san mateo, all of these regional counties will be impacted by this work. again, i want to stress, you all have done something that i did not see in the near future that could be done, and that is putting something fantastic together. kudos to you and i support from my organization, not only locally, but nationally. director kim: thank you. >> we have a couple more cards. if you want to speak, line up or submit a card. >> good morning, and directors. i am a community advocate for chinese for affirmative action. representing chinatown and we would like to support the pla. we would also like to see stronger local hiring provisions on this project labor

agreement. in that way, there will be more doors open for job opportunities for underserved residents of san francisco. thank you. director kim: thank you. >> good morning, everyone. jackie plan. we are also in support of the pla. -- flynn. we feel the current pla is in line with product standards and is being completed on time and on budget. we appreciate that. we would like to see, as my colleague said, more definition around the apprenticeship programs, opportunities for disadvantaged residents. we would like to see a realistic, measurable goals for targeted hiring and community unregenerate recruitment. thank you for your time. director kim: thank you. >> good morning, madame

chairman. i am here to speak in support of the pla, in appreciation for the work of the board of directors, their attention to detail, and genuine concern for the safety, security, and welfare of the workers on the project. with that, the operating engineers and represent 40,000 active and retired members across northern california, nevada, utah, hawaii, and i represent the workers in san francisco, marin, and san mateo counties. it is a product that provides a lot of work for our members. we send out workers from those three counties first. it is a regional project, and it

is a great opportunity for us to get this economy, to get our members to work. thank you. director kim: because several of the community advocates have brought this up, it was something that was brought up in the last board meeting, if there are changes to federal law allowing regional and local hiring targets, would you support a reopening of discussions, if that occurred? >> currently, we are putting local workers to work. director kim: yes, but would you consider reopening, if there were federal changes that happened? >> we would have to look at the proposed changes. director kim: right. it would just be a discussion. if you do not do, will answer the question, that is fine. >> obviously, we can discuss the

proposed change, but the nature of the change -- director kim: exactly. thank you. >> michael terio. san francisco building trick council. i think we're around 7% higher. that has been a rational approach to the question. we would be open to discussion of formalizing that, if and when it became possible under federal law. one of the things i most excited about is something that has developed in the last month or two in this discussion, and that is the tie to the school district shop programs. for 22 years, we in the trades have been pleading for a restoration of these programs in our schools. they said generations of workers into our trade. finally we have that. i came to tears when i saw that shot building open up. the fact we are going to

cooperate through trades and tjpa, helping those shop programs, is great. i know the district is thrilled by it, and so are we. thank you for your work. we look forward to your approval of this document. director kim: thank you for being an advocate at the schools for bringing shop class is back. is there any other public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will open back up for discussion amongst directors. director reiskin? director reiskin: thank you. i will join in commending the director and staff, the labor unions working together on this. it was a tremendous effort in a relatively short period of time to come up with what i think was a very good framework and document for moving those projects forward and provided good opportunities in the process. i agree with almost all the

public speakers, that there are great benefits that will come from having this pla in place. i am very appreciative also to the staff for the work that was done between the last meeting and this, working with mike and the school district on the apprentice side. i had not realized until you mentioned in the intro, the addition of the resolve clauses, which i think are extremely helpful. i think it is our obligation, as the board, to make sure all those benefits that we have all talked about, that the staff reports, lists, and that we all want to see happen so that the document is a good framework and we have a chance to hold ourselves accountable so those are realized. i think reporting on a minimum is a start down the road. all i would suggest, and i am

certainly ready to support this and to approval, i would suggest with the board's conference that we direct staff to identify a specific things that we will be reporting on. for example, the cover sheet says if we adopt this we will enjoy substantial cost savings. that is a ". i think we would love to see cost savings, risk of delays, speedy resolution, support for small business programs, the apprenticeships hours. we have heard and reminded that the law requires trade and contract on how we're doing, and to ask the committee, the four- person committee to come back with corrective action plans to the extent that any of the

targets are not being meant -- met. to have a framework would give us something to measure against. beyond that, i think it has been a great effort, and i look forward to supporting it. >> thank you. your comments are addressed. it says we will report regarding implementation of the pla. that covers the various provisions. if you look at the next clause, it covers the print and ship components, so it is all covered. we would be quarterly reporting on all of the key provisions that have action items attached to them. that is covered and result causes. >> i appreciate that. all i was suggesting that up front we agree on the benefits we're touting we're born to get from this, how we will see that in the reporting, that we agree on reporting from work up front

to give more specificity, and the addition is excellent. >> they do. ank you. many of the provisions are listed in 7.7-7.12. many of the cost savings and support through small businesses we would like to add in the quarterly report. that is covered under implementation. so it is already covered. director>> i would also like tok staff and labor for coming to this.

i personally have a skepticism that i want to convey about the addition of more local hiring preferences. some of these are thoughts i have come paid -- conveyed in the past during the city local collier discussions, but i think in particular for this project, i have even more skepticism. there are working-class people and unemployed people in san jose. they are as deserving of a chance at work as residents of san francisco. i do not want to be part of pitting working-class communities in one city against another. furthermore, this project is not a local project. it is being paid for by taxpayers of california and the entire united states. as we began to focus on ways tp

ii, we're going around the region say this is not a san francisco program, that they should help pay for it through all kinds of mechanisms. i do not want to give them any ability to save this is actually a san francisco project and should pay for it ourselves. i think the regional targeting has more logic to it, but even there i have skepticism, because the definition of region is very arbitrary. a working-class person who is just outside of the boundaries, i believe it should have a shot at the work. i do not want to see san francisco residents shut out from the opportunity to work on jobs and other cities as they implement their own local hiring halls. i think we should not add an amendment to commit to lobbying that of a government. >> think you. -- thank you. they're asking for targets on

regional, not just in francisco. sari to speak for bright line. -- sorry to speak for bright line. >> i, too, was confused about all the talk of the local and region. i do want to echo the directors word of appreciation for all the work that has been done, and i will second his motion, but i want to add something that i thought was really good when i saw the incentive to use public transit for future workers to access this. i am very pleased to see that encouragement. supervisor kim: i want to make a couple of comments on my own. i really appreciate the work

that you have done reaching out to community and labor groups. i ever heard how great this process is, and i want to commend staff for their work on this. i want to thank transbay team for doing additional work on this. i really appreciate the work into providing a little bit more specificity around of verse -- members and which schools we would be working with. this is a tremendous opportunity for students in san francisco, and i encourage we do this work with other unified school district as well, but i am glad this work will move forward, and what it is aligning with changes that have happened around including more shop class is in our school. but to see that move forward. i disagree a little bit with director metcalf. this is a regional program, so i think local high your, we're

really talking about regional local higher in all of the county's for this project. our think it is important that our workers have a fair shot at this work, and is still a target, not 100%. i think we should have priorities for workers in this area. they should be working on the projects that benefit our residents. i am happy to see for the resolve clauses allowing for at least option, an opportunity to come back to the table and reopen pla. it there are changes at the federal level, that we can have that discussion to put in specific target, so i will be supporting this today. i want to think the directors for their feedback and comments over the past month as well. any other comments or questions? >> i wanted to thank all of the unions for all of their hard work. we have all 28 of them that

signed. that is remarkable and very impressive. thank you for coming here today. ramone and mike, and operating engineers, and the other mike. i should clarify we are targeting regional higher. that is what we've been doing. we have been doing only that because it is a regional project because we of east bay and santa clara as our partners, so we have been doing that in doing that quite well, and we can continue to do that when we get our updates. thank you. [applause] supervisor kim: one last comment. thank you to the carpenters and laborers for pushing for the harmony letter. it is something that i strongly support. i was educated through that through the treasure island

development agreement. is there a motion? motion to move. there is a second. all in favor? any opposed? all right. the motion passes unanimously. [applause] can we please call item no. 8? >> approving a resolution of intention to initiate the process of direct a contract in with the california public employees retirement system to continue providing retirement benefits to employees of tjpa , and the resolution authorizing the employer pick up of employee contributions. >> we contacted with local government services to provide benefits, medical and retirement benefits, but now that we have grown, we are working to zero we save money and be as cost-

effective as possible. we now have the ability to adjust contractor rep we wiconth calpers, and that it does all it really is. we save money now and now have -- the long route to go through a middle person. supervisor kim: any questions on this item? director risk iesiskin: the actl numbers seem to be somewhere out of line with where the rest of the city and state are headed in terms of generosity, and i do not know if in this action here

or affirming or establishing those, and i recognize the difference between existing employees and prospective employees, but 2% of 55 based on a one-year final year compensation and 7% pickup seem to beat very far out of line -- seem to be very far out of line with where this is -- were the city is going. and i do not know if this is the action -- >> the action is allowing us to enter into an agreement to negotiate various benefits, but we're very unlike any other entity. we are stopped at 13, managing thousands of employees, contractors, consultants, professional service workers. we're very different from other agencies or other state entities in that respect so

sara, maybe you can add more to that. >> we're bringing this recommendation to you, largely because we have identified cost savings. once the implementation has taken place, there should be several thousand dollars savings per month. we want this transition to be seamless to the employees, so this is merely taking all of the existing benefits and exactly as they are currently offered, and transferring them over to a new contract. i certainly understand that the city, hundreds and thousands of employees, there are certainly a large pension obligations and health-care operations for retirees, but we're talking about a staff of 13 people that were hired with the expectation of this benefit.

as an employer with less than 100 members, we're going to be in the pool with all look the other employe years with less than 100 employees that offer the same benefit, 2% at 55 pulo. as we're making employer contemplate -- contributions, there is no contemplation. there is no unfunded liability for tgpa. they have what they call a side fund, which is the equivalent of a planned unfunded liability. they have the option of paying that out in a lump sum one-time payment. it is projected to be under $3,500. so we certainly would pay that

off in a 1-1 some benefit. that would make the employer rate cut down by a couple hundreds of a percent from 10.3 to 10.2 something. and so again, i certainly understand the concerns and issues that bombards your agency with thousands of employees and looking at future obligations are going through, but i would hope that in making a recommendation as management for an opportunity to save money that we would not be asking employees to reduce their benefits that they expected to receive when there were hired. >> if an entity have less than 100 employees, you would be a part of the same pool that we are part of. it is because we only have 13 people. that is the difference. it's an francisco have 100 or less, they would be part of the sample. >> just to clarify, i did try to distinguish between existing

and prospective employees. there are rights that the current employes have for that reason alone that maybe something that we would want to contemplate a dressing, although it is being done at somewhat for city employees. and but i want to understand how this pool works. because we are part of this pool, we have no ability to do other than 2% at 55 or cinko and final year compensation with the employer picking up the 7%? >> you would be part of another pool offering a different level of benefit. >> does such a pull exist? there are pulls at 2% at 60, but you cannot be partly in the 2% at 55 pool for your career employee and 2% at 60 pool for future employees.

all employees are required to have five years to end test. >> we do not anticipate having more than one or two more employees. we have been operating with less than 13 cents 2003. we are now it 2011. we would potentially bring on one or two more people and a construction manager, and that is it. we do not anticipate bringing on anymore. >> wouldn't the reforms that are being offered plan for members for future employees apply to future employees? >> we will be members of the system. >> anything they do would apply to us. >> is there any other questions or comments? >> i made a motion.

supervisor kim: there has been a motion in the second. we have a motion on the floor, and that has been seconded. all in favor? any opposed? cnn, at this motion passes. -- seeing none, this motion passes. can we get an update on that next month? how long to you anticipate the negotiation to last? to go there is actually a formal laid out process. the next step will be after this meeting. we will have you signed the resolution of contention that just passed. we send that to calpers. there is an election to join the system, even though they are already in it. and then there is a final resolution we will bring to you in december when we will also bring the required program

resolution. >> thank you. item #9. >> item #9 is the annual review of for policy and a price " -- approval of minor changes to the policy in conformance with california state government code. >> i work for policy for investments was originally approved -- reoriginally approvd in 2006. we did the review back and they come up the state's commission on debt and investments, they are little behind in getting their annual updates up, so by adopting their annual update for 2011 at this time, and then getting ourselves on their annual schedule for 2012, we will look at the investment policy again next fall. that will line up better with their schedules. the updates they released in 2011 are fairly minor in nature.

they change their ratings of different investments you are allowed to invest in as a public agency. they also took away some of the previous restrictions they have in place on percentage of portfolio. that is the reason why i wanted to incorporate the june -- the changes sooner rather than later. the main restriction they had was limiting 10% of your portfolio to being held in a bank account. that often required a lot of transferring back and forth. this offers more flexibility and a little bit of more cash flow flexibility. i can answer any more questions. supervisor kim: can you talk in more detail about the portfolio? >> we keep the cash we need for short-term obligations and -- in our checking account, and the ballots in the city and county

school. we do not invest ourselves in any other instruments at this time. when we need a transfer, we work with the comptroller's office on taking it out of the pooled account. we do have trust the accounts set up for the time when we start collecting tax increment proceeds and when there are land sale proceeds. we direct the trustee to invest per the permitted investments, because safety and liquidity are the primary objectives. we're currently instructing them to invest in treasuries, and i foresee that will probably be our instruction for quite some time, unless the market drastically changes. supervisor kim: any questions or comments? is there a motion needed for this item? second by director ortiz. all in favor?

any opposed? this motion passes. >> item 10 is approving the minutes of the october 13 meeting. supervisor kim: any amendments needed for the minutes? >> motion to approve. supervisor kim: all in favor? the motion passes. and any other announcements? >> that does conclude your agenda for the day. supervisor kim: any other announcements? seeing none, we are adjourned.

patty: filing for social security online, 9 out of 10 experts agree, it's groovier than a brooklyn hot dog! cathy: or a crepe suzette! ♪ when cousins are two of a kind! ♪