Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

tv   Trans Authority Finance Committee 2916  SFGTV  February 23, 2016 10:05am-11:01am PST

10:05 am
county wide and age opportunity to revisit it does it make sense for that the extension the long-term and, of course, see how they compete with other opportunities the city and the m line central subway and this is important as well. we think that providing hov lanes on i 280 could be looked at and for example, if you ray have a dedicated hov line where a bus can go downtown this could be a faster way today they get stuck in traffic not a competitive alternative but south bay is one of the key designations we didn't touch on
10:06 am
that but worth looking at the constitutional process because that's where a lot of people are going and 90 percent of people drive so as compared to people going downtown around 65 percent of people taking transit to the majority driving a huge number of people driving so this needs to be looked at within our focus suggested for the future with that, thank you very much i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you so many i was interested in doing this it didn't only touch on this a basis but highlights neighborhood and actually residents have difficulty in assessing different hubs thank you. i look forward to working on how it is that we can repurpose underutilized lines and better serve our residents and so thank you for all your
10:07 am
hard work any other questions or comments from the colleagues opening it up for public comment landlord/tenant seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 8 introduction of new items this is an informational. >> no introductions seen none, public comment is closed. and item 9. >> public comment. >> general public comment there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. and item 10. >> adjournment. >> all right. thank you we're adjourned good morning everyon
10:08 am
welcome to the tuesday february 9-there is echo on this. february 9, 2016 meeting of the finance committee of transportation authority. i'm eric mar and to my right is
10:09 am
london greed-breed 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 isn't [inaudible] present if desired. if a member objects the items may be removaled and considered separately. >> thank you. let's open up
10:10 am
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 wasn't at the last meeting so need to rekoos myself from voting on the minutes. it looks like we don't have a quorum to approve the minutes. we can continue until we achieve a quorum. let's 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 haven't seen me before i am mark watts and the representative in sacramento. ia notice on the matrix there is a lot of
10:11 am
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 i'll proceed. the first measure is ab 1591, this is one of 3 major transportation finance proposals. this one was
10:12 am
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. i'll 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
10:13 am
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 isn't 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
10:14 am
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 it-we are talking
10:15 am
about abx 1-18 >> 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
10:16 am
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
10:17 am
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 didn't 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
10:18 am
being addressed in in the measure. it isn't 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
10:19 am
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 isn't helping us is the principle thing to do and prefer if we not take a opposition but be neutral and
10:20 am
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
10:21 am
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
10:22 am
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.
10:23 am
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 do-such 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 don't understand why a decision like this would be made if there is no clear understanding of where
10:24 am
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 doesn't 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 don't 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
10:25 am
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
10:26 am
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
10:27 am
proposal is a budget trader bill and haven't seen a packet like this through a budget before, but there is two ways-we 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 let's 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
10:28 am
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 wouldn't have the power or ability as san francisco to negotiate. right now the pilot program san francisco had just ended. there is another program in place that may be
10:29 am
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
10:30 am
responsiveness. cpuc isn't someone you want guarding the safety the passenger. it is under responsive with people with disabilities so watch isn't 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 1-25. these would both amend the vehicle code to alloy privatecarias to operate in public bus stops. we know privatecarias [inaudible] and
10:31 am
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 potentially-there 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
10:32 am
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
10:33 am
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 don't 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.
10:34 am
>> 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 wouldn't 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 anyway-okay. thank you. colleagues we had a couple recommendation from the
10:35 am
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 presentation. i wanted to just reference my thoughts on ab 1641 and abx 1-25. given sortf what we have gone through in san francisco i am very worried about the state putting this forward. i think this takes local control away
10:36 am
and i think that while we have seen with our own program here is there are many benefits to this and i'm happy that the program is likely to continue here in san francisco, i think that is a good outcome, but there is clearly mitigations that are needed on so many different levels where wl it is congestion in terms of number of stops in a given jurisdiction, whether it is environmental impacts that may occur, to what they actually pay for the use of public stops . too as we see here in san francisco, the potential impact on housing and displacement. i think that i would make a motion to oppose ab 1641 and adx 1-25 in the current form
10:37 am
because i do think they take away local control and i don't see it as opposing shuttles, i think the fact is we are supporting them here, but i think the way this is being done it actually is harmful to local jurisdiction squz think each jurisdiction has to figure out what make sense and think this takes that away. >> second mpt >> any other comments? so, for the full package this is a action item so there is a motion on changing those 2 items, can we have a roll call on that? it is a motion that we take opposed position on ab 1641 and abx 1-25. >> on the motion to oppose those bills, commissioner breed, aye. commissioner compose, aye. commissioner
10:38 am
kim, aye. commissioner mar, aye. commissioner yee, aye. the amendment to the item passes. >> now on the full legislative- >> actually i have a recommendation. i have a recommendation that we oppose abx 118. i think as i said before we are-this measure will seek to return the return of truck weight fee tooz the state highway rehabilitation purposes, which would be great if we paid our bill and the source of revenue from this fee is actually used to pay the bond debt and i just don't understand why this would be requested of us if we haven't finished paying the bill in the first place. then again as i said before, we have a proposed budget deficit for the state of california and so here we go
10:39 am
adding a additional expense to that and there is no need to do that, so if that were not the case or the bond debt was paid off that would be a different story but think we should oppose this until the bond debt is paid off with the revenue anticipated to pay it off in the first place. i would like to make a motion to oppose. >> it is seconded. let's take a roll call on the motion by supervisor breed. >> take public comment- >> no. is there public comment? there is none. so, roll call. can we do same house same call? thank you. now on the full recommendations from our legislative staff, can we take everything same house
10:40 am
same call? as amended. thank you. now let me just call us back to the consent calendar. the minutes and internal accounting and investment report. let's open up for public common. anyone from the public that would like taspeak? seeing none public comment is closed. can we have a roll call on the consent calendar? >> you can do same house same call if you like. commissioner breed, >> actually i would like to ubstain >> commissioner campos, aye. commissioner kim, aye. commissioner mar, aye. commissioner yee, aye. the consent calendar is approved. >> mr. stam item 5, and
10:41 am
>> update on the california road pilot program. this is a information item. >> hello my name is michele [inaudible] transportation planner in policy and programming and i'm here to give a update on the california road charge pilot program. i would like to start by going over the legislation that set up the program and discuss how transportation projects are funded that state level and go into the road use charge advisory committee and recommendation frz the pilot program and where we will go next. so, in 2014 at the recommendation of the california state transportation agency the legislature passed a bill that authorized implementation of the pilot program by jen 21, 2017 to test
10:42 am
a road u.s. charge to replace the current gas tax and funding transportation projects in california and established a road use charge technical advisory committee that will provide recommendations on what the program will look like. the gas tax is the it major funding mechanism at the state and federal level. it was set up as a prushy for road use, the idea being the more you drive on the streets the more gas tax you pay because the more gas you punchs. however, the gas tax has been decreasing and in recent years due to improvements in fuel efficiency and increase in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road. so the road use charge was recommended for study as a replacement to this user fee
10:43 am
for transportation projects. it would charge a fee per mile oppose today per gallon as the gas tax is curbtly collected. this is made possible in pard due to a number of technology advancements we have seen in recent years. some may be clar with straba which is tracking mileage people are traveling just via bike or by running. so, in this system fuel efficient vehicles will pay the same fee per mile as older less efficient vehicles. so, the road use charge is seen as more equitable due to the fact it charges ever user the same amount for the amount they travel and gets you closer to a true user fee by calculating how much you are driving and charging you based on that. right now what they are studying is how the road use charge would be able to replace
10:44 am
the gas tax, but there is a potential in the fuch frr it to be a additional fee rather than a one to one replacement. this wood also be more similar to the way we charge for aootilities in other sectors mpt so, the road charge technical advisory committee comprised of industry experts and leaders across the state and met for 12 months and in december 2015 pub lished their recommendation report that provided recommendations for design the pilot program and for how it would be evaluated. the [inaudible] discussed items that focus on creating a program that will replace the gas tax and discussed issues of equity as i brought up, privacy and data security and they also charged with doing public outreach so they did a state
10:45 am
wide survey and focus groups across the state and a lot was learned from the focus groups. for example, in general public education about this is very important because there is both a misunderstanding today about how transportation projects are funding and what our gas tax goes to, but also a lot of confusion over what a road use charge is in general. they also discovered a lot about peoples preference and the values they hold behind a user fee. in general people thought paying for what you use is a user fee was deemed fair but fairness had a lot of different meanings for people. some thought efficient vehicles should pay less because that is fair and some thought charging more per mile when you have a drive a long distance to your job is unfair so these are questions that will have to be kept in mind throughout the pilot program and in designing any potential future permanent
10:46 am
program. so, in termoffs the technical advisory committee recommendsation for the pilot program, the first recommendation was that they achieve 5 thousand participants in the pilot program state wide and would like to see a cross section of there slate on california roads today. they are looging for diversity in vehicle type, as well as geography so commercial vehicles, vehicles owned by private individuals and seeing them spread out in the north, central and southern regions of the state. choice and security, the [inaudible] recommended there be a choice in xhrjs and state account managers so for example organ has a program of 3 different account managers one is state run and two of which are commercial. one for example is
10:47 am
verizon. so the state would like to replicate a choice and account managers in the pilot program. they would also like to see a choice in mileage reporting methods. the chart below demonstrates what the different basis for the fee would be from time to distance and the other reporting methods are manual or automated. on one end you may have a time permit where you pay a unlimited amount of driving in terms of miles ova course of a week, month or year where you are not reporting anything about the amount you are actually driving or where you drive so it preserves the privacy concerns citizens have. on the otherened you vaautomates reporting method that includes rough geo graphic data so this is something you may use if you frequently drive to another state and the system
10:48 am
would automatically track the distance you are driving and whether you are in california and should pay california road use fee or if you are on private roads or other exempt geography. in terms of choice and security, there is a number of privacy and data security recommendations including making sure the system has authorization and authint ication. there are strong data secure measures in place and only collect the amount of data they need and the data is destroyed after a certain period of time. the technical advisory committee recommendations for evaluation fall in 8 categories and have a total of 5 ocriteria. the meat the program is determining whether this is a feasible replacement for the gas tax
10:49 am
that will bring in revenues in a way that better reflects the driving happening in california, but also will look at privacy, data security and equity because there may be items not captured in the pilot program but that are important to take into consideration should there be a permanent program put in place such as the difference between paying a fee to the government every time you stop at the pump versus once a month or once a year. so, as i said, these recommendation were released december of 2015 and the pilot program is slated to begin july 1 of this year. it will be a 9 month pilot program with reports out to the ctc and legislature by june 30, 2017 and a recommendation will be folded into the annual report
10:50 am
of a road use charge replacing gas tax. they are actively seeking volunteers for the pilot program and will likely need 15,000 people to sign up to get to the 5 thousand voln unteer goal so the website is rks with ww.california road charge pilot.com and encourage everyone interested for signing up for the pilot program. with that, any questions i'm happy to-- >> commissioner kim >> i just have one question which is how does this impact driver incentives to do hi brds and electric cars if the tax is on the number of miles driven and not the gas? in some ways it seem you may discourage better behavior. >> the recommendation from the technical advisory committee is
10:51 am
incent vise the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles at the time of purchase rather than a ongoing subsidy and some may say the biggest innocentive is they don't have to pay for gas so have lower bills throughout the year and-- >> but isn't there is a concern though that this is in some ways penalizing those that are being more environmental in the driving behavior? >> i think the think to keep in mind is gas tax was not set up as a penalty on drivers purchase large amounts of gas but in10ed to be a proxy fl a road use fee. at the time it was set up made sense because every vehicle was using gas. those vehicles are incuring ware i not putting into the
10:52 am
system to maintain it so this is a attempt to return to a fair user fee on all the vehicles using the roads. >> i understand that, i'm just not sure if i agree with that policy. i guess we want people to pay for the road usage that they use but i also think that the gas tax is to penalize certain types of behavior and it is there to fix inefficient in the market and one of those isdants on gas and oil so a tax can be both. there to correct inefficient and there to actually draw back peoples useage of roads, so i understand both premise, just not sure i would land on the side of road useage versus penalizing the inefficient in the market. >> [inaudible] i really appreciate your line of questioning. i think it is a complex topic because most see
10:53 am
it as a simple fee and view it as a way to how we pay for roads and think it covers are road smains i it doesn't. it is useful to think of the charge covering 3 purposes, one is the infrastructure itself as a way to pave as you go for the roads and maintenance of roads and bridges and hiways, the second is how do we want intoo encourage people from a environmental standpoint to travel. the environmental policy is actually what is driving in london to create a low carbon zone. they have gone beyond the congestion charge to modify the policy to focus on low carbon emission. the third area is congestion policy. again, a charge or fee can reflect all 3 of these thingsism how we wish to pay for instructure, environmental
10:54 am
policy and profile of vehicle fleet mix we want to encourage our discourage as well as the congestion on the roads when we want to encourage people to travel and not travel, give a hov discount for high occupancy veekz and carpool. one the questions that does continue is for example whether we give low emission and electric vehicles access to the carpool lanes in california because the carpool laneerize starting to get full and degrade perform ons thf lanes mpt there you have the collision of environmental policy with mobility policy. i think this is a very important area where a fee can be interpreted and used for multiple purposes. >> i amope toon the conversation and being convinced, just on first [inaudible] i dont know if i agree moving towards that taxation but open to-i know this is a informational item but just want to get those thoughts out there. >> i was going thank michele
10:55 am
for the slides. i get the picture with the sink holes and [inaudible] but slide number 6 talking about equity as a driving reason for this charge and really reducing the number of vehicles on the road or vehicle mile traveled. i also wanted to say that my guess is people that can afford a electric vehicle and at times hybrid have a higher income than people that still drive the gas guzzler jz hopefully incentvise the purchase of vehicles still can be done but this makes sense to me. i had to wrap my head around it by looking at the slide of the gas taxes losing value and how this makes sense. i'm curious how it technology will work as the pilot program moves forwards and i appreciative of mr.
10:56 am
[inaudible] for putting this forward, but i think it makes a lot of sense for the future of improving the roads and streets in the state of california. any other comments, colleagues? thank you for the update. mr. stamose next item >> public comment on item 5 >> any public comment on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you so much for the presentation >> item 6, introduction of new items. this is information itedm. >> there is no comments. anyone from the public like to speak? public comment closed >> item 7. general public comment. >> good morning. [inaudible]
10:57 am
having love and passion in [inaudible] establishing [inaudible] good manners wisdom and trust. [inaudible] in making contribution [inaudible] on improvement and virtue of growth [inaudible] but for the concern of universal wellbeing of all [inaudible] and giving help to the needy so we can [inaudible] back to whatever security of [inaudible] that
10:58 am
you know. >> thank you. anyone else that would like to speak? public comment is closed. is there any other business? >> item 8, adjournment. >> thank you. meeting adjourned. thank you everyone.
10:59 am
11:00 am

55 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on