i have a house keep issue and possibly a charter legal issue earlier, you mentioned the font has to be a certain any reasonable human being said they did a poor hours keep job even they kaunt couldn't read i want on the web for the health services board those pages i can't read in person i want to go into in and read them before the next meet >> that's our commitment has to item is being posted for discussion and action at the next meeting those are the things we're talking about. >> all of us can read it. >> they disappoint me. >> other public comment? >> thank you i don't what voice

i have left there are many questions if they could tells you the national disruption they haven't provided that we need another motion to do what you're doing thank you for making it formal there much, much, much more information before anyone could a figure out how to opt both it medication is significant one hundred and 5 people are going to be calling all of us and there's problem with the network providers will be available i don't understand why there can't be a response if that is who you have you stay with or those- we don't want to

go into the other plan that needs to be clarified any questions thank you. >> thank you very much for your comment. >> all right. any other public comment? hearing no other comment we're ready to proceed on the motion all opposed by the same sign>> i. >> opposed? no. >> the i's have it so we're now down to item 16. >> 15? yes >> we're skipping that. >> i'm skipping 16. >> no, i'm skipping 15 is that what you're telling me. >> that's what you said. >> yes. >> the discussion item on 15 go ahead. >> okay and item 15 discussion

item approval of controllers nominee randy scott for a 5 year term starting in 2015. >> sense i'm the subject of this i'm defer to the vice chair of the board vice president of the board to conduct the discussion on this topic. >> just defer it to the next meeting. >> well, i thought i had in my prior. >> i thought you did it was. >> it was on the draft this will be deferred until the next meeting i thought i said that. >> you did. >> okay. so item 16 are there madam secretary. >> item 16 report on network and health plan issues if any. >> i director dodd is the representative from blue shield yes all right. >> if you would please come and

identify, sir. >> thank you for your patience this afternoon. >> thank you. i'm paul brown the area vice president for america counts at blue shield california and director dodd has asked me to speak to a recent news article that enhance with the law times about our in time status in california and decision by the franchise tax board to revoke the exemption from the state next door i'd like to read a couple of bullet points on background and i'll entertain any questions you have or the public has so as is noted the franchise tax board revoked blue shield's exception from state next door that occurred in around august of last year that was broadly recorded on or announced by the

franchise tax board and i should note we're appealing that decision but our nonprofit status is not related to whether we pay state or federal taxes we'll remain a nonprofit consistent with our mission decision of the franchise tax board is not unique, in fact, many plucking and blue shield plans federal and state tax and also others pay state taxes i'd like to remind the board as part of the mission that as a result of our 2 percent pledge in 2012 we've returned to our members and consumers over half a billion dollars, in fact $550 million to our customers and members including work cc sf

and as a reminder for all that was a pledge to cap our operating income at 2 percent that means we project at the given of every year our trends and at the end of every year we look at claims and expenses and if there's money left over we remain 2 percent to reinvestment systems and such and anything above that we return to again, our members and customers and even when we began doing that in nevada we were the only health plan in the united states that made such a exempting commitment in addition the blue shield has donated over $225 million to strength the safety net in 2014 we made over 4 hundred and 80 grants to public services

agencies to help support the safety net but after legislated i didn't negotiations the franchise tax board took the action because of the level of the revenues that stand at $4.2 billion we or less made a acquisition to enter the medal department by care first a nonprofit with about 5 hundred thousand members we do accept the care acquisition to close that significantly reduce our reserves because we're a nonprofit and can't raise money from vefrdz we rely on the receivers such as the care first acquisition after the acquisition blue shield reserves will be at a level that independent actual riders is to maintain a a rating

with the agencies and an a rating is required to make sure we can continue to do business with other large employers including calpers and i'll finally lists my statement we believe p we have 3 foundational as a nonprofit one to be mission driven we're mission driven to make health care affordable for all californians you've heard about that with the ac co patrons that will spill over into our exerts within the health deliver systems number 2 to be a good corp citizen the work we do is far greater than our executors certainly in california and finally it be a

good set the record straight of the resources i'm pause and entertain questions about the excise tax board mission. >> any questions before the commissioners i would ask a broad question regarding the facts filings information on the running the company so you do file a 990 naenl; is that correct. >> i believe so i'm not that close to the tax filings. >> someone going to our website be able to identify the top 5 paid officers in the company. >> i don't believe so but i do believe we're required to file that that the irs. >> that is done through a 990 my understanding are there any descriptions of executive pay or

perks or bonuses on our website or other public documents. >> i have not i don't believe it is on the public website and i won place i haven't looked is our annual report which should include information i'm certain. >> i'm raising those questions you and i both know this is the in the public mind show you guys sweltered away the money and do what you do i want to try to get those issues there is some public documentation your rearview mirror required to speak to 0 factually rather than speculation. >> federal filings. >> yep and that's the point of clarification. >> other comments or questions from the board if you'll stand by we'll be having public

comment and maybe questions you might want to respond to. >> yes. director dodd. >> for the record do you have a federal nonprofit status. >> yes. we maintain we are at our corporate filing both state and federal. >> your 990 filings okay stand but there's no future questions any public comment on this item. >> yeah. the question of reserves came up for blue shield now i'm wondering how does that related to compensation for choses do the executive compensation go up or the letters while they went adopt this is something i want to know and a lot of other people want to know.

>> thank you for your comment. >> other public comment? >> thank you members sitting next to me had a letter noifs her many of her efficiency might not be eligible there's a contract negotiation there is a lot of treatment and with specialists and very concerned i want to know which health plan will they receive a letter and which health plan is the negotiations going on and is that for members offering them specialities or physicians will be available. >> thank you that was not directed at blue shield i'll ask director dodd. >> our members are required to

summit what they have sending out i have no knowledge of that letter i can follow-up. >> okay. so if you care to make any final comments. >> no, just thank you for allowing us the time to address there is a lot of misinformation in the public about the articles that have been written in the media i think the probability the one i think is most accurate is one written by the sacramento business times that lays out other health plans and other organizations that have not-for-profit status and he fine line that lays between the nonprofits like kaiser or sutter or other heartache plans not-for-profit and features identified in that article.

>> thank you very much for your time i hope this edifies the conversation getting into the weeds. >> item 17. >> discussion item opportunity to place items on future agendas. >> any items from the board or public comment on this item >> hearing none item 18. >> item 18 discussion item opportunity for the public comment to comment on any matters within the board's jurisdiction. >> any public comment? on this item? >> a question of clarification i hope it isn't awkward i don't attend these as i eyed to do in the past i noticed by the rates for my drug prirpgsdz went up for blue shield i go to walgreens drug store and

suddenly much higher was this vote on by the board to increase the rates what exactly is going on i want information on that. >> i was ask you to raise that question we've indeed improved the rates for this year there were increased. >> yes. >> maybe in our particular plan like i said, i don't want you to disclosure all our information. >> if you could consultant with the director after the meeting. >> i found out the hard way. >> thank you. any other public comments? on item 18? hearing none i'm ready to teenager a closed session on the appeal >> i make the motion on closed

session for the member appeal. >> we have a motion all opposed by the same sign

>> good morning, today is april 14th, 2015. welcome to the finance committee of the san francisco transportation authority. i am john avalos joined by david campos maliha cohen and we will be joined by other colleagues. mr. clerk. do we have any announcements? >> there are no announcements. let's go on to our next item. roll taken. >> we have quorum. >> next item is part of our consent calendar.

items two to three comprise the consent calendar. staff is not going to present. >> colleagues changes to the amendments. comments on item 3 of the consent calendar. we will go to public comment. any member that would like to speak come forward. we will close public comment. may we have a motion to approve. >> move to approve. >> seconded by commissioner cohen. >> we need a roll call vote for the first one. okay. on the consent calendar. commissioner avalos.

aye. >> kim, abcent. maher, absent. >> four, state and federal legislative update. this is an action item. >> good morning, chair and members, mark wats representing sacramento. two items of interest. on the matrix we added constitutional amendment number 5 and relates to the voter threshold for local special taxes, not designating a purpose for the tax, but under any tax approved by the voters reduce the threshold to 35%. we are recommending support for that measure. another measure that was brought to my attention by staff to relay to you and ask for your

action on is to reconsider ab 779, found on page 7 of the matrix. this measure has been a watch and we're asking for you to reconsider and recategorize it has opposition. essentially, it pertains to the metrics used to measure traffic and greenhouse gas emissions in transportation priority areas. and on further reflection and collaboration with local agencies we find it's too flexible and a step backwards from where the city has been moving and recommend oppose. >> we had a discussion about the other items last time. questions or comments? we can go to public comment. public comment is open.

>> additional -- >> i was going to give a quick update on the federal transportion project. >> the current bill expires at the end of may and the federal trust fund will be bankrupt by july. so just a little better than the may prediction they had before but still we're looking at deficit and no real way to fund it since no one is talking about that. and the president introduced the grow america tax. this would be paid by a tax on earnings in addition to the gas tax. it increases transit programs more than doubles the discretionary tiger grant program, which is very over

subscribed at the federal level and increase an $18 billion freight program. we're watching but unfortunately, it would be great for transportation and he introducing he's every year and usually congress doesn't go anywhere. we're looking at another short term >> thank you. bad congress. >> good morning, chair avalos. i was proud to join with agencies around the region to rally and call on congress to pass a long-term bill. our delegation in california is fantastic. it's the other folks in the nation that need to come toward. what we heard interestingly from the director of cal trans, malcolm dougherty, in other parts of nation where we don't

have voter approved bill. both at the local and state level, they are really facing tough choices. they can't enter into construction projects. that i need to demobilize once there's a federal long-term bill. this is so disruptive and we are fortunate to be cushioned from that or protected from that because of our ability for self help at the local level as well as state level. >> thank you. okay. and no comments from the committee here. thank you for the presentation and the updates. this is open for public comment. any member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, we will close public comment and can we do the same inhouse call. >> we need to amend the item first. >> so colleagues we need to make an amendment to move from watch to oppose for ab 77 and can we have a motion. >> so moved.

>> second. >> and we will take that without objection. and on the item underlying item we can take the same inhouse >> okay. gavel. >> we will approve that. next item please. item number five, recommend awarding an 18 month contract for planning and environmental at a-280 at balboa park and negotiate terms and conditions. >> good morning i am liz rutman. i am senior engineer for capitol projects transportation authority. as you may recall last june we came to the plan and program committees for the adoption of the balboa park study we

completed in the spring. at that time the board adopted the staff-recommended petition for bicycle safety and minimize traffic going from i-280. out of the study came recommendations for several project elements. element one is to close the northbound on ramp from geneva avenue. element two is reassign the southbound lane and the third is a potential kiss and rider access. this past february we came before the board for an appropriation of $750,000 to advance the next steps in the study and that would found the

transportation staff and the interagency agreements with cal-trans and a consultance report. i am here asking for an amount not to exceed $450,000. the consultant scope of work for the next steps include a traffic analysis for both ramp modifications and the precurser to the subscent project approvals. this analysis would be presented to fhwa for approval since it changes access for an interstate highway. the southbound off ramp realignment to ocean avenue we hope to have completed for next year and the consultant would support our community outreach in helping with a funding and implementation plan for the projects. we released the proposals in every february.

we set an sbe dbe goal. any one would work for 28%. we received two proposals in early march. both competed the 28% goal. we interviewed both firms and the unanimous, the panel selected ae com as the most qualified team with the best relevant services. chs consulting and recco, three of the four firms are of the dbe, slb firms. >> thank you. that's the end. i think there's one part of the study that i'm concerned that should be addressed and i'm not clear if it's being planned. there are a lot of people in district 11 and probably close

around district 11 who are concerned about the meeting forward program, in particular the 29, 54 and 52 that have been dropping off on geneva and will pick up on ocean avenue. the plans to access the change were done in 2007 2006 when the tep was put forward. we have seen changes dramatic in terms of traffic patterns around there and often and certain times of the day you see that ocean avenue is at a stand still and whether it makes a lot of sense to actually move these bus lines to ocean avenue is you know one that i think is worth considering. as we're adding in these other changes where we're closing down

an on ramp going north from geneva geneva, that's going to move traffic to ocean avenue as well. i think we should be being lewing at in this -- looking at this in the ways we're changing to getting on and getting off of the 280. is that something that's being proposed? >> when the circulation study was done, we assumed that the changes to the routing proposed by the tep was in place. the analysis done already included those. we will continue to include those and coordinate with mta on which elements are moving forward versus which have changed since the tep was written to ensure we're including the changes correctly in the traffic analysis. this would be more detailed and we will include those improvements to make sure it's

holistically evaluated. >> great, i'm concerned that we're diverting more congestion into ocean avenue that will lead to huge impacts to the speed which we're trying to address with our changes to on ramp -- >> it's a valid concern. it's the first thing we will do to make sure these projects can continue to move >> great. thank you. >> colleagues any other questions? thank you for the presentation. this item is open for public comment. any member of the public who would like to comment. please come forward. seeing none, we will close public comment and this item we can take same call, colleagues. the item passes. our next item. >> item next 6 introduction of new items. this is an introduction item. any new issues? colleagues discussions? okay.