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.

supervisor mirkarimi: good morning. welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority. ross mirkarimi, chair. i apologize for the slight delay. >> >> supervisor avalos -- >> present. >> supervisor campos -- >> present. >> supervisor chiu -- absent. >> supervisor chu -- >> present. >> supervisor cohen -- >> present. >> supervisor elsbernd -- >> present. >> supervisor farrell -- >> present. >> supervisor kim -- >> present. >> supervisor mar -- >> present. >> supervisor mirkarimi -- >> present -- present. >> item number two, approval of

minutes of the october 25, 2011 meeting. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: any discussion? the seeing none. approval. second. public comments. seeing none, public comment is closed. roll call, please. >> commissioner at the lows. commissioner campos. commissioner issue. " -- commissioner carmen chu. commissioner:. commissioner elsbernd. commissioner farrell. commissioner kim. commissioner mark. commissioner mirkarimi. commissioner winner. it is passed. supervisor mirkarimi: please read item number three and four. >> item number 3, chairs report. item number four, executive director's report. these are information items. supervisor mirkarimi: we have had interesting is in the transportation field this month. on november 1, the california high speed rail authority

released its business plan. the main piece of news is that there's more than a doubling of the total price tag of the system, which is averaging $100 billion. i think everyone expected that the price tag would be revised. but the magnitude of the increase has been at definitely noticed. the schedule was also significantly revised videos and disappointed to see that we're now looking at a much longer time line in implementation of the downtown extension, which would not get to happen until after 2030. i do not think san francisco can stand for that kind of strategy when we're the only city in california that is actually building a high-speed rail terminal. i am referring to the transbay terminal. i know that the legislature now has 60 days to deliberate on the business plan prevent -- presented by the high-speed rail authority to decide either to support a return several billion dollars of federal funds given to california for this purpose

last year. the believed it is crucial for san francisco to advocate for changes in the plan that make the implementation of high-speed rail into the transbay terminal a priority much sooner than 2030, obviously, especially when so much local funding has been going into this project. i understand that commissioners wiener and candidates are working on this with the mayor's office -- and campos are working on this with the mayor's office. this should be a major priority for the next four weeks and then new year. the other big piece of the news with the action last wednesday by the environment and public works committee the u.s. senate, chaired by senator barbara boxer, approving a two-year reauthorization of the surface transportation act, which is now going to be named map, map 21, which i think stands for moving ahead for progress in the 21st century. this is a bill that would continue the current level funding for two years understand

that not all the funding has been identified for it yet. it is also not clear the level of support. in the senate the senate bill was approved in a bipartisan vote. i expect the executive director has more details on that. this bodes well for the start of the conversation. that might give us a multi-year bill. it is clear that it may not go beyond two years. this concludes my report. mr. executive director, please -- >> good morning, commissioners. my report is on your desks. i want to highlight just a few things. i do not really have more details on the issue of the two- year reauthorization bill, other than to say this is yeoman's work on the part of senator boxer to try to get a bill and create some stability for funding for the transportation sector in the next couple of years. it is clear that we have gone from a six-rebel 20-year bill,

because the resource issue, the revenue issue is still unresolved. in fact, even the senate bill has a $12 billion hole, and that is more than 10% of the total funding for those two years. i think you can count on a fight of some sort in the house to try to get to a similar level of commitment for a two-year bill, even for a two-year bill. and the local level, when we commit to voters the sales tax, a 30-year plan, we expect that the federal level, there will be a little -- a level of commitment that would allow us to leverage the funds that the locals are willing to commit to. so the two-year effort is better than nothing, certainly, especially at this time of economic hardship. but we need multi-year commitments to be able to engage in multi-your initiatives, like the high-speed rail initiative

and other things we're doing. even some of the programs that require multi-year funding. we will hope for the best in that area and continue to encourage congress to do the right thing. i wanted to point out a few things that are going on, that went on this month related to funding for projects. we had a series of meetings with mcc to try to sort of strategy for the big projects under construction. the presidio parkway, central subway, and the transbay project it all of them are experiencing some level of impacts from the slowdown in the economy and the pace of the liver of state and federal funds. we're doing the due diligence necessary, especially sorting out the weekend provided bridge financing for these projects that the commitments that the state and federal governments

have made in years past do not materialize in the timeline that was originally promised, which is a distinct possibility, especially with the issue of delays with the state bonds and so on. we have had productive meetings. i will keep you posted. we have not really changed anything as far as our commitment to those priorities. but we're simply trying to get some clarity about how the ntc will bill to help us with those issues. the authority is committed in helping to commit as much as possible. there has been considerable work in progress on the regional transportation plan. several of the have been involved in the directly, especially the ntc commissioners. i would point out that the earlier this month, a draft result was released on the performance assessment. we found several san francisco priorities that did very well.

of course, this is sweepstakes for future funding. one of them, of course, is the effect of this project. we also saw the bart metro project that will increase frequency of services to downtown san francisco scored very well. and the initial pricing initiatives in san francisco also did very well, of course. i would note that both commissioner campos and commissioner reno made comments about the need to further take into account, in the evaluation of both the end of the door projects and the program might alternatives, this is the commitment to housing supply, a way to reward what local jurisdictions are doing. and the quality of targets need to be more closely included in

the evaluation that is done. and results released for the rtp next month. i think that will give us an opportunity for an interesting discussion about that before the planned moves to next year's steps toward adoption. some wanted to also point out that the san francisco transportation plannin is making progress, and we have had more briefings of our advisory committee and other groups. we're looking now at some things that will probably not get as much attention in the plan. these are subjects that we intend to govern in a more comprehensive way this time. there's more information on our web site on the transportation plan. there is the lifeline transportation program change,

which is highlighted here because of its significance. the lifeline transportation program funds have flowed from mtc to the condition management agencies and the different counties. the mtc is now proposing a change which would actually increase the amount of funding that goes to the counties, but it would direct a large amount to the transit operators, sfmta, and also increase the amount coming to the authority. we're talking about revenues of $11.7 million going to mta and up to $5.4 million coming to the authority. this is funding intended to deal with increasing taxes and mobility for low-income communities, and we have already had quite a bit of involvement

with the program in the past. you can expect the requisite projects and the actions of the plans and programs committee in december, prior to the issuance considering some of the funding going to the program that commissioner campos has been spearheading. van ness brt released its eir/eis draft on november 4. the comment period closes on december 19. prior to that, there'll be a public hearing on november 30 at the holiday inn, golden gateway, 1500 men ness avenue. this is all included on our website, but of course the public is encouraged to attend the public hearing and to provide comments. several channels are available for that.

geary brt is also making progress. i wanted to point out, as a segue from the chair's remarks about high-speed rail, there was a session on high-speed rail at the focus on the future conference happening right now in san francisco, and i was intending that this morning. a member of the high speed rail authority board clarified the schedule for comment on the business plan that is out there now, that was released on november 1. the idea is that the authority, the high-speed rail authority, will take comments at a hearing today in palo alto and then on december 6 in san francisco. then they will consider incorporating all of those comments and directing the mine some fashion. then at that yuri one, are the first week of february, the intention of the meeting to

approve the revised plan that might incorporate those comments. only after that, the 60-day timespan, will the legislature kick in. so there's time to organize commons, even beyond the two hearings that are already scheduled. i think that is time that is welcome to, because we probably need to make some additional comments on that. finally, i wanted to announce that i am pleased to report that we have received two grants in san francisco from the value pricing program at the federal level. one grant for $1.5 million is going to a joint venture of the sfmta and the city car share for electric bike sharing and car sharing demonstration. $480,000 them into the of 34

parking pricing in regulation study, which is going to be helpful for parking-based pricing options to fall on the environmental studies in the city. the last thing is that caltrans has done a pre-award audit of the authority, and we have a clean audit report. there are several items on the report, and i would be happy to answer questions about them. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. i wanted to make one general comment. one of the things that supervisor wiener and i have been working very diligently since we were appointed to the ntc was making sure that the funding issuance and other decisions are being made at the mtc and that we continue to speak with one voice. i think that we have