimate for the schedule. to make sure the caltrain business plan is addressing our needs and reflect the priorities of san francisco and the whole three county board district in terms of the high-speed rail and getting the financial side of the house ready for that work. and the central subway and provide support to m.t.a. and geneva bus