i use them all because that's what the program -- >> mr. oka, let me ask you, director bridge man has a question. >> good to see you. i'm sorry. i was unclear. are you in support of the change or not in support of the change? well, you know, if the change is going to mean that only yellow [speaker not understood] and de soto are going to get the [speaker not understood] medallions that are turned back in, then we're for it. >> thank you. we'll make sure we clarify that as we discuss. you need to let as many companies that want these medallions and that want drivers that have the ability to do so to do so. >> thank you. >> thank you. the community would [speaker not understood].

i think that's the main thing we want to make sure that we keep the best program in the country [speaker not understood]. and we he keep it that way. >> thank you, mr. oka. good to see you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> jacob mazol, [speaker not understood], tadik mahmoud. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, commissioners, board members. jacob mazol from san francisco taxi. for the past two or three years since and i'm sorry for my voice. i'm under the weather. but it seems to me that since the sfmta took over the taxicab regulations, no matter what sf town taxi would do, the mta managed to screw us.

just like many previous legislative pieces that came out from sfmta dashes services, this one is no different. it's so vague and it's so unclear. i urge you to postpone the vote until we have a better [speaker not understood] from the taxi services of what and how they're going to do it. i just can't stand it or i can't -- i can't take it any more to see all this vague and [speaker not understood] and unbelievable explanations or no explanations whatsoever. why they did this or that legislation or they did a certain thing. so, i urge you, unless we'll get a [speaker not understood], unless i can get a clear explanation of everything that taxi services are going to do.

please do not vote [inaudible]. >> thank you, sir. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> [speaker not understood], [speaker not understood] mahmoud, peter jacobs. >> good afternoon, sir. [speaker not understood], general manager de soto cab company. i want to stay on point. to me this is about two key issues. this is about running an accessible taxi, it costs a tremendous amount of money. that's been one of the big problems so far with the program. and it also is a -- an inconsistent service level of service for the wheelchair riders at this point. so, the whole idea here is to do something so that people who can afford to run these cabs can do so, can do them efficiently and so that people in wheelchairs can get service that's on the same scale, same quality that's the same quality as any able bode i had person would be to have.

* able bodied the companies under this scenario would have to compete for the wheelchair business, wheelchair accessible taxi business. i think that's a good thing. there is nothing in this legislation that says the ramps are going to go to any specific company. it actually creates a scenario where a company might find it in their best interest to put together a great ramp program and to try to win the ramp cabs away from another company. i think that's smart. it's competition and that's what the wheelchair community is going to appreciate, it's going to bring better service to them. the one concern i do have is the $1500 a month for the medallion. i'm not sure how that's going to work out. i think we need to go into it with an open mind, the cotv of acquiring the vehicles and maintaining the vehicles continues to go up. and the drivers spend a lot of money on fuel. so, what i'm concerned about is in order for me as a cab

company to make this worth the time for the driver and not to have the public subsidize this service, i need to have -- be able to [speaker not understood] cabs to drive at a discount and that medallion fee will affect that. >> thanks, sir. next speaker. tariq mahmoud followed by peter jacobs. >> mr. mahmoud. good afternoon, directors. so, we go to the town hall meeting. the point of the meeting is to tell the people what mta wants to do and what people tell them what's the best way to do it. but when we go there, we just listen to lines. and if anybody try to go right or left, we have a tendency to scream on that person. would you believe that two, three line we talked about the ramp, just saying the people were on the waiting list, they are getting these medallions. now, the question is these medallions which are coming back, ramp medallions, who is going to hold them?

how long they going to hold them? the drivers who are going to drive them, they need to have ramp training, too. why they are going to get ramp training if they are not going to be permanent on that one? nobody ask this question. it's a quite cumbersome issue, but nobody want to discuss in a meeting, town hall meeting, but they don't talk like that. they start 360 degree about over cab, about something else. we are there for ramp taxi issue. nobody is talking properly. we've been begging meeting, town hall meetings, nothing but a scam and a fraud. steeriously, i ask 6, 7 times could we get to the subject, please? mr. reiskin [speaker not understood]. now, the question is these medallions, who [speaker not

understood] after they come back? will they be permanent or not? could they be given to some companies? which companies? there is a company i just was talking to different people. arrow said they are willing to give [speaker not understood] to people who will drive them and they will give them health care. i never heard of health care. [speaker not understood]. please listen to these people. forget about yellow, let's say de soto. >> thank you. next person. >> peter jacobs. last speaker card on this matter. >> mr. jacobs. peter jacobs. thank you. i think this proposal could be a great thing. i think it has a lot of potential. by having the companies control the medallion directly we can do a lot of exciting thing. we can have an employee-employer relationship. we can enforce people going to and picking up rides and providing good service. but i want to echo some of the

things people mentioned. specifically incentivizing the drivers to do -- to want to drive these cars and to do a great job. we have tried to submit proposals to [speaker not understood] several times that outline how we can provide all the drivers with health care. i think that would be a really nice deal for drivers who have families who need to get some kind of security and deserve to have it. and we've never received any kind of response from her whatsoever. so, i like the proposal. i think it needs to be fleshed out. and also it has to do -- i want to touch on the issue of investment from the companies that have currently controlled the medallionses. we already have a loyal clientele at arrow checker. we have invested money for advertising, we invested money in the cars, we invested money in the drivers. and to all of a sudden have all

of the rent medallions we have jeopardized, it's very difficult to continue to make plans, continue to operate as a business when we have very little security as at any time we can lose [speaker not understood]. i think before this kind of thing is voted on we need to have some assurances and reassure the industry that things are going to continue as stated. >> thank you, sir. anyone else care to address the board on this matter? seeing none, okay, public comment hearing is closed. members of the board? director heinicke. >> i have a question for staff. i wanted to make sure this is kind of the first piece of the ramp program development. my understanding is this is really to address the concern of the folks who have a ramp medallion now and how those folks interact with the way --

with the changes we made to the transfer program. >> so, correct. so, the ramp medallion holders did not have a transferrable permit, so, this is trying to create a path for them to move into that kind of transferrable permit environment. but it was also driven by the desire to improve the service that's for ramp taxi customers which as i mentioned has been quite uneven. our staff report said, as speakers said, there are some excellent ramp taxi drivers in the city who had outstanding records. but as ms. mcguire mentioned, even a threshold of 8 pick ups per month which is, frankly, pretty low, we had many drivers that are not meeting that very low threshold. so, we're really trying to address both the situation of the current ramp medallion

holders, but also a way to improve service which as a few other speakers suggested could probably be better managed by the companies because we also see quite a bit of variation in the performance by companies and it seems like the companies that are committed to providing good ramp service can do so, that they get good medallion holders, good drivers and they're able to provide that service. that's not consistent across the board. so, what we're really trying to address both in this are accessible services, staff. are very much involved in the development of this proposal and believe that, again, as informed by the incentive system that we do have in place and a number of speakers reference the importance of having incentives and we get that, it can be more expensive. so, we've tried to build those incentive in so that the best drivers who do the right thing have an appropriate level of reward for doing so. >> there isn't that coming down

the pike like more kind of reforms to the ramp program,, this is kind of it right here? >> this is i think all we have currently on the table, as with, you know, the whole process of regulatory reform. we're continually looking for ways that we can improve the delivery of taxi service. so, unless there is something else that staff has kind of in the wings, this is really the -- the intent to get us over the hump with the current, the current system that we have. >> i have two follow-up questions, if i might. first, one of the speakers i think was mentioning how when we were doing the leasing to the companies for the other medallionses we approved a few months ago there was a problem with transparency with the development of those standards and whether just overall public understanding of those standards. so, it would be nice to make sure we hear about kind of the development of those standards

or that they're publicized well. i think that would obviously -- what those standards say, it would be really important. this is a more particular thing that i think director oka pointed out, which is [speaker not understood], give him credit for some comments as well. the idea that there is this idea of past performance in terms of the companies. and i think that's a good idea, but i do think it's important to make sure that we try and incentivize everyone to provide excellent service for people who use wheelchairs. but i'm just worried about this legislation in particular, pretty specific to how if you look at the section 1110 subsection d, it doesn't really refer to a record of service to passengers in wheelchairs. i'm worried about limiting in terms of our ability to create a path for other companies that maybe aren't currently providing service to people in wheelchairs but would like to. >> yeah, i think it was a point well taken. i think it was mr. gruberg who

made the comment on behalf of green cab. the intent was absolutely to look at the performance of the cab companies and to send the ability to provide the service to those who have a demonstrated performance in doing so. so, the legislation does specify that as a way to do that. i don't think it precludes the consideration of other factors. and it's something that i don't know that we had contemplated so much, but we can certainly explore how we would deal with the situation where a cab company that has no performance history might be able to access the program and maybe there's a way that we can do that. i think it does tie back to your previous comment on the need for good defensible understandable transparent standards. we a towedthv do -- attempted to do that with the 150 permits

we issued. i disagree with the characterization, but i think that process could have been a lot better and tighter and we'll certainly aim to do that as we develop the standard, as we vet the standards, share them with you for the ramp medallion distribution. * >> other directors? >> just one question, in going back to the showing that they provide exemplary service, and this is my -- i don't understand how it works exactly. is it only ramp taxis that wheelchair users have, or do we have wheelchair users who also use nonramp taxis? it's not saying that they toshiba -- it has to be that the ramp taxi medallion holder provides a service that has a record of exemplary service to passengers who use wheelchairs. * so, i don't know if i read that, that it has to be the ramp taxis that have provided service, that the company services wheelchair users.

thank you. >> well, the way that we're looking at it is for the service done by the vehicle itself. so, we're not looking at the particular driver -- for instance, right now, the requirement is that there are 8 wheelchair pick ups per month. it's not driver specific. it's vehicle specific. so, we recognize that, you know, there aren't as many pick ups in the evening so that driver won't have as many. but medallion holders responsible currently for making sure there are at least 8 pick ups per month. right now, this responsibility would transfer to the company to ensure there are at least 8 wheelchair pick ups per month on each ramp vehicle. our wheelchair clients do also take some sedans as well. a lot of it is because they are a little bit lower to the ground, easier to get into, things like that. but our ramp vehicles, they're required to give priority to

our wheelchair customers and -- you can actually strap a wheelchair in a vehicle as opposed to a sedan where you can fold the chair into the back seat and help the person into the front seat there. >> excellent, thank you. and i just want to also echo the concern that director oka brought up, that this legislation does not specifically indicate which taxi companies we would perhaps be leasing these permits to, but it does open it up for -- to the point if green cab has no history of ramp medallions, should they still be able -- they will still be able to participate in the ramp permit program. >> well, the way that it's written, it is not as much. however, this is a starting point for us. so, what we're going to start with is who has a history of that performance. does it guarantee they'll always do well? so, it's part of the use agreement assuming they don't do as well for whatever reason. we'd be pulling those back and

redistributing them to companies that do express an interest, the desire that want to service that community. >> thank you, that's all i had. >> thank you. any other directors? thank you very much. * we closed public comment. so, members, what is your pleasure? >> i do have -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> i think it is important for us to look at this as a starting point. there is a lot of work to be done on this program overall in terms of ensuring equal access for [speaker not understood] out there. i tried to get a ramp cab at night several times and was unsuccessful personally. i'm just saying there is a lot of work to be done. helping our drivers and the companies who provide excellent service, providing more of an incentive than what we're talking about here is an important consideration for the future. >> the whole point, basic point is providing excellent service for people that are in wheelchairs. to get there, this is a step toward that and i think not

only setting standards, but holding people accountable to those standards. i personally think 8 trips a month is not very much. i mean, you know, you look at the generation coming along, more and more people needing this. * baby boomer at a bare minimum. incentive to drivers for doing this. this is a beginning. we'll come back to this with a lot more information in the future. okay, on the question? >> i will give a motion to approve. >> is there a second? >> second. >> motion and second. any further suction? all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed no? the ayes have it. okay. how about having a break. >> sure. >> thank you very much. * five-minute break >>please stand by; meeting in recess >> [speaker not understood] any member of the public wishes to address you on this matter. >> [speaker not understood]. >> sorry, you saved the best for last.

good afternoon, members of the board. [speaker not understood], cfo. so, this is just a presentation to let you know some of the financing vehicles, the structures we're thinking about for the next coming year. we're not asking for approval. it's just an informational presentation just so you get an idea of some of the things that we're discussing. so, we'll turn it over to peter from psm who is our financial advisor to walk through the presentation. i just want to conclude by saying the next time we'll be before you with two administrative changes. one is to the debt policy you approved a year and a half ago. there are some clean up rules, some of the rules have changed so we need to come back and change those. so, and the second thing is we'll be before you with the reimbursement resolution. the next several months so that we can reimburse ourselves the extent we spent some funds for our projects from the bond proceeds. you did that in the last bond proceed as well. so, it's just a follow-up item. with that leat me turn it over

to peter and he'll walk through the presentation. >> thank you. good afternoon, mr. shellenberger. >> good afternoon, directors. i'm going to walk you through a slide presentation. and as [speaker not understood] pointed out t' introductory, it's high level. typically at the end of a long board meeting t' challenging to get through one financing and here we're going to try three, so, by all means if you have questions, stop me as we go along, please. * on page 2, here is a quick overview of the three different financings. and we'll start in the first column, the left-hand column. the 2013 revenue bonds. if you'll recall in 2012 in july 2012, the agency went out to the market and sold bonds as a first-time revenue. it was a revenue bond issuing agency. you currently have $63 million bonds outstanding, that's your 2012 issuance. 2013 is the second sear i of your revenue bond program. in 2012 there was approximately

25 million issued for new money purposes, investment back into the system. the amount contemplated with the 2013 bonds is approximately 150 million for continued investment into facilities, structures, vehicles. the timing of this transaction, again, as pointed out, we will be back before you with a detailed presentation and documents for approval. * current timing for that would be summer this year. sunali * you are currently rated. we'll focus on ratings a little bit later, but you are a double a rated entity from standard & poor's and you have a single -- double a3 from mood ells and single a from standard & poor's. now we introduce two new concepts. the revenue bond is a continuation, if you will, of your existing program. the commercial paper program is new to you, it is new to the mta, but it is very common

within your, your, your partner agencies throughout the city. the puc has a commercial paper program. the airport, the city and county, the county transportation authority. and commercial paper just generally speaking is rather than a long-term 30-year bond commonly understood in the context of our home mortgage, rather than having a 30-year loan as your 2013 bonds will be, this is a very short term loan. this is a line of credit where you draw upon it as you need it and you only pay as you draw upon that. okay. so, the commercial paper program will initially be established in the amount of 100 million. and again, that will be used to fund projects on an as-needed basis and the central subway, including the central subway project. we will ask for authorization for full 250 million. and that will allow staff to

manage the program, the capital program through 2019, as an as-needed basis using the short-term cash management tool. let me pause for a moment and ask if you have any questions on the purpose or approach or use of a commercial paper program. commonly understood as a line of credit. >> and if i could just clarify, it won't fund the projects per se, it will help finance projects. the projects that we have funding for, but we don't have the cash in hand yet whether it's because we're waiting for a federal grant or next year appropriation, this is really rich, you know, gap funding or bridge funding financing that will allow us to keep a project moving in advance of the actual project funds to come in. as opposed to, say, the revenue bonds which we are borrowing money in order to put projects in the ground. >> director bridges? >> i'll interrupt you for a second. i was going to echo director

reiskin's comments in that commercial paper is very commonly used throughout the industry, not just in government, but also in the private sector as short-term financing. right now it is apt cheapest form of financing you can get. so, it's actually a great recommendation in this market to use commercial paper. many municipalities throughout the country use it. new york city, chicago. i would say for even the city and county much larger than san francisco, it's the best form of short term marketing you can use. >> i don't know if this is around any more, certificates of participation, would that be under this category, is that something all together different? >> that is another long-term financing vehicle. commercial paper extends from a maximum maturity of 270 days. so, it's very short. so, rather than issuing long, say 4, 5%, you'll stay very short in the 270 day window, you'll borrow at 1, 1-1/2%. to your point, lowest cost of

borrowing. >> lowest cost. >> are these still used, certificates of participation? >> they are. the city actually uses them. so, a lot of the general fund finance debt that is in the capital plan, there's two different ways they do it. one is general obligation bonds. there's also a smaller subset of projects that are funded using certificates of participation where they're basically pledging city assets such as real estate to secure, to secure the vehicle and then they're paying the debt service over time out of the general fund. >> there is a really big thing about cities and things just sort of -- putting buildings up, right? stuff like that? can they do it at one point like that? >> it is another form of financing for capital market street proceeds invested in infrastructure. >> the city just approved, i think, more than 500 million dollars worth of cops for the moscone center expansion. so, that's an example of where

they're using it. there is a stream of revenues that they are anticipating from the tourism industry taxing itself that will help service the debt. but i believe they're using the cop is the structure they're using for that debt. >> thanks. >> thanks. >> ex he lent conversation. thank you. * excellent the third financing contemplated by the agency this year is a grant and anticipation note. it says grant application note. my apologies. grant anticipation note. and the purpose of this is to better align the timing of federal dollars directly applied to the central subway. so, this is project specific and it doesn't involve the agency's revenue. this is a mechanism for accelerating the timing of the federal dollars to better match the construction schedule of the central subway. ask to flesh that a little bit, you currently have a full funding grant agreement with the federal transit administration in the amount of

about 9 40 million. the annual amounts you're expected to receive through 2017 is approximately 150 million. your construction needs exceed that in certain years. so, this is a way to bring those dollars forward. >> what about the category, protected rating category bbd? >> yes, yes. now, as noted, this will not involve or pledge your agency revenues. this will -- investors will be repaid with federal dollars as they come in pursuant to the full funding grant agreement. now, as it turns out, your credit is stronger than the federal government's funding [speaker not understood]. [laughter] >> would you repeat that, please? >> what would other categories be, bbb and -- >> bb is still investment grade, still investment grade. it's below the av category, below the a category, within three notches of each category. you have triple b plus, triple b minus.

this will be somewhere in the triple b category. the benefit here is it won't be a long-term maturity here. so, you're going to have a fairly low credit on the full funding grant agreement, grant anticipation note. you're going to stay somewhat short 6 or 7 years. so, if you will think a two-year u.s. treasury is .37%, incredibly low. investors receive .37% for investing two years out. they go out 10 years it's 2%. three years it's 3%. you're going to stay within that, say, 7-year window. even though the credit will be a little weaker, you'll pay a little more, you'll be so short along that yield curve that you will still have a fairly low cost of borrowing, say 2-1/2, 3-1/2%, somewhere in there. >> thanks. >> okay. that is the introduction and that's the overview. the follow-up slides are drill down into a little bit of detail. i'm going to pull up some salient features from these not