Metropolitan Transportation
Authority
July Financial Plan 2014 - 2017
Board Presentation
July 24, 2013
Since July 2010, MTA’s Plans have been disciplined,
consistent and totally transparent
• This July Plan reflects the three key elements of prior Plans
– Significant annually recurring cost reductions: $1.3 billion by 2017
•
No budget-driven service reductions since 2010 cuts
– Three years of “net zero” union wage growth
•
Already achieved four and a half years of real zero non-union wage growth
– Biennial fare and toll increases as planned
• Adds and/or restores service when sustainable
• Preserves and enhances funding for the Capital Program
• Increases emphasis on addressing long-term costs such as
pension, retiree health care, paratransit, and debt service
previously considered “uncontrollable”
2
“Uncontrollable” expenses are increasing faster than inflation and “controllable” spending
2013 to 2017 Mid-Year Forecast
Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
CPI
“Controllable” Expenses:
PS/OTPS 1
1.6%
1.6%
“Uncontrollable” Expenses
Pensions
6.1%
1.1%
Employee & Retiree Healthcare
Energy
9.1%
3.9%
Paratransit
Debt Service
1
9.3%
7.3%
Personnel Service / Other Than Personnel Service.
3
Even assuming annually recurring cost savings, three “net zeros”
and biennial fare and toll increases,
the February Plan projected $325 million of deficits through 2016
($ millions)
$300
$200
$100
48.1
$0
‐20.9
($100)
‐76.7
($200)
‐226.9
($300)
2013
2014
2015
2016
4
What has changed since the February Plan?
Favorable re-estimates and other changes
- Higher real estate-related subsidies (Urban Tax)
- Higher toll revenue
- Lower pension costs
- Lower health & welfare costs
- Lower energy costs
- Additional paratransit savings*
- Reduced debt service from refinancings*; and
- Reduced 2012 spending* that increased the carry-over cash balance
Unfavorable re-estimates and other changes
- Lower PMT and PBT receipts
- Lower fare revenue
- Increased insurance costs (premiums impacted by Sandy)
- Metro-North derailment costs
- Operating cost “build up” associated with expansion projects
Bottom line is net-favorable
* Reflects management efforts
5
Determining the amount of Service Investments
to include in the July Plan
•
New and restored service adds ongoing expense to the budget; funding must
be sustainable
•
Amount should be evaluated in the context of the overall budget, not specific
revenue or expense lines
•
Amount committed to additional service should be large enough to provide a
meaningful improvement in our customers’ use of the System, but no so large
that its sustainability is at risk.
6
Highlights of the July Plan
• Funds $18 million of additional service investments and customer
enhancements
– In addition to $11.5 million of service adjustments, primarily driven by guidelines
• $11 million in other customer service initiatives in 2014
• Invests $76 million in important new operational and maintenance needs
• Includes $80 million annually of PAYGO capital beginning in 2015 in support
of the 2015-2019 Capital Program
– Funded primarily with debt service savings from the 2013 refunding and reestimates of interest rates and cash flows
• Uses $80 million of non-recurring real estate receipts to reduce LIRR
Additional Pension Plan’s $1.2 billion unfunded liability, saving $6 million
annually
• Increases OPEB contributions to continue to address $17.8 billion unfunded
liability
• Proposes use of unexpended year-end General Reserve balances to make
one-time payments toward long-term obligations (unfunded pension or
OPEB liabilities, PAYGO or debt retirement) to reduce annual expenses,
minimizing pressure on fares and tolls.
• Consistent with New York State budget projections
7
With these re-estimates and new initiatives, the July Plan
projects out-year deficits of $240 million, lower than the
February Plan
($ millions)
$300
$200
140.6
$100
48.1
6.0
$0
‐20.9
‐48.9
($100)
‐76.7
($200)
‐90.9
‐99.7
February Plan
‐226.9
July Plan
($300)
‐313.6 *
($400)
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
* The February Plan only included projections through 2016; 2017 represents an extrapolation of the February Plan’s 2016 projection.
8
The key elements of prior Plans remain essential in addressing the July Plan deficits ($ millions)
$500
$0
($1,216)
($1,842)
($2,142)
($2,700)
2014
2015
2016
2017
($500)
($1,000)
($1,500)
($2,000)
($2,500)
($3,000)
Total Deficit without Key Elements
9
The key elements of prior Plans remain essential in addressing the July Plan deficits ($ millions)
$500
$0
($268)
($759)
($902)
($1,392)
($500)
948
($1,000)
1,083
($1,500)
1,240
($2,000)
1,308
($2,500)
($3,000)
2014
2015
Remaining Deficit
2016
2017
Savings Initiatives
• Savings initiatives close 58% of the cumulative deficit
10
The key elements of prior Plans remain essential in addressing the July Plan deficits ($ millions)
$500
$0
($268)
($500)
948
($335)
($386)
($403)
424
516
469
($1,000)
1,083
($1,500)
520
1,240
($2,000)
1,308
($2,500)
($3,000)
2014
2015
Remaining Deficit
2017 Fare/Toll, March 1
2016
2015 Fare/Toll, March 1
2017
Savings Initiatives
• Savings initiatives close 58% of the cumulative deficit
• Fares and tolls close 24% 11
The key elements of prior Plans remain essential in addressing the July Plan deficits ($ millions)
$500
$0
$6 274
($500)
948
($49)
($91)
($100)
286
295
303
424
516
469
($1,000)
1,083
($1,500)
520
1,240
($2,000)
1,308
($2,500)
($3,000)
2014
Surplus
2017 Fare/Toll, March 1
2015
2016
Remaining Deficit
2015 Fare/Toll, March 1
2017
Net Zero Savings
Savings Initiatives
• Savings initiatives close 58% of the cumulative deficit
• Fares and tolls close 24% , and • “Net‐zeros” from represented employees close only 15%
12
MTA is continuing to follow its Plan, but risks remain
•
Execution of Financial Plan
– “Net-zero” labor settlements
– Annually recurring cost savings
– Fare and toll increases in 2015 and 2017
– Loss or reduction of PMT or other revenues without equivalent replacement
revenues
•
Economic uncertainty
– National economy remains weak
– Local economy recovery is uneven
•
Federal support below expected levels
– On-going capital support in light of sequestration pressures
– Repair and resiliency funding
•
Longer-term vulnerabilities
–
–
–
–
–
–
Increasing operating costs associated with expansion projects
Funding for 2015-2019 Capital Program
Casualty risks to the system; ability to fund mitigation investments
Retiree healthcare costs
Pensions
Building and maintaining critical financial reserves
13