>> good morning, today is may 12th, 2015 and, welcome to the finance committee of the san francisco county transportation authority, my name is john avalos the chair of this committee, and joined by commissioner eric mar and campos and we will be joined by other commissioners shortly, our clerk is steven, and today is committee meeting is brought to the public by sfgtv, staff, jessy larson and jonathan stockhouse and thank you for your work and, mr. clerk, could you please call the next item? >> item number one, roll call. >> avalos? >> present. >> campos in >> present. >> cohen? >> absent. >> kim? >> absent. >> mar. >> here. >> we have a quorum. >> okay, and could we call our consent calendar?

>> consent calendar, items 203, come price and considered routine and they are prepared to be sider and any of them can be manufactured and considered separately. >> okay, any comments, or concerns about our minutes? >> or or nine month report? >> okay, seeing none we will go into public comment on these items any member of the public that would like to comment, seeing none, we will close public comment. >> and colleagues, could we have is a motion on these. >> so manufactured. >> second. >> and from commissioner mar, and seconded by commissioner campos and we will take that with the roll call vote. >> avalos >> aye. >> campos. >> aye. >> cohen? >> absent. >> kim. >> absent. >> mar. >> aye. >> items passed. >> okay, very good, let's go on to item four. >> recommend the authorizing

executive director to replace the transportation authority commercial paper program with the revolving credit and agreement, and enter into an facility and the negotiations on state street are not successful and take on the action and negotiate in the terms and the non-term agreement terms and conditions. >> we have cythia welcome. >> good morning. >> i am here at the transportation authority. and what i have before you, is a request to terminate or commercial paper program, and as you may recall, approximately ten years ago, it is transportation authority started a commercial paper program as of that amount of $200 million and, we have issued $250 million, of the commercial paper outstanding in fiscal year 05 and 06 and as of today we have 135 million outstanding and the program has been running for ten years, and

as part of the commercial paper program and we need a letter of credit to support this facility, and what has gone on is over the past years, we have contracted the various banks and the letter of credit and now we are coming upon us an expiration date of the letter of credit that we have at wells fargo, and the expiration is july, 20, 2015 and issued an rpf a few months back asking the various banks to propose another letter of credit or any other facilities and i with like to refer to table one, as which lists out, those six banks that we received proposals from. and at various, levels and facility and we have had the letter of credit and two banks proposing with tax exempt resolvers and those banks that we are suggesting to award the contract to, is the state

street, public lending corporation and they proposed with not only a letter of credit but also with a tax accept, and that would the proposal at 40.3, basis points and in terms of the cost of managing over all program. and while, we are currently payin wells fargo, 70 basis points and we are looking to terminate the commercial paper program and it create a new program, that tax exempt that would act more like a lawn for the outstanding, $135 million and growing with this type of facility will reduce the amount of work for the transportation staff is also cut, and some of the middle men such as jp morgan as a remarker and we would not have to pay them as well. and in addition, it would have less risks for the 135 million that we have outstanding and less risk in terms of having investments sit out there for 370 days waiting for the market and waiting to see if the

invest tore will pick up this investment and instead we will be working with the streets, and the states bank and they would hold the loan and there would be no need to remarket this type of a facility and every 270 days. and with that, street safe banks has provided various financial vehicles and facilities to the puc here and the city and county of san francisco and the sfmta and the airport and for, the center project. we would be saving 500,000 per year every a three year contract and that is more money for our projects and the cec was presented this item back on april, 22nd and it was a vote for a motion of support for this item. and with that, would i like to open this to any questions? >> commissioner mar? >> yeah. and thank you, deputy director, fong and i wanted to ask, where

is the state street bank located? >> well actually located in boston and we have recently created our, or recently started to work with the city and county of san francisco over the last two years and this is an item that have briefed the controller's office and they have obtained the references from the various city staff who are using the bank. >> and i find that is fascinating besides wells fargo who it seems like we used before, three of the banks that put or did sent in and they seem like japanese banks. >> yes. >> yes, they are. >> and is that a trend where we are seeing more foreign banks or foreign capitol bidding on different? >> yes, three years ago, we had six various banks and half of the banks were from japanese, and we are looking to get into

the american market. >> if you want additional information. >> no. >> do i have the council and financial advisors ready and willing to answer the questions. >> the other questions and how do we expect and i know that we have a commercial paper, loan, and we will work to pay that down and, how will that program really enable us to work toward that level of debt and paying that down? >> so this will be saving us $500,000 each year and that helps in all different ways and defending for the project and this, and the plan for this facility is to hold, or to start off with 135 million and to start paying it down each fiscal year, or actually each calendar year, and how we do it based on each of them needed for each of the fiscal years and the plan is to pay it down and over the next five years

and the outstanding balance, but depending on what the needs are coming from our various departments or various transportation authority who we sponsor the projects with and maybe another road that we need to take and is you the debt and we will refund this loan and that will be off of the expense. >> okay, and at the current rate, now, and then, the next item. and in this agenda, we also have the first look at the transportation authority's fiscal year, 15/16 and it will go more into the levels of the expenditure for the fiscal year. >> okay. >> and any other comments from the committee? and so why don't we go to the public comment, on this item? to the public comment is now open to item four and any member of the public that would like to comment and we will take the time and close the public comment. and this is an action item. >> so, colleagues.

do we have a motion? >> it is all, move the approval. >> okay, i second it by the commissioner kim, and we will have a roll call vote? >> on item four? avalos? >> aye. >> campos? >> aye. >> and commissioner cohen. >> aye. >> and kim. >> aye. >> and commissioner mar. >> aye. >> the item passes. >> okay, let's go to the next item >> item five, state and federal legislative up date and this is an action item. >> we have three in support and four in opposition and i would like to go through those and i would note on the further consultation, we are going to revise the recommendation that

is in the and so the first measure is simply, the bill 35, by mr. chiu and on page 4 of the matrix. and it will increase the state tax credit, level, for low income housing to $300 million. and at the state level, and which allows access to several 100 million dollars in additional federal funding, by doing so. and this is, and we will recommending support on this measure. and the city and county. >> ab, 1335, on page 18. and this is speaker atkins measure, and dealing with the affordable housing as well. and this is, very similar and drawn from and the senate bill, 391 from the senate last year and which was supported by this organization, and that would authorize the i am possession

of a fee of 75 dollars, and it is supported by the city and county of san francisco. and we are recommended, well, joining in support, and the amount, raised of trying to figure that out in talk to the folks and look at the analysis, and it is full to quantify in terms of the total amount and it is several, 100 million dollars, and which they believe, and it would be used to leverage, a bit and of the other funding as well. and then, sb 413, is a bill that i would tell you what you suggested position would be. and it is available and administrative process, and the transit court if you might as it is operated in the allied metro. and in this bill, it would

allow, and to impose the signage and the reservation for the seats on the vehicles and in other place and it also will put youth fair evasion in this category rather than a penal code and in a sense it is bringing it down if it opens up the juvenile records and, we are checking into that and what we would recommend is rather than straight support and seek to get the status of the juvenile and if it is not in line with, you know, what we would expect it to be, then what we would not look forward and bring it back to you for

the consideration. >> each one deals with the cap and trade funding and the disadvantaged communities. and in concert with mtc and other northern california folks, and interest organizations and that have been critical of the adopted disadvantaged community definition and of the screening process that is used, for the cap and trade, which requires a mandate, and that the disadvantaged community meet the certain tests and in a number of wide ranging numbers including the pollutants and the socio economic status and the way that it was implemented was disadvantageous to the bay region and northern california. and so, mtc has been leading the charge since before the cap and trade program was finalized last year to try to revise that and broaden, the definition, and as a consequence in

syncking up, we are recommending the oppose to the four bills and i will go through them briefly, ab, and 156 on page 5, that is a lotable and the effort is trying to increase or provide for the technical assistance to the disadvantaged and other communities and the smaller cities and counties and unincorporated counties and the capability and the capty that they are not able to put together the projects that will enable the grant to qualify and the mtc is opposed to seeking the amendment to broaden the definition of the disadvantaged communities and we are recommending that you consider the position and that will apply to the next three bills and the underlying program will be something that you will endorse, but trying to put together a leverage point on expanding the disadvantaged communities is the point of

these position and so ab 1176 on page 16, and it is a low carb and diesel fuels program and it will seek to put the diesel fueling infrastructure into the low carb into the disadvantaged communities and on page 18 it will increase the amount of money and currently the disadvantaged communities, that, and there is a 25 percent, threshold that in the grant administrators must provide at least, 25 percent to of the funds awarded. to benefit the disadvantaged communities, and there is a subset of that where it has to actually get the project in the dac. but the 25 percent, threshold is being thought to be increased to 40 percent in this measure. and finally, a senate bill, 760, would, and it would also

try to expand the types of projects within a disadvantaged community, that could be eligible for grants and includes urban greening and park development and now, the certain active transportation facility and there is some question on that bill, whether it will meet the nexus requirement under the ab 32, for the cap and trade, and fund resources so that question is being sorted out while the bill is on appropriation, and but it also relies on the disadvantage's community definition in the process and the current and we are recommended oppose to that in line of the mtc recommendation as well. and so that is my presentation. >> happy to answer your questions. >> thank you, commissioner mar. >> just wanted to ask about david chiu's regarding the red rear bike lights and the suggestion is watching and i think that it is a good strategy to make the biking

safe and her to have responsibility for the buy sicklist to protect their own safety and i wonder why it is watch. >> i think that it will start off as a more aggressive bill with the requirements for clothing and the other types of lighting and it has been narrowed down who what it is that you see today and so the recommendation to switch to support would be entirely support. >> so yeah, would i recommend that we support that and i will make that motion. >> okay. >> ab 28 on page 61, on the full packet. >> okay. >> that includes, helmets too? >> no it is just rear red lights. >> that is correct. >> just the rear red. >> it is a motion, and on that one item, and ab 35, are there any --, and or ab 28? >> do you know where the bike coalition stands on this legislation? >> i am waiting for a text back to find out. >> i would like to hear what one of our main stake holders thinks about this before we

move forward to support. >> right. and let's hold waiting for a second on that motion, while we go through the rest of this. if you go into the issue of disadvantaged communities and accessing cap and trade and that is an important issue and on the face of it, it seems like we would be supportive of the communities being able to access the cap and trade, dollars, and what we are seeing a theme here, and if you can talk about how it plays out across the state i think that will help us. >> the framework is for the program, or gr, and there is a requirement that ten percent of the funds be spent on projects in the various categoris that

exist. it has to be in a half mile and help the disadvantaged communities, what is the definition of disadvantaged communities? calepa have been developing what they called the environment process and i am not sure that it is the process, and to identify the disadvantaged communities but it ended up being adapted and its basic framework and originally was to identify it requires the overlay in the process that they have developed it to be an actual

disadvantaged community you have to meet the test in each of these categories, if you have an overwhelming amount of poe lunt ants and you don't have a bad, socio, economic and then you will not be qualified, and the way that it played out, was, in the community and grant process there were some communities that did not have the grants and were able to put it into the disadvantaged areas and it looked like the tool was used to be a little more flexible but it did not advantage northern california and i think that if i heard the

statistics by today in san francisco and there are only three census tracks that need that and that just does not meet my personal observation of what i know of the city and there are other areas in the east bay, where, they were not qualified as disadvantaged communities either and so that has a, and an impact, of when the grant programs are looking at that mandate of ten percent, and 25 percent, and that is basically off of the top and reserved for other areas of the state, and that truly do have the disadvantaged communities that need the help but it forces the movement of the funding because of the lack of dacs in this region, and into the other areas and >> and we are seeing parts of california that are able to take the advantage. >> correct. >> how do you see the legislation that addresses the disadvantaged communities, playing out politically. >> it is going to be difficult, because calepa is not backing

off as i understand it. mtc has feels that it has taken the way to gain the lefage and holding some members, and bills, you know, i don't want to say hostage, but weighing them down with opposition, and they get, some of the author to get engaged with the resources board in cal epa to see if they can get the administrative relief and change the definition. >> thank you, commissioner? >> actually, i know that we just met to talk about this and i had some concerns about opposing legislation, and that could potentially help more rural areas, of california. that i think that really do not have as much, technical expertise as a city like san francisco, for other counties in the bay area, do, and i don't want to just be self-interested, and opposing legislation, that could benefit some of maybe, more vulnerable, communities throughout the state of california that being said, i do understand that some of the concerns that we have

around how disadvantaged communities was put together. and so it actually helpful to hear kind of the political dynamics i guess is what is going on in sacramento and how the opposition might be able to push that and i guess that the question that i was not able to ask you was how much further, is mtc, and some of our stake holders here trying to push on that definition of disadvantaged communities, and in a way that can help to give us a leg up on the cap and trade funds that you know we need, particularly around affordable housing? >> or what are smf the specific amendments that can be made to the definition that would support. >> and yeah. >> not being funded here >> pardon me. >> i do think that for example, and you know not being, and a technical expert, but kind of a journey man expert and the familiarity with this, and as some of the, and the issue of

meeting multiple, components and where it was resolutions, and that would then free up the areas in this location, that have great exposure to the poe lunt ant and for example they have to meet that plus the other components before they qualify. i think that at the end of the day, here is what i think. i think that if, even if we were successful, and in collaboration with the mtc to compel, the change it is going to take a cycle or two, for the calepa to technically adjust and remap and recalibrate their screening tool that they used. so, it is perhaps, it might be a wiser strategy, rather than trying to leverage the author to assist to actually engage in

the collaboration with the direct. and then see where that leads and, see if that has a retroactive and a more immediate effect and then in the timing. >> and, my second question is what drove the defining of the disadvantaged communities at the state level? were there just better advocacy, and other parts of california, and that led to that, or --. >> no, this was probably some of the purist state government framework, i have seen, become enacted in law and it first arose, i would say, 2012, in the initial framework legislation that was adopted by, or sought by the speaker at that point in time that was enacted into law that actually came up with the definition of the disadvantaged communities but at the same time there was kind of a confidence with what the calepa was doing with the

enviroscreen and they got blended together and there was uncertainty, up and down the state as to how that would all work out. and i don't have in my participation through those tape and trade negotiations dating back to 2012,dy not and was not aware of and i did in the see or observe, a crafty, ploy, and it seemed like it was merging policy interests that were new, and unshaped. and then they were left to calepa to finalize. >> is there somewhere on the website where we can look at where all of the dacs were identified throughout the state. and i am aware of that were identified in the san francisco and two of them are in the district that i represent and one is in cohen's district and one of our stake holders they have applied for the cap and trade funds, and one of the tracks that qualified for the disadvantaged community and i do know and it is a limited scope and i was curious to how

that came about? >> and there is excellent mapping available. and i will make sure. >> and will be great. thank you. >> how many census tracks are there? in la from the port to downtown and 23 miles long that is all -- (inaudible) i would imagine and there is a great number of census tracts, i can't give you a proposition, but three is out of the state wide total. >> and i know that when i was at the school district, we went from, predicts or zip codes to census tracks and because it is much more specific and so, roughly 500 and some precinct and so i can imagine only how many more tracks there are and of those, only three are identified for the disadvantaged community, and

under the state definition. >> and i with also offer in a premeeting with the commissioner kim that i would reduce a lot of this down into the memo for the staff and for your purposes to have a better handle on this scope and outside of taking a position, kind of i will be doing that. >> great, thank you. >> sure. >> avalos could i speak on another legislation. >> sure. >> and i am sorry. >> let's hear from the director. >> let's finish this. >> on that topic, thank you, chair avalos and kim for that, for the question i think that the legislation that are moving through and the fund area process allows us the opportunity to coordinate across the agency and including with the air diblgt and the mta and the abag and the like and this is a big area of challenge for us and we don't have the numbers and we did advocate very strongly to the changes

for the guidelines and we were not successful and wondering if there is a legislative path that we could take, as the cap and trade moves through the budget pr is hes and if we just rely on the advocacy and even in the legislative process tl, could be a problem with the numbers, between north and south, and us and the rest of the state. >> but we should make our voices heard and we can do so through the process, and again n concert with the district, as well as mtc and abag, thank you. >> great, thank you. >> commissioner kim? >> thank you, i just want to comment also, on the bill. regarding making certain violations infraction tickets when riding on the public transit, and i could not remember the number. >> sb 113. >> thank you. >> and i just wanted to thank you for pointing out the pieces

of the bill that might actually further hurt the young people and i know that the original intent was to decriminalize, the use, and by reducing it to an infraction, and therefore, also, encourage more people to actually pay their tickets because the cost of the ticket is less and i appreciate that you are able to catch a piece of that bill that actually open up the juvenile's record, when that is cited and i think that the commission would not want to see something move forward that would penalize the young people because they could not simply afford to ride a bus or have the wrong type of muni pass which is something that i saw a lot of the youth organizers and when the students turned 18 and they would have a youth pass and would get a really hefty fine that they could not afford and so while i appreciate the intent of this legislation, i do think that we should withhold support until