it's good to hear that we think this will track within budget which we would all expect but given we're also expecting to see continued budget short falls when the next budget comes i am wondering if there's opportunity to use more city attorney resource for the legal needs of the agency which i presume would be considerably less expensive than some of these fine law firms that we have on our bench? >> we do use the city attorney for several items now. debra works closely with the city attorney on the imminent domain litigation. we work with them on various matters. of course we used to work with them almost exclusively on the construction side before we lost staff to the airport but we will continue to reach out to them and as long as

they have the resources we are happy to use the city attorney. staff is also very conscious of using legal time. just last week i tried my hand at writing an affidavit for a records request and baby -- and debra complemented me before she made the necessary corrections. >> i noticed again looking at their foundational documents that our legal counsel is the san francisco city attorney dennis herrera and it struck me that was an odd position given that as far as i could tell wasn't acting like a legal counsel so i had a couple of meetings with them and including mr. herrera on tuesday and he agrees that's a position that is untenuous for his office. he

has no problem being the legal counsel but he understands that he hasn't been acting as such at all, and has made it very clear to me that he doesn't -- it's up to us, the board to choose our true legal counsel, and he's willing to be that no problem, but if he is he's going to act as such and be essentially primary. for example choosing all -- the other firms, the sub firms and directing them he would be responsible and i have talked to andrew sharltz at shoop and hail and he he is also. >> >> hailey and he is perfectly willing to be the true counsel and understands that the scope of general counsel would include choosing and directing other firms to do the specialty work,

so we're going to have to make a decision here and each of these -- both san francisco city attorneys made it clear they want off if they're not completely on, and the shoop and hailey firm is perfectly willing to be appointed in their stead if that's what we want, so i think at some point in the next few meetings at least we're going to have to meet and decide who we want to be our legal counsel, and i haven't talked to nila about -- i don't know whether it can be done in closed session or whether it has to be done in open session. there are no employees involved but at the same time it's very personnel oriented so i will look for that and with respect to this item what i just want to make sure

this is fine. we definitely need some more money in the budget to do this, but i would expect whichever legal counsel that we choose to revisit the whole bench and to decide how we want to present in the future, whichever one we decide, whether it's the city attorney who wants to get more involved with their office and do this, or -- and i discussed with mr. herrera -- i said "well, of course you recognize there has been and will be conflicts in which the city has interest and not just the transbay terminal" and he agreed and said when he would step away from a particular decision but however rare that maybe or common that maybe, so it's going to be our choice, but we're going to have to make one, and i think sort of revisit this notion after we do that.

>> but my understanding of the bylaws or whatever the constituting documents are the choice has been made and the choice is the city attorney is our general counsel and should we wish to change that and i don't support but fwhee to have that -- need to have that discussion but the city attorney is the brief -- tjpa officer and they are a public sector law firm and because they're less expensive so i would encourage greater participation from the city attorney. >> and that's what we will require because in reality shoop and hailey have been acting to the extent that the executive director needed and general counsel it's been that firm and that's what we need to resolve

and personally i could go either way. i don't care. but everybody agrees that the legal counsel has to be -- has to take authority and if it's going to be the san francisco city attorney mr. herrera is going to do that and if it's shoop and hailey that's what they're going to do, and we have to decide which way to go, and it maybe fine -- i mean just leaving it that way, but we're going to see a lot more out of the san francisco city attorney if we just leave things the way they are. >> perhaps we should just direct the executive director to follow up and engage with the city attorney to see what he would propose in terms of what he would like to change to be in effect the general counsel for the authority. >> can i -- >> yes supervisor. >> thank you. through the

chair. a couple of things i would say. actually i should ask the question. i know we had this legal bench for a while and who does distribute the work when it's decided that certain attorneys can't take on specialty legal areas? >> sure. various staff work with each of the firms depending on the area. we do it through requests for services. those have to be authorized by the executive director so they incrementally authorize the budget for those service for the construction counsel it's dennis and mark and working with them. with shoop and hailey if it's a real estate matter it's often maria or i working with them particularly on land sales. if it's a administrative type question a question from the board, brown act, public

records, et cetera it might be coming from nila or scott to shoop and hailey and if it's other issues it's dennis and working on those requirements. it varies depending on the matter. >> okay. so it's not distributed through the city attorney's office as our legal counsel? >> no. but as a reminder deputy city attorney cheryl brakman was involved in the selection of the bench and on the selection committee. >> i think we have a good bench and i agree that we should increase the budget allocation and i should say i chat with the city attorney's office briefly and i think there is a need for clarity in terms of the role for legal counsel. i don't think they want to be off if they're not -- if there are specific kind of responsibilities that are not being addressed to them but i think there is a need for

clarity in terms of what that should be, and we should hear from them in terms of what type of clarity they would like to see in order to remain as the general counsel and i agree with director reiskin and want them to be the legal counsel and they're much more affordable than the private law firms that we work with so i think over the next month we should have that discussion, and clarify that role. >> right. and i should state that dennis or the city attorney was appointed as the officer as director reiskin mentioned and some time ago and regardless they have done a lot of work for us over the years and they continue to work with us and they are less expensive certainly. i think their highest billing dollar amount is about 253 an hour. the lowest

private attorney is 353 an hour so it's a huge difference but i want to add how critically important it is to have our city attorney as the officer and just the [inaudible] alone has been extremely helpful to us [inaudible] when we went out for the goldman-sachs loan. it makes a big difference and it really helps the credibility of the organization and getting the funding and i can see the chair olson agreeing so i want to point that outand we're winding down the station in less than three years. you will hear on an item today that we completed. i don't see a lot but we have a number of elements that i think where the city attorney would be help helpful, retear and sponsorship. those are the big elements coming up and certainly helpful in other

areas as well but [inaudible] as loan has made a big difference to this organization from day one so i am happy with the direction of the board to talk with them and have them get more involved and help me continue the work. i mean we have been doing a great job to dea. i am a member of the state bar and we have been active and doing a good job evidenced by the successes of our project and the fact we're opening on time and less than three years and we will get more engaged. >> great. >> if i can request maybe the executive director -- i think it's okay to say it because i'm not a san francisco person but i got confused during this whole discussion so in the theme of clarity if there can be information to all of the board members. i think i caught some things that seem consistent but sort of inn consistencies in

what was said. >> >> so if we can get factual information about what it is, what the situation is that would give me good background. >> yes. we will provide that to everybody. >> that would be great. >> thank you. >> move approval. >> i have a motion. second. public comment. >> none. director kim. >> aye. >> director lee. >> aye. >> director reiskin. >> all in favor say aye. >> director nuru. >> aye. >> chair harper. >> aye. >> that is five aye's. that is approved. item 10 is approving the minutes of the february 12 meeting. no members of the public to wish you on that item. >> motion for approval. >> (inaudible). >> motion and second. eric mar. aye scbr.

>> director aye. >> aye. >> director. >> aye. >> i would like to abstain. >> director. >> aye. >> chair harper. >> aye. >> that is four aye's. that is approved. we will note for the public we'll go into closed session and they have an opportunity to address you now or we will clo >> all right. the tjpa board of directors meeting on march 12, 2015 is back in session and we will report on closed session. >> in existing litigation with dnd construction v. balfour beatty infrastructure, inc., san francisco county superior court case no. cgc-12-525388 the board 4-0 approved the term of the

settlement and authorized the tjpa to execute the settlement and attached with the staff report and the tjpa is authorized to make payment as certified in the agreement and take all other actions in the settlement agreement to comply with the settlement. >> thank you. that concludes our business and adjourns our meeting. thank you.

>> good morning today is march 10, 2015 welcome to the finance committee of the san francisco transportation authority i'm commissioner avalos the chair the committee and today is clerk is steve stamping most and committee meeting is broadcast to everyone by sfgovtv staff nona melkonian and charles kremenak thank you for your service and mr. clerk any announcements. >> no announcements. >> okay. if you could call the roll. >> commissioner avalos supervisor campos supervisor cowen supervisor kim absent supervisor mar we have quorum. >> okay. very good go on to our next item and item number 2

approval of the minutes of the february 10, 2015 an action item. >> okay. colleagues i'm sure you had a chance to review the minutes and no one on the roster to speak open up for public comment public comment is closed and we can have a roll call vote and item 2. >> commissioner avalos supervisor campos supervisor cohen supervisor kim absent supervisor mar this item passes. >> great this item passes next item, please. >> item 3 state and federal update an action item. >> mr. watts here to present. >> good morning, chair and committee a number of bills to recommend for action i thought i'd start with the 0 opposed bills are on the agenda and go into the support

mr. patterson introduced ab 1138 only page 38 of your matrix is the acquisition of the railways upon having a full funding understanding for the entire sect so to put that into terms the initial construction seethe the first is under construction second packages that are going out to bid shortly and another package the funding four those have not been fully identified this as the effect in essence of bringing the construction to a halt that puts it in jeopardy we recommend an approval. >> can you say what the temperature is open the bill. >> yes. and mr. patterson introduced this is probably the

most clever of the bill to bring the high speed rail to a halt but previous efforts in the last session failed as well. >> thank you. >> mr. harper from rojs introduced the city and county from that stalling the systems and any existing go traffic systems will be subject to an, an intersection basis with new engineering studies to validate the safety of the intersections i don't think it is going to go well, we recommend this in that case. >> thank you. >> they don't have cars in orange county. >> next mr. mr. vallejo

recommend the supporting of the measure in essence two things it deals with the transportation finance and with one regard it says any outstanding loans between the general fund and the state transportation programs to be repaid it is accelerated and needs to move money forward and secondary it extends the law on the books the public-private law section which is the foundational statute that led to the city parkway those are suggesting to move into support and . >> do we expect the governors support. >> the concern is the department of finance accelerating the loans they have not expressed it yet but the

confuses they'll recommend it be opposed but i think over time a variety of ways to make the repayments to the projects funding ab 378 on page 7 it is currently an statement we're recommending support it is seeking to enhance the state route 101 corridor and stakeholder communications are are engaged in trying to come up what the framework of the bill it is a champ within accident next week convert the bill into a construction and the staff and i recommend this support rather than watching the intent mr. mullins with the on or about an 64 on page 7 an interesting

bill deals with the stating cap on county by county basis for a special tax formals sales tax instead of the two percent it raises to 3 percent to eliminate the counties to go get a special exception record. >> it could be passed added protective but has to have voters approval. >> no for uniformity sake it is for the percentage take that cap to 3 percent in the statute. >> and the legislator could pass this and creates another step before voting. >> there's another measure that deals with thresholds.

>> mr. mullins on behalf of the ab 5516 requires the dmv to develop a new temporary license plate so in the period between the sale of the vehicle and the appearance of the real plate law enforcement and toll operators will identify and tow the vehicle it failed to pass last year and you know again. >> so this comes with an appropriations as well. >> that will be a state mandate i didn't look at what the mandate is on this i'm sure there is one gentleman introduced on or about an 65 simply extends the 3 p law definitely a lot of interest

amounting to this law and he's really motivated he visited chile this year and looked at the fine facilities that are in place and figured out it is a tool we're going recommending support there are two manufacturer going through the assembly that deals with this matter. >> ab 1287 by mr. chiu allows the extent of the forward-looking camera so for law enforcement purposes that authors it for parking and the lane intersection of construction as enforceable we recommend support on that measure i alluded to the still amendment on page 168 reduce the threshold to 55 percent for special tax for transportation

so that will be broader than the sales tax it is handy to have places for the rental fee laws you continually of a couple years ago that is going to the ballot there's a debate if this is the time to do it i know that private polling is saying the voters are not interested at this point in time but this is a two year cycle we'll see how to progresses through the process mr. bill introduced sb 24 on page 21 addresses the port they've adapted the excise tax rate for diesel in the coming year and doing so reduced the excise tax and resulted in 7 to $800000 loss that it in revenue

his bill tries to address keeping up to the tax law from a couple of years ago to keep the laws in play what's prop 22 and the new excise tax neutral he goes in and extends the period for what they expect the revenues to be to 5 years it has been 3 years we've seen in the past 3 cycles the 3 percent increase of $0.03 decrease and now a decrease you're seeing the spiking or the voebltd in their estimation and this addresses that volatility that go smooths out over time we recommend support for that finally sb 564 is one of the gentleman's two bills to address

safety near schools this will increase the penalties for speed violators for vehicles that are passing the schools a similar bill the governor vetoed it didn't express the support for the finances but the safe routes to school and save 0 routes and other stakeholders are trying to overcome that so those are the ones that are on the agenda that we're recommending actions on one other bill i'll bring your attention it is going to be the administration's trailer bill it deals with h o v lane it is post on the website it is not in bill form it is similar to not ideal

to ab 194 by mr. frazier those two issues will be the frazer bill sports by the coalition i've not seen the language at the time they were ready to introduce it so they're to introduce it as a fall back the trailer bill the administration it proposing authorizes on with an hand caltrain to do the feinstein and each group will be subject to approval by the state transportation system there are guidelines that will be in place if this bill passes issue surround the trailer process that goes through a process that is much more quickly than the stand alone

bill we've arrived and monitoring the hearing basis for when this trailer bill will be developing the strategy to influence influence the budget subcommittee on the trailer bill so i want to bring your attention and i think i'll suggest the staff add if on the agenda for the future may be as an agenda item but for tracking. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you just following up on ab 194 where are we in terms of efforts to you know protect local interests i'm sure you're working with staff don't you talk about that a little bit. >> sure i think tilly wanted to talk about that. >> thank you, mark and if you for the question supervisor campos we have in conversations with m t c staff in the region of bay

area and the original bill of 194 has language that authorizes in consultation we're seeking stronger language have to a meaningful rule in the development of h o v or carpool lanes this means with regard to setting the policy and with regard to the policy of the lanes and the use of funds we want to make sure that san francisco, california weigh in property as a true partner to the region as we develop the facilities on our part of the network in the east bay and south bay their lanes authorized and developing those with a counterpart agencies we want to make sure our experience improves on that we're to demand