tv Building Inspection Commission SFGTV January 14, 2021 1:00am-5:01am PST
parking there was a motion passed a long time ago encouraging sidewalk parking on sites but that still isn't happening even when it is complaint driven. i think real work needs to be done there and i'm also excited to see what the cac has in terms of suggestions for the budget so i look forward to that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: i'm interested in the idea of no turn on red. i think it should be more consistent. in new york city to not make a right turn on a red light unless
a sign permits it and it's posted. if i get injured at market street and second or i get injured at tarval and 45th, i've still gotten injured. i think there has to be a city wide consistency here. i think it's something we should look at and also when i read about the tncs, as a sometimes user i've not just used them in the city of san francisco but have used them in an interregional way which means crossing the bay bridge. i'm concerned of any attempts to restrict t.m.c. operations and could cause it to not cross the bridge to san francisco concerns me. we have to keep our regional mind set here because i don't want to find myself in a t.m.c.
and can't cross the bridge to come into san francisco. these are worth looking at but we can't forget san francisco is part of a larger region and need to be consistent. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> caller: this is mark bloomberg again. i just wanted to say a word of support and encouragement for the recommendation for asking the soldier legislature for more authorities than t.n.c.s. the impact of t.n.c.s has been well documented but the impact on safety has received little attention and a cab driver or anyone who drives the streets with regularity or even pedestrians, bicyclists and so
forth kansas understand the vehicles are presenting a significant safety hazard. these are city streets. the fact that the cpuc controls them on a statewide basis should not disqualify the city from protecting its own residents and protecting it's traffic and air from the affects of these vehicles. so i would strongly encourage you to go forward with the latest part of your legislative agenda to give the city more control over t.n.c.s and particularly over the safety aspects of their operations and the numbers of these vehicles we finance. thank you. >> thank you. moderator, are there any additional callers on line?
next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon. this is barry. i want to reiterate what my colleagues have said. we support the c.a.c.'s recommendation that state legislature needs to give the authorization to enforce certain regulations the t.n.c.'s mist -- must follow. there's parking laws and driving laws they need to abide by and seem to ignore repeatedly including the whole right turn on red. the tenderloin has at least 85% no right turn on reds. and you still have the weight of
a lot of traffic lights because the light timing on most the streets is horrible. hyde street is the only street you can get light timing for those who are interested to know. all the other streets the light timing is horrible. larken needs to be a better street to go north on but they change the light timing and have to sit at least every other light. a lot of the lights have three cycles that are making it very tough. anyway, please take to heart this resolution regarding the more resolution of t.n.c.s. thank you very much >> thank you. moderator, are there additional callers on the line?
>> moderators are there any callers. >> caller: a lot of operators are getting sickest while working especially around yards around third street and metro east, wood and the creek due to the implementation of r.p.p. at meter zones around there. i know you just launched a pilot but now they have to pay with their license plate. it's very confusing and hard to understand and also in general we should not be ticketing the people who are providing sustainable transportation to the city while at work. these people have to come in from far away and you guys know it. they should be able to purchase r.p.t. passes or just receive a pass from the agency itself to not receive parking tickets for
meter and r.p.p. the other thing i wanted to talk about is the lack of service that still continues in many areas of the city such as lake merced and some areas of the sun set and park side and diamond heights. meanwhile we're adding duplicate service along third street so we'll have a bus and light rail both coming at decent frequencies while some areas still have no service. that's not equity at the end of the day. i understand there are resource constraints may be we can look to resuming at least some mobile cleaning so the busses aren't spending so many time pulling in and out of the yard to be cleaned. at the end of the day, these people even with the 122 with lake merced is still not enough service for these people to get where they're going and they're miles from any muni service within the city of san francisco and that's not okay.
>> does that conclude your comment? >> caller: yes. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> mark glmberg again and the market street plan is disliked. much of the purpose has been lost and though it's been significantly pared down it will cost a ton the city can't afford. the bus lane construction buffers between lanes and speed tables and when you approved the original plan taxis were excluded from and on the premise hours would be out of the curb lane and in their own lane on the sidewalk level. now instead bicycle tossed in
with taxis and paratransit and any vehicle with a plate not just delivery vehicles. you can save money and maybe some lives if you put this plan on hold and wait for better times and you can go ahead with the original plan, put taxis back in the red lane and make the kind of street pothole repairs that are necessary but you can save a ton of money by not going ahead with the rest of this plan and working out a plan that is going to serve the purposes that you originally intended and most people would actually like. thank you. >> thank you, mr. gruber. are there additional callers on the line? next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, good afternoon. this is barry toronto again.
i want to reiterate the better market street plan as it is now is not going to work for taxi drivers. they had to make changes. first i want to give a shout-out to an employee who has done fantastic work in doing outreach. can't say they're not doing a lot of outreach on this plan and their colleague over at the department of public works. they're working to get a lot of outreach out there. however, the way the plan is and not allowing us to use the central lane is ridiculous because we shouldn't be mixing with the bicycles and scooters and the skateboarders. i'd appreciate that you take a look at this again. especially having items brought up from the january 5 meeting.
i appreciate you take a look at that. also, regarding foreclosures, there's been more foreclosures. taxi medallions. we can't afford to have more of these occur. it's ridiculous. why aren't you work the board of supervisors to come up with debt relief so the credit union doesn't have to continue with the foreclosures? the thing is we need to be able to look again as to whether this ban at the airport -- i was banned from the airport last weekend and had to sit around for hours waiting for fares in the city. it's not always that busy there and in having to fight with people parking in the cab stands is ridiculous. i would appreciate that you take a look at whether this new policy is really working for anybody. thank you very much. >> thank you.
next speaker, please. >> caller: thank you. for those in the room who may not know as of friday 11, december barts is now operating on flipper only. and this is a huge milestone. and i think muni needs to follow suit in being able to have a system that runs only on clipper and muni mobile and hopefully soon open payment because these options offer safe and registered possibilities and eliminate weak links in the system. we just need more credit union and less coffee can. make way for people to pay for
their transit fare in their communities including taking cash to the places they go to in their community opposed to having it in our network. we have an example to follow. they're almost done with the omnifare payment system in new york city. almost all 472 of their subway stations are finished and they'll move on to busses and rail including grand central terminal, the world's largest railroad station. we have to be part of this region. i don't want our agency to lose site of being part of this larger region that is the bay area. i leave you with this. san francisco is not an island. you must remember the city and county of san francisco, the city i truly love, is part of the state of california and therefore part of this great
presidio that were covered by the run and this could be a good extension the district has a good point but a better solution would be to extend the $29 run and simply have the 30 terminate at jefferson street as before. and i think the taxi medallion system is a disaster and should have never been instituted and should go back to the old system where the driver had custody of their own medallion. this is simply outrageous. thank you. >> thank you, mr. warner. moderator, are there any additional callers on the line?
we will close public comment. the next item is item 10 and all are considered to be routine and acted upon by a single vote. there'll be no separate discussion of an item unless a member requests and there's only one item here, 10.1 is approving parking modifications, a throughi. i won't read all of them. >> are there comments or reasons that people would like to consider these items separately? okay. moderator, please open the lines for public comment? with that it's back before the board of directors.
anti-black racism a human rights plan. >> i'm bad at names and i apologize in advance. >> i'd like to introduce this item since it's true to my heart before he speaks. we brought to you our draft racial equity action plan. i'm pleased to bring it forward today for adoption. i'm joined by a resolution on anti-black racism. we can go into detail on this but before they do i want to talk a moment personally for my
expectations for equity work at the sfmta. first, i understand this work is ongoing. it has to involve each and every one of us in every movement every day and iterative in that we're not going to get it right the first time. we have to learn from our mistakes and seek continual improvement as we try to do the hard work. it requires us to reflect on our personal actions. we've got to be candid particularly for the way those in power are complicit in perpetuating anyone -- inequities and work on that and the work is pervasive and cuts across everything we do as an agency and invites us to a space of creativity. we these to be continually using our imagination to find ways to
bust through the past inequitable patterns. i recognize the work begins specifically with me. for me and my executive team we need to be support our new equity officer who's hiring is imminent i'm told within the next couple weeks. we heard from our staff and racial equity affinity groups about the need to fully staff our race equity and inclusion office. as i've told you before, and you know all too well, our current financial limitations are not going to allow us to fully staff that office from the get go. [no audio]
as it not like we built thes racial equity action plan. we wilt it through volunteer time -- we built it through volunteer time through staff members who did the work because they believed it was important and dit on top of their regular jobs it needs to be more like running our center during covid where we re-allocated and form a team that cuts across the hierarchies of the organization and division of the organization in order to get this work done. that's one of the immediate steps that we will need to take as soon as we hire our new race equity and inclusion officer and figuring out a team and make sure they have the time allocated to do this work and not do it in their 60th hour of week.
months to make sure the plan is the structure by which we do our work, allocate our limited resources and hold ourselves accountable to the outcomes that we're committed to. so with that, i would like to turn things over to shumaka and present what is typical of their amazing months of work. >> thank you so much, jeff. thank you staff and community members. i hope today's treated you kindly so far. i'm currently the acting deputy chief of staff at the agency. the last time we came in november we had a conversation about some of the action plans. so for this conversation i wanted to contextualize what happened. we unpacked what racial equity
means at mta and we had a candid conversation on where we stand as an agency now and the progress we need to make moving forward. we shared details about the steps the agency needs to take on the path forward to become more equitable agency. and we also saw really effective staff organizing. many of my colleagues navigate the tension of being strong contributors to our equity efforts while recognizing they needed to communicate to you and our leaders and community at large we expect more from our agency when it comes to this work. and since mid november we've been preparing to reflect back to our staff about the outcomes of the feedback they shared with respect to this work to feed feedback and hoping to reflect back later
this week. we god feedback on what it means to got effectively lead the commitments. and this will help move the needle and i'll document the needs outstanding. we recognize there's only so much capacity in this moment particularly with the resources we currently have at the agency and it's a constrained environment and staff has been forthcoming with documents and once we follow through on the initial commitments the plan represents what are the needs that go further and are outstanding and must be addressed in the future. we also worked to mike the
affinity groups role in the accountability more explicit per the feedback shared in the last meeting and have been actively preparing documentation for our city's office of racial equity about how the places where mta's commitment diverge from their framework and city wide template to be representative to the unique needs and challenges we have as an agency. we have a unique department in the context of the city family. and so i think lastly, we started delivering on a lot of these commitments. kudos to our h.r. division and the folks responsible for the work because they recognize the work cannot and should not wait for a final submission to the office of racial equity for final adoption. we got moving on the work already and i'm happy to report that. so we are back at the board today to ask you to adopt and formalize the living racial
commitments and continue advance this work and to continue reflecting on adapting the commitments moving forward. secondly, to align with the office of racial equity's guidance and supplement the action plan by joining our human rights commission at the city level, health commission and several other departments in making a clear statement about where the agency stands with respect to anti-black racism specifically and want to transition to my cleg -- cleg to ex -- to my colleague to explain more. >> thank you. good afternoon, chair and all those tuning in. i'm heath tanner a senior transportation planner at sfmta. we've joined the two items together for the presentation by
design and the item declaring a representation declaring anti-black racism as a human rights and public health crisis around there's been the office of racial equity encouraged sfmta to adopt a resolution of this name as one of the first racial actions the agency could enact. it's building open -- upon resolutions of the same name and followed by other city departments as referenced from the public health commission to the public utilities commission. in that original resolution, the human rights commission called on every city agency to assert,
quote, anti-black racism is a human rights and public health crisis affecting our entire community. just as those agencies have followed suit, along with the board of supervisors, adopting the resolution of this name so too have staff at sfmta developed and assemble with the action planning team the resolution before you today. so this resolution references much of that important research data and findings we've seen from other departments resolutions. and those are linking incarceration, economic insecurity and displacement to the public health disparities experienced by black san franciscans today from heart disease to lower life expectancy to the death rate of covid-19. and so to bridge those resolutions and their existing
work with the context of our agency and the transportation sector, we added and wove in specific clauses that were germane to the work we do as referenced. our work as a transportation agency is unique in our city family. this calls attention to the dis-peter we've seen in our -- disparity we've seen in the transportation system and the impact transportation has had on san franciscans. railroad companies have historically discriminated against black riders and infrastructure has been deliberately placed in black communities create a legacy of environmental health stressors. our resolution before you today is taking the history and context and it is laying out a pathway to address these harms.
so the resolution of calling for our agency to hold all employees accountable for anti-black bias and racial harm and calling for an examination of our agency's hiring and promotion practices and for us to disaggregate all data by race and all action are consistent with the action proposed by the racial equity action plan you've seen previously. in fact, this resolution calls for the support of the racial equity action plan and its team and action plan implementation moving forward. to conclude by asking for you to consider both this resolution declaring anti-black racism a public health and human rights crisis and the racial equity access plan. thank you. i want >> i want to thank you all for
the work and we'll ab proving the action plan and it's symbolic and historic for our board. and we're hearing from others on their own feelings thank you for giving voice to and taking the time and input to design the best program for us. i'll first it to public comment out of respect for employees and others who may be on the line before we take it up for the board. moderator, please open the line.
>> caller: hello. i wanted to say great job to you chiamaka for taking ownership of the plan and pushing it through to the finish line and heath, great job with the development and finishing the anti-black racism resolution. i'm thankful the plan has been moved through this process and the agency is adopting it. i want to implore the leadership and you to empower the black and brown staff that work for the agency to implement the to have decision making authority in terms of resolving the issue that exists at the agency. it was hard for me when i was
there though i was at the executive level, my feedback and the framework wasn't implemented. it's not just to staff of color you agree with but the ones who don't agree with you who have a different perspective how to solve the issues in a non-traditional, non-contemporary way and through non-contemporary methods. i implored you to use your authority to not only empower leaders of color but fully back them even as a cis presenting, white male don't understand what you are asked to do and you have trust and deliver what you
demonstrate to other leaders predominantly white and other leaders to hear what i'm sharing in this moment to you director mcgood -- mcgwire and it's the only way meaningful change will take place. i believe it can happen. but people are going to need to be accountable and take responsibility for the issue. if not just the contents of what's in the plan but the ownership and the implement that will make the difference. thank you very much. >> i now you may have frustrations but you moved the
ball and our agency is better for your tenure. >> caller: thank you. >> we'll close public comment directors. are there comments? one thing we talk about was making sure we have a cohesive feedback loop work the various diversity groups and looks like that has been incorporated but maybe talk a little bit about how we see the moving forward. >> we have a commitment to reeth -- meeting with the racial affinity groups and scheduling them to make sure not only is there a way we can have regular
feedback but to report on progress. another thing we're working on right now is to take all the active steps as well as all the recommendations and turn it into a reporting tool so we can track progress with staff along with this obstacles we're running into or the success we've had or the ways in which we're failing to be open with that but also see the progress being made. we want to be able to share that openly to all staff and discuss that regularly with our affinity groups. >> a few questions.
i was interested to hear about the other anti-black racism resolutions and is this something we're seeing around the country with other cities. is that a trend that we're joining? and the second question director tomlin you spoke about this is incumbent on every individual day it day small actions and large and if you can speak to to the accountability and how it will support colleagues and through the small day it day actions. >> you may know more about the work our national peers are doing. we've been following closely the guidance distributed city wide
by the director. do you see how it meshes with [indiscernible]. >> i've been following the work of our city peers and or the we're part of a larger network of transportation agencies and city families across the nation, i'm not similar to other resolutions of this kind that have come up. i know this is in response. >> we've been following other jurisdictions efforts on their
racial equity action plans. i think the resolution around anti-blackness may be specifically tailored to san francisco and to our human rights commission. as far as accountability, the action plan itself lays out many different steps that work in sync to provide agency accountability around outcomes and to support individual accountability that starts in the human resources section with training. we do intend to fight our resource limitations to continue to invest significantly in training to help everyone understand the roots of anti-blackism and racism and all the work daunte king established at the sfmta. we need to continue that and
translate that into what actions we need to take as individual staff members throughout the agency we're also making sure we are training around issues like discipline where we know we have issues around outcomes. we want to connect with that in a deep way and we've had significant progress in terms of the detailed strategy for dealing with employee discipline even beyond what is written now in the racial equity action plan. another factor that we experimented with was in the reviews and we evaluated each other and were evaluated around
gives tools to managers and teams and let us understand what are the division routine's that have been most successful at creating outcomes and what can we learn from their success and understand how to apply that to other agencies around the agency. we know anecdotally some teams are doing a better job and we want to be able to promote that kind of leadership and advance it and spread it throughout the agency. i hope that gives you a partial answer to what's a complex question. >> are there any comments? i'd be happy to approve both items. >> i will second. >> questions or comments on closing this wonderful meeting work our team brought before us. i know we had an extensive meeting last time on the topic. i wanted to say there's no lack
of comments because we don't have an have presentations for various affinity groups and update on the plan to make sure we're making meaningful change to the organization in my dream and many of our dreams the future is we'll be the most sought after agency in san francisco to work for and the place where people feel like they get to be friends with and work with people from all walks of life equally, successful and supportive and feel great about their work. that's our hope. if there are no other questions or comments from our board of directors, i think we can move to a vote on both items. >> there's two separate resolutions but i think i will call for item 11.
approving the sfmta's 2021 legislation program.13sp, appro1 legislation program.13, approving the sfmta's 2021 legislation program. we'll have kate. >> good afternoon, chair borden and i'm kate greene the director of government affairs today to present for your consideration our annual local state and federal legislative program and i've been before you before with the framing of this and guides our work at all levels of government. i do want to point out following that presentation you just had and the discussion we were intentional in adding language into this program that is consistent with the agency's commitment to advance racial equity and this program will also serve to support the racial equity action plan and bring a racial equity lens aimed at advocating for anti-racist
policy at all levels of government. i think the challenge for us in the policy world is to figure out how we operationalize that and bring different voices in and we at the state level we've had the opportunity to direct organizations like the california transit association to create a race, equity and inclusion task force. we're working with our city partners bringing the dots in conversation and looking for tools to use on an ongoing basis to assess the impact of the policies that we're supporting or advancing unadvancing racial justice. -- in advancing racial justice. i wasn't intending with this to say all of that but given the
previous item we're including that in our policy work and i'll introduce a former colleague of yours a local government affairs manager and he will give you a presentation on our local government affairs priority and then a senior analyst of state and federal affairs will present to you our state and federal priorities. both incredible team members. we're not before you very often. just want it give them a shout out and turn over the mic. thank you. >> good afternoon, directors. local government affairs manager having the privilege of serving on the board of directors for seven years before coming in to serve under the director kate greene and here to talk to you a little bit about what are the local government affairs agenda is going to be based on this year and last year.
same time again working tandemly with legislation that comes our way from city hall. i would love to point out i found this slide, director brinkman will remember being at the ground breaking of this, seeing red paints for the van ness b.r.t. project. so, this year, or this coming 2021, we will be focussing on these priorities here again enumerated but by no means listing any kind of particular order of preference. they are all very important but just to give you some back story here, and to get a little detail on what you are seeing here, of course the san francisco county transportation authority always is our key partner in lots of different things as we are
working with them to, whether it's congestion fee analysis or doing what we can to get funding, any time there is any kind of legislation or legislative approval that's needed we'll be working with them on a regular basis, and i would encourage you if you ever have the time, i know that you have literally dedicated thousands of hours in volunteer time, which i deeply am appreciative of and i'm sure everyone in the agency appreciative of, if you could squeeze out a little more, i would encourage you to watch those sfmta meetings that happen every other tuesday when you are not meeting mostly and lots -- you'll learn lots of interesting things about what's going on from the board of -- board of supervisors and the t.a. perspective. next, of course, there are lots of priority projects that require legislative approval, whether it's around things like
the brt or any other kind of major projects that we have going on. sometimes there is a shift that we need to do in the way that we are governing or regulating our streets. these are things that often require again shepherding it through getting legislative approval and different ways. policies that might -- that again are working with city hall to get passed. so, we'll be working on those things for priority projects. there is then lots of new interesting activity as a result of the pandemic and the need to take protective measures and the shared spaces and slowed streets have been one of those things that have required sometimes legislative authority or will require legislative authority, especially if we are going to be making any of them permanent. so, if we do, you can bet on
some kind of a proposal going through this board and/or potentially getting cooperation or partnership with the board of supervisors. potrero yard initiative, trying our best to get our system modernnized and able to serve for another 100 years. this particular project was heard at the t.a. as early as this morning. we are continuing to work at the board of supervisors and the t.a. on getting the legislative approval we will need for this project. that is modernnizing the word, 100 years old and in need -- and prioritize affordable housing, certainly some housing on that project if at all possible.
but not at the expense of the bus yard. we of course have lots of work to do with vision 0. whether it's regulating speed in one way or another by lowering speeds in the neighborhoods on our local streets or whether it's automated speed enforcement, this is likely to generate some need for legislative approval in one way or another. emerging mobility innovation. this is another thing that we frequently need to get through this board and sometimes through getting good partnership with our -- with your peers at the t.a., making sure that we are able to regulate whether it's autonomous vehicles or scooters or bike share, whatever it might be. there was a settlement that i'm sure that you read about and heard about that happened about
the board of supervisors just last week. so there is lots of work to do there. and finally, probably the heavy lifting from this body will go to the various ballot initiatives that are looming before us, something that we are deeply interested in in the way of a general obligation bond. re-authorizing a new bond that goes beyond the 500 million that we had originally and are getting ready to spend out if we haven't already, and then prop k is the sales tax that would likely go back to the ballot again, it's not going to expire, this is one of these sales taxes that we need to continuously monitor the expenditure plan for and build new plans around them and get the public's ok with it through one way or another, ideally through the ballot is the way we would do that.
and then finally we would put together a work -- thinking about some way, one of the ways we are thinking about generating more revenue for the agency is through the establishment of a community facility district, and as you all might know, a way where the agency has the authority to effectively create a mechanism where the residents of san francisco can vote to tax themselves in a way that's different from the region or the city but expressly to invest in transportation infrastructure and transit infrastructure. so that's another thing that this office would likely work on. so that's it. i could go on and on all day as you -- as director borden and brinkman know, but out of respect for your time and respect for my colleagues that have to come before you, i'm going to stop here. i'm happy to take questions at the end of this presentation. i'm going to turn it back over
to director to introduce the legislative priorities. thank you. >> ok. fantastic. hello, thank you so much. and we are going to move now to an update and presentation on our state legislative program, and i'm going turn it over. >> hi, good afternoon, directors, chair borden, focussed on state and local priorities. i'll talk as well as a little background, a look behind on 2020 and at the state and federal levels, it's really important setting the context for going forward in 2021. so at the state level in 2020, you know, because of the pandemic, we were really, a lot of the initiatives we thought might move forward were put on
hold and we focussed on covid-19 relief. the state did not provide any direct assistance for transit funding, we were provided some flexibility in state funding sources in terms of, you know, changes to regulatory programs, more flexibility that we need in funding in order to use the resources that we -- in the best way that we can, you know, because we know that better than others, especially responding during this time. in addition, we were grateful that the senator was able to pass sb288 last year, provide us with some statutory extensions for critical from the transportation recovery plan, for new temporary transit only lanes and new bike and pedestrian infrastructure, we know will help us in our recovery plan. federal level we were lucky enough to receive $373 million in federal funding from the
cares act. and as you've heard from director tumlin's remarks earlier today, this helped us bridge the gap and be ok for a little while as we continue to advocate for new funding down the road. so, in addition to that federal funding, we also received flexibility in some of the other funding sources that we received which also just provides us with more opportunity to use the money where we need it the most right now. and as we look forward, i'll get into this a little more, continuing to advocate for $32 billion in funding for the next emergency relief package and also discussed briefly, earlier today, we know that there is a bipartisan proposal on the table that will hopefully provide us with new funding to help us bridge the gap until some more significant relief comes through in the next administration. sacramento. looking ahead at 2021, of course we'll be focussed again on covid-19 relief. we are going to continue to
advocate for additional emergency funding and statutory changes and we are doing this especially in close partnership with the transit association. in addition, we'll be working with m.t.c. on the blue ribbon transit recovery task force. that's a venue where a lot of the agencies and stakeholders are coming together to think about how we can respond in a coordinated manner to the pandemic and make things better, you know, when we look into a recovery mode. in addition to covid-19 funding we'll be looking for general new funding, you know, for all of our agencies operation. so this will include supporting local and regional efforts to identify any new transportation funding and helping to support our state grant applications and listing our state delegation as needed to try to get every dollar we can from the state to help backfill the budget gaps.
mission 0 is, you know, a huge priority in sacramento this year, and we are really excited that just this week it was announced an assembly member laura freedman from the los angeles area will be the new chair of the transportation committee and she has been a real advocate for vision 0 and a lot of progresstive transportation policies that are exactly in line with what we are trying to do in sacramento. and she was also the author of the legislation that created the 0 traffic fatalities task force last year that has now come out with a report of findings that she is helping to advance in legislative proposals. the first one is actually exactly in line with our transformative policy agenda, help provide local jurisdictions with more control over speed limit setting and moving away from the 86th percentile. and already introduced a spot bill on this, ab43, for which signals to everyone else a high
priority for her next year. so we are super excited about that and working with her staff to draft the legislative language that it works for us and on the ground in san francisco. also exploratory conversations on speed safety cameras or automated speed enforcement. just to really make sure that all the stakeholders are involved and think about how we can overcome the hurdles last time and the new direction moving forward on this. no legislation introduced to date, or the date when they could introduce a bill, but we'll, of course, continue to work closely on this moving forward. other items, focus on the camera program and supporting any and all bike and pedestrian safety efforts that come up in the legislature. the next policy bucket is emerging mobility and innovation, and this includes
micromobility, urban lift, shuttles, emerging tool we can use. but the conversation in sacramento on this topic over the past couple years has really focussed on the kind of struggle between state and local authority over the new modes and we have spent a lot of efforts by industry in sacramento to try to free up some local regulation that is we have in place in san francisco. for example, scooter share program and our bike share program. so we'll advocate for local authority over those programs to make sure that we can continue our permit programs, focus on safety and accessibility and equity to make sure that they work on our streets. as was discussed in the c.a.c. report today, always been a lot of interest in what can we do about t.n.c.s and we are, you know, always thinking about
ideas and having conversations about what it could look like to, you know, explore something in that area. so we will continue to do that, you know, everything would, of course, be focussed on safety, safe operations and congestion management. and i want to acknowledge also in addition to legislation that comes up in these realms, also a lot of work going on in the regulatory space at state agencies, such as the d.m.v., and the air resources board, different facets of emerging mobility and so we are working really closely on all of those efforts, whether they are legislative or regulatory or rule making proceedings. we are really engaged in all that. and just lastly, congestion pricing, of course, you all know the t.a. is currently doing a study right now that's really looking at all the alternatives and all the ways that we can make a program work in san francisco and closely partnering with them on that and following their lead on any type of
implementation and at what point that would require state legislative authority. next i want to talk a little about regional transit integration. as i mentioned before, at m.t.c. blue ribbon transit recovery task force, looking ahead, to make travel in the region more integrated and more customer-focussed, and really make some progress in that realm. and so we are working closely with a lot of other transit agencies and general managers as well as the stakeholders on that task force to develop some concepts for how to move forward with this that will likely result in state legislation that assembly member chu is interested in moving forward next year. parking is always something that we are following closely because it's so critical to our operations. in sacramento, a lot of the conversation on parking lately focussed on the fines and fees and particularly how we can create programs that allow us to
enforce parking but without creating undue burden on low income population. so we'll continue to work on any legislation that comes up in that to really make sure we can help balance those priorities. we'll of course do everything to help our curb management policies move forward in a way that works for us with any changes we want to make, and also follow any conversations on accessible parking policy since that is a topic in the past, although we have not heard much about it lately. sustainability is a large priority for the newsom administration, legislators this year will do, will follow legislation and focus on g.h.g. mission reduction and especially anything we can do to help support our bus electrification and supporting any infrastructure to support that conversion that we need going forward. and so the further list of priorities, all on one slide
because we spend a lot of our time on the state and a little less on the federal so i want to lump it together. know what's important, the first one, emergency relief funding and we know congress is our best bet for significant i funding to help us through this time, and so we are spending a lot of time and energy working with our lobbyists and our mayor's office to advocate for additional funding to support operations throughout the pandemic. with the biden administration, looking for any opportunities for initiative or stimulus package that comes through and see how we can benefit from that. policy level, the surface transportation long-term bill, the fast act up for reauthorization this year, likely this fall and an opportunity to influence federal policy priorities we want to see for the long-term.
so we have already started to work with our federal delegation on making sure things like vision 0 and safety and concerns about merging mobility integrated going forward. several pushes to pass sweeping ab legislation for framework and the rollout on the streets, and the team has been engaged in that work and will continue to do so as that moves forward. and of course, anything else in the emerging mobility realm that comes up we will monitor closely and in terms of sustainability, you know, anything that we can do to, you know, makes sure people see the connection with the transit and the streets to combat climate change, reduce g.h.g. emissions and carry that message board with that in d.c.
and with that, thank you, and happy to answer any questions. >> thanks. i want to say one thing, which is this, we are super small team and i want to say the breadth of content that's out there that we work on, we could not do alone without the incredible support of our colleagues across all divisions. we are matrix people, we rely on their subject matter expertise. i feel we have an incredible array of staff and so i just want to send a shout out and acknowledgment to all of our divisions who work to support all of us in this policy arena. thank you for that, thanks j.d. as well. >> and thank you. on behalf of the board of directors, it's an extensive list of priorities to manage and a lot of things going on at different times and we are certainly not the only transit agency out there demanding and needing things at the various levels. and so, and it's a difficult time, quite frankly.
so, we want to thank you for your hard work and advocacy, all levels of government and the way that you represent us to make sure that we have a seat at the table. thank you, with that i'll move into questions from our board. director eaken. >> thank you so much, madam chair, and thank you legislative team for the update. a couple questions about our advocacy goals. so, i think we have all seen the 32 billion number, the roll-up of what many transit agencies and the country are asking for, have to also imagine at some point the number becomes out of date and actually a different target number so i wanted to check in and understand sort of, and also i think it's around 15 billion maybe the hoped for amount coming by the end of this week. i wanted to just check in on that roll-up and then maybe along those lines, it seems the slow streets kind of shared
spaces movement has been a bright spot in the pandemic, and just wondering if we are part of these different national coalitions, have we similarly done a look at what it would take to build out safe biking and walking infrastructure networks around cities so that when we are in those conversations in d.c. and pushing for specific numbers we get, like the corollary to the 32 billion for transit, do we have that number on hand thinking about building out safe bike networks across our cities? >> well, that is a super interesting question. our focus has been on you are right, it was 32 billion the target and the current word is for the, of the 15 billion, of the portion that we would be receiving, it's about 13.78 billion. that is the rest of it is the differences to rural areas and other portions of the federal
programs. those dollars, director eaken would flow back, and around that table with a commitment based on the cares act distribution, that funds would be trude up and distributed in the region. i think that as director tumlin said that would really be just the begin of what we need. it is, i wouldn't even call it a down payment. i think it's intended and acknowledged to be a bridge to a much greater need through fy2022. fingers crossed, hopefully this time, we were hopeful two weeks ago we thought there was going to be a final relief bill. feels a little more real this time but you just can't wait until, our bet until it's over. with regard to your second question, i think that's something we have to look into immediately. i have not seen figures around that, that would be a corollary to your point about what an
investment in safe biking networks would look like, but it would seem to be an appropriate conversation and initiative in the context of both an infrastructure/stimulus bill as well as reauthorization. and within reauthorization there is a distinct opportunity for us to really look at what are federal programs funding, and what are we building with those dollars. director heminger knows better than anybody we don't figure out a way to pay for all the programs we are not going to have anything to build anyway. and they have not cracked that nut as to what a future sustainable funding source would be for a federal program. so, that's my initial response, director eaken, to your question. >> and through the national association of city transportation offeringses we are trying to work with congress to change the 80/20 rule. biggest source for capital money through the federal highway
administration by statute distributes the money, 80% to highway, 20% to transit, and so cities like san francisco who are no longer demolitioning neighborhoods in order to widen highways are not eligible for the 80% portion of federal capital distribution to local jurisdictions. so congresswoman presley and others have pointed out the inequity and trapped in the 1950s, and whether it moves forward depends on what happens january 5th. >> great. curious as part of our federal platform, or our federal advocacy goals, is there any talk of just thinking about the idea of more of that federal money flowing directly to cities in transit agencies who as you
mentioned just tend to be in the business of building sustainbly friendly transit agencies than states? something happening at all? >> it's one of the direct aid to cities for those reasons. this region is a little bit different in that federal dollars do flow through the regional planning agency and p.c. and so while we do get some direct grants for projects, formula dollars, flexible federal dollars such as the surface transportation program which can be used for transit investments do flow through the regional agencies. so we are in that conversation but i think we want to navigate how it works for our situation here in the bay area. >> ok. and then finally, was it j.d. -- i thought it was really interesting that you mentioned
that some of the relief, some of the way the relief is manifesting was more flexibility in the existing programs and getting to your point, director tumlin, about the 80/20, and some of the historical legacy guidelines that kind of keep us moving in one direction as opposed to a direction focussed on climate and equity, it's interesting the idea of flexibility and wondering if it's part of our, again, what we are pushing for at the state level or pushing for at the federal level if there an opening during this time of emergency to reconsider the antiquated guidelines beyond what's been done already. >> not only -- i'm sorry, good ahead and answer. >> we have -- that's how it's come down so far and it has worked for us and we'll do anything we can to show how that is so important and how it can help us achieve different goals as we advocate moving forward.
>> in addition to flexibility, we are also collaborating nationally on ways of reducing the ways in which the national environmental policy act is unintentional significant obstacle against transit projects or bike projects or other ways of better using the public right-of-way. and it's interesting that the republicans in congress are interested in reform that would closely match 288 here in california that would grant statutory relief for projects that improve transit or bikeability in the existing public right-of-way by giving them the relief, so we are also collaborating through nacto lending our staff expertise to lead some of the secret reform work here in california as you know very well director eaken.
>> thank you. director lai. >> all right, thank you. first of all, i have to say i felt like the list was very comprehensive. anything i would have thought of i felt like was included. i'm really glad to hear the focus around the locally, at least, the, interest around the shared spaces and how we should be legislating it moving forward. there are quite a few applicants that are interested in the permanence of that.
executive team would like to advocate for. i'm confident that hes has lots of ideas spinning in his head. maybe you might want to speak a little about the different mechanisms. what ideas do we have in working with the board of supervisors for measures to get back into solvencies. i know you're a part of that committee. it might be good for them to hear what you've been talking about there. >> we're of course working closely with the controllers office and nearly all of the
other department city on how do we distribute san francisco increasingly limited rea sou rer for the good. you've probably seen the general fund pain that they are experiencing. while the larger city governments have greater reserves and have not been hit quite as hard as we have, they have been hit hard. they are trying to figure out how to distribute that pain. we're very much engaged in those conversations. >> thank you. i'm sure we'll be talking about this in our budget workshops. at the state an federal level. one of my questions was already asked for state and federal split between highway versus transit is really important for cities to emphasize the equity
issue there. glad to hear there's already conversations around that. i think i did hear that we're expecting to push along those lines meaning a larger portion of state level funding towards transit and moving it away from highways. did i hear that also? >> i don't know that we can declaratively say that we're going to move entire programs that are funning sm the source of transit funning is pretty clearly defined in state law. we would look for flexibility to move dollars. that would happen on the transportation commission or funding programs. that would be my initial answer to your question. >> okay. so if i heard you correctly, it
sounds like you're suggesting changing the state law is not really within our annual agenda here but add flexibility around the use of funding. >> yes. >> the regional transit impact are we thinking about doing anything along those lines this year. what i'm really getting at is quite often when there are jobs housing pattern changes in other municipalities regionally there would be impacts for cities like san francisco. wondering how that is fitting into your annual vision here. >> those larger land use is more
from the mayor's office than the board of supervisors. what we do play a strong role in is getting to understand the transportation implication of land use decision making. particularly the consequences of under supplying housing in the bay area. how that quickly becomes a dire transportation problem. we tend to take a backseat and provide a more informational role around topics like land use or economic strategy. we're in a leadership position in transportation and transportation agency related. >> that's a request reminder from the request about an update on the fair immigration tax board as well as the transit
recovery tax force. that is the table around where the conversation is going to play out between now and june when that tax force is going to be done. on the natural take into account where people are moving in the region. that is a live forum where these conversations are going to be happening. >> great. thank you. i appreciate that reminder about the roles and responsibilities. what i observe is when major decisions get made transportation is reactive towards that. as much as possible when we do have a seat at the table, i would like to take a more proactive approach in regional transit. thanks. >> thank you, director. >> thank you, madam chair.
kate, i don't have a point for your platform but i do have a suggestion. that is as soon as he is confirmed, we invite mayoral invite mayor peteout to the bay. one of the challenges is a lot of the key committee chairman are from nowhere. their sensitivity to urban issues ranges from ignoring them to out right hostility. i think we're going to need to take advantage of our leverage are the administration to ensure cities get a fair shake in the next authorizing bill at least. >> i'm not shy in asserting our position with the team and look forward to working with our new secretary of transportation who
thank you. with that i think we can-did we take public comment. i think we did not. let's see if the members of the public have any comments on our legislative agenda. moderators can you open up the lines. >> you have two questions remaining. >> yes, i didn't expect to be the first caller. i just hit ten right now. i need to give a shout out christina, she is married to one
of your top officials. it was a great presentation. i wanted to say that we need to ask more specifically what we want and how we regulate and have more control over access to san francisco streets. i think this is more important to be more specific. maybe her staff can out reach to taxi drivers and how we can make suggestions to that. the next thing is about the scooters on the streets. i-either don't allow the traffic laws to apply to them or make it tighter and clearer on the laws how they do apply to them. i rarely see a scooter stop at a
stop sign or a traffic light. urge that they look at the issue of requiring helmets while riding these scooters on the streets. i think it's ridiculous if you are over eighteen you don't have to wear one. i appreciate you looking at that issue. i think it's important to also ask the city to allow the c tu c regarding the robe oh taxis. they should be required to have a medal yan.
>> next speaker. >> couple of quick points on this. i heard part of the presentation, but not all. lot of things going on. in the staff report i believe it indicates that the c a c supported-page four. the mta c a c approved a motion to support, i believe that motion failed actually. there was a divided vote. i think they did not support the program but the hold outs wanted more detail in the staff report. in the future it would be good to have the staff report go to the c a c. i believe they did supportests supports togain regulatory over. i believe you'll find that
reflected on page two that's back at item eight. i will contact kate to follow-up on transportation development act tda development reform. something i'm interested in and kate has been involved with for years. i think it would be good to include a regional element in future programs. this is pretty focused on local state and federal but i think what you could call legislative efforts like a bag and mt c that aren't specifically grant relates where we might have a specific advocacy agenda. it would be useful to cod fie
that. >> thank you. next speaker. >> you have one question remaining. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is bill. i live in the bay view. i was surprised that we are not applying for highway funds. we have freeways in san francisco that need addressing. there should be a committee set up to look at our freeway system. geneva avenue overpass to connect to the bay view is a freeway project. highway 80 to hospital curve to fourth street is a big traffic jam that should be studied to
see how that could be improved. you have two off ramps or onramps where cars are stopped on the freeway. we should be looking into those situations and applying for some of the highway fund that's are there to correct those situations. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any additional callers on the line. >> with that we'll close public comment. i guess that opens up a comment. do we get any dollars from the federal highway administration from any of our related work. >> we don't get a lot. dpw is really-san francisco isn't on the big receiving list for formula federal highway
dollars. if there are projects that cal trans works on. those are funned with federal highway dollars. as an agency, not so much. >> okay. good to know. directors are there any other questions or comments before we move on and go onto our next item? >> i just have one thing. the caller who talked about the highway funds. it might be worth mentioning just for that callerred edfiction i believe they looking to- >> the partnership with mta we're in the process with working on a component of that called streets and highways and
looking at some changes and modifications largely to look at bus service and pricing to cut down on congestion. we're no longer demolishing neighborhoods in san francisco in order to do that. the state of the repair work, those are not uses that are typically eligible for our rooted in 1958 highway funding formulas. >> thank you. i understand. >> great. do we have a motion to approve this agenda. this very dynamic. >> i'll second. >> we'll have the roll call now
of the vote. >> all right. >> (roll call) the item passes. moving onto your next item 14. authorizing the taxable revenue bonds to refinance all or a portion of the series 2012a2012b and lower debt service cost to finance the cost of certain transportation projects not to exceed three hundred millions for such obligations and pay the cost of issuances.
>> good afternoon. senior budget manager. i'm going to give you a briefing we'll run through the recommendations specifically for today. just to remind the board and public at our last board meeting we had a conversation about our current budget deficit and revenue losses we were expecting in fiscal year 22. as feedback we received from the board and employees and the public was to work toward reducing that deficit and minimizing any layoffs. we're working on that right now and have some information for you in february. we've received over fifty ideas from our employees to date. we're evaluating all of them. we're looking at numerous different options to close that
in the first fiscal year. one of the things the board asked us to look at. we'll do a similar update with the board at your next board meeting at the status of the capital improvement program. we are expecting losses in that area. to reduce the operating deficit that we expect in the next two years. with that one of the tools we do have available is to take advantage of the current market and refinance the existing fmt revenue bonds we do have in place. we're hopeful we can get this action completed they'll realize savings that will go towards the year's deficit. if you refinance your home we're hoping to realize some savings.
based on the savings look at our cip and see what flexible dollars we have to move to operating costs which is not a huge part of our cip. a lot of our capital dollars are restricted in their use. we do have sources where we are able to ship those over to operating budget if need be. based on that direction from you, we are looking to potentially take advantage of the marketplace and issue another revenue bond and new dollars. we do not impact our repair or priority projects that we have currently happening on the streets of san francisco. we made no definite decision yet but we do need to begin the steps to be able to issue another revenue bond in the next few months if you want take
advantage of that opportunity of shifting capital funds over to the operating budget. we want to back fill the project or capital project needs the agency might have for the next two to three years. that's the introduction. with that mark will go into the technical elements. we'll run through the rest. >> can you hear me? okay. my name is mark blake. just to clarify what i'm going to do is give you a brief overview framing of your federal securities law related to any bond issues that are proposed and samuel will actually walk you through the staff report on the two bond issues.
first, my task is to give you a brief thirty thousand foot overview of the securities laws as they apply to the board with respect to these issues. the first thing to know, i'm going to give you the legal context and give you basically some direction on how you can discharge your legal obligations. the first context is that municipal issuers are not regulated by the security and exchange commission in accessing the capital markets. we are subject to the commissions of the federal securities law. the 33 act and the 34 exchange act. when we access the capital markets we do so through a perspective. we prepare a statement and those of you on the board you've
probably seen the perspective. it's a statement of the financial affairs as of the date of its publication. when we publish that document. that cannot contain any material miss statements or omissions. what that means is that the term material is the driver. material means basically critical facts, information that would change a person's decision about whether to invest in the sfmta's bonds. what we will do is we will prepare a perspective, in fact we've initiated the preparation of that document now to give a fair snap shot of the mta financial position and that document will ultimately come to you along with other financing
documents for your approval. what the securities and exchange commission has done through its pronouncements and board actions has used board of directors such as yourselves as gate keepers sm the direction they have given is you cannot approve a offering document if you have reason to know that it has material miss statements or omissions. what does that mean for you? you have to take some steps to assure yourselves that the document doesn't obtain material miss statements or omissions. what we will do prior to the bond issue is we will provide you with an overview of the bond issue, questions and answers and then what you are obligated to
do under the securities laws is to ask yourselves some basic questions. this all arises out of the orange county bankruptcy where they approved their offering document on the consent calendar. they completely relied on staff to review the document or ask question about the document unaware of the purposes for which their issuing bonds. in effect the fcc regulates the board members to ask those basic questions. what's the purpose, what are the proceeds going to be used for. what's the source of repayment. are there any unique risks associated with the bond issue? that would impact the ability to repay bond holders. and then finally the big question is is there any
information you have in your possession as a member of the sfmta board that staff might not be aware of that you should apprise staff of prior to approving that document. and so it basically obligates the board to ask questions. the direction i give to board members is to the extent that you have your list of five significant issues facing the sfmta, ask staff when this matter comes to you where is that discussed and have staff point you to that or examine the document for yourself. and determine whether or not the description of that comports with your understanding of the issue. the punch line to this to a certain degree is the fcc is
concerned not that investors not invest in a particular issue or bond but be compensated for the risk they are taking. to the extent that we provide disclosure and somebody decides to invest, we can't be held at fault if there's a hiccough down the road. we've told investors here we are. they determined to invest. presumably they've been compensated for that decision. that's really our task. i'll prepare a cheat sheet kind of slide deck that will accompany the offering document along with the question and answer. that will put you in a position to initiate your inquiry. with that that's kind of my presentation for the day. if you have any questions i'm here to answer them. >> maybe we'll just pause here
because this is significant for our fiduciary responsibility of the board. i think that we obviously-we've been prebriefed about this topic. i want to make sure everybody is clear about what our responsibilities are here in this process. everyone's clear? great. we'll proceed to the next portion of the presentation. >> all right. thank you board, thank you directors and mark and jonathan. to be clear what you're looking at and approving today is not the offering dock m.
document. but the preliminary package that allows us to move forward with the transaction. i'll cover our time line later on in the presentation. we'll be coming back to you after this to seek approval over which mark highlighted for responsibilities. with that said, i'll start with the presentation. i do want to point out that the basis of our revenue bonds and enterprise revenues that are constituted in large part by fair parking fees and fine revenues. we do have additional sources such as rent, advertising, concessions, and a few other minor sources that constitute revenues. that's our bonds as well. revenue bonds should be distinguished from general obligation bonds which are issued by the city backing up
property taxes as opposed to enterprise revenues. >> with that the opportunity today that we're bringing forth is based on what we've heard from the board and also based on our presentation on 12. one which we presented fy21 scenarios. we're currently projecting there will be a 200 million-dollar deficit over the course of the cip. this is one tool to help us manage that. this is specifically the new money bond as distinguished from the refunding bond. we're having refunding that we're proposing and also proposing new money. we'll have two separate pieces
of the presentation here that will cover each of those components. to distinguish those our refunding is a refinancing of our existing debt. our new money bonds are new debt that require new debt service to be paid by the agency. the reason we're proposing both of these refundings right now is because that has one of the best credit ratings in the transit industry. especially since the onset of covid we've done very well compared to our peers in terms of handling our financial situation. with our good rating and hiss to havicly good rates, the agency has the chance to offer our bon it investors for historically low price. to sum it up, rates are probably
not go down. at this point the agency can issue debt at historically low cost. we're looking at $21 million in net present value savings. in addition to up to forty three million dollars that would be released over the next three fiscal years provide immediate and year term budget relief. i'll go into a bit more detail shortly into the details of that. this should all be caveated with the note that we may decide not to move forward with refunding at anytime if our financial situation changes or if the market changes to such an extent that it's not beneficial for the mta to move forward. this next slide highlights highr
current outstanding debt is. what we're proposing as a part of this refunning is to refinance years 2012 to 2014 in working with financial advisors to run the numbers. we found refunding would not result in any savings from the agency. this next slide provides a comparison of refunding scenarios at high level. here we present the base case which is always a good way to present refundings or new money because there are different ways you can structure a bond for different outcomes which i'll go into here. basically the base case provides
level debt service over the life of the bond. in in case it provides level savings for refunding through 2024. that results in 20 point nine million in net savings in today's dollars. that's the base case which we enhance of near term cash flow for slightly less savings which you can see is twenty point four. the year flow is forty three million. basically when looking at scenario one versus scenario two we're trading five hundred thousand dollars for long term savings for ten million dollars in immediate cash flow over the
next three years. that's the trade off and our staff report is recommending moving forward with the up front scenario as it will help mitigate the impacts and stem the losses in our operating budget. it will provide that near term budget relief that we'll need right now. this is a detailed look at those scenarios. one thing you'll notice here is that both refundings include a 14 million release that the srf which is our tax service reserves. we did not include a debt service reserve but in all others we did.
what we did is we tested our theory of that benchmark of three percent to see how if the market changed, how would that influence the savings that would come to the agency. you'll see that even with the point 5% rise in interest rates we're still at eight point one percent to refund at par. additionally if we have a one hundred point base we'll still be meeting our benchmark of three percent. we should note here each scenario were run in november .these numbers still holdup givn our assumptions. based on our conclusions we have a descent amount of float.
we have a 10% buffer there. the thing to note here even if we did see a change in market or financial position for the mtb savings went down to three percent we would be able to reclaim those other savings in terms of the near term relief for the agency. i should note as well the federal reserve has indicated they will keep rates low for the foreseeable future. it's roughly two months out. we expect that market will stay stable. of course, markets are hard to predict. that concludes the refunding portion of the presentation and brings us to the new money option. as you'll remember back on
september first my colleagues joel and jared came to the state of good repair. we have a three point two billion dollar state of good repair. one of the things that's on our mind as we seek out must money is that three point two million backlog of continuing losses in our cip. what that means if we do not back fill those loss that's are due to covid 19 we'll fall farther and farther behind in our streets and transit and state of good repair. that's what we don't want. we want to invest in san francisco and our transit system. when we see a recovery post covid 19 we're able to support in the social and economic life
of the city. as director tomlin stated we're a critical piece in the state of san francisco. you may be asking yourself why 300 million. that's based on our current estimates of losses and would allow us to back fill any funs that were switched from capital to the operating budget. we believe that's an amount that would support our capital budget while also giving us flexibility to make a decision moving ahead on what the amount should be. it should be stated as well that the three hundred million is a not to exceed amount. we're not committing ourself moving forward to issue that 300 million. when we come back towards the end of january we'll have a
solid number to bring to you along with our preliminary number statements. here we have funding scenarios, we have three as opposed to two. we have base case. level debt service assuming down grade in our credit score. we have level aggregates in the amount of debts that we owe in the life of the bond when we net it out with the current debt service would be a steady amount which would allow us to budget through 2015 and provide some certainty as we move ahead. that amount that we owe is not fluctuating year to year. as some of the base case.
we have level debt service over the life of the bonds. that would be 19 million per year of new money. it provides us less flexibility in the short term but less cost in the long term. if you look at the down grade in our credit which is scenario two, we assume that down grade will result in approximately twenty five phases, it should be increased in the rate in which we receive on the bottom. you'll see here the estimated impacts of that. it's roughly eleven point eight million dollars. i'll get into the credit rating impact down grade of what happened last month as possibilities moving forward a few slides from here. moving onto scenario three. that is what debt service with
level aggregate savings. new money that we're paying our debt service on a delayed schedule and pushing it out through the debt service. opens up and operating funds for other things as we recover from covid 19. you may be asking yourself here, what about the deficit. why would we add debt now when we already have existing structural deficit for the long term agency. that service would need to be paid out of the operating budget. the thing is here that we need to consider is we have had to make difficult choices in our budget and we're continuing to have to do that. as stated, we do not want to fall behind further on our three point two billion state of good
repair backlog. when the recovery comes we're able to bring reliable service to san francisco yans. if we don't fill in that gap, that would be paying modally for the agency and for the city of san francisco. we spread that gap, that deficit that we're seeing immediately over the course of many years throughout 2050. we're spreading out the risk that's associated in the immediate term. this is an important point it allows us more time as we seek out new revenue sources many of which were stated earlier which
closer to 373, we have a relatively good price in cost additions here. amortizations we will not need to repay the principle until 2025. the main take away from this slide is we've reer struc restrw money options while structuring the debt further down the road in terms of debt service repayments. that brings us to our credit rating considerations. as a part of this transaction we will need to request new ratings from smp. we were recently down graded from aa to aa minus. that was largely relate today
covid and parking revenues. they did however post a number of positive items which i'll get into shortly. we would also expect to down grade since they have not rated us since the beginning of the pandemic. it's important to state here that both of those ratings, the aa minus and the potential a down grad are still high quality investment grade. some of the strength that's were highlighted is our risk profile
and significant report from safe and local tax revenues. prior to the pandemic now it's actually a strength which actually plays to mta because we have such diverse mix of revenues we're supported by many different sources. prior to the pandemic it was approximately 24 to 26 percent. you compare that to an agency like bart where it's approximately 70 percent that puts us in a much better position. additionally note we're a critical service provider in one of the historically strongest
economies. strong policy that's have to do with debt management and fiscal responsibilities. we currently have a team of under writer that's we selected for this. we issued a mini rfp to a controllers office preapproved pool that was created and took the top rated proposals as part of this collection. we believe this team will provide broad market coverage if needed to secure a good price for the agency on our bonds. that brings us to today's approval which is authorizing the director of transportation
to move forward with the transaction dependent on approval from the board of supervisors. i'll go into detail on our time line. we are planning on go to go the board assuming approval today next month. we will be taking it to the budget finance committee as well as the full board. what's included in the package today are draft legal documents and our dead indenture. all of these are in draft format because the information that's required to complete those is dependent on a transaction moving forward. what we'll be bringing you in january are the official statements which mark talked about prior to the presentation that will detail all of the different elements an investor should be aware of if they were going to invest in the mta.
that brings us to next steps. currently it should be noted that this schedule that you see here is for the refunding trans transactions only. we decided that after splitting this item moving ahead would ensure funding goes through prior to march first. we're taking the refunding first and as jonathan mentioned we're planning to move ahead assuming approval with new money with a new schedule. that ensures we move ahead with the new transaction that will save the agency money in the long term. we'll be going to the board with the refunding early january and
other agencies during that time as well. we'll be returning to you all on or about the 26th. after that time we'll also be evaluating where the market is at and whether or not to move forward with the transaction. that's where we are. thank you for your time today. i would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you so much for that presentation. >> thank you. i've got a couple. i'm still unclear about exactly what you're asking us to do today. are we taking any action today on the new money bonds? >> thank you for the question. yes, are you taking action today on the new money bonds. this is a combined item that
included refunding and the authorization to move ahead with the new money bonds. again in both instances we'll be coming back to prior to transaction for both issuances. >> we're not making any final decisions today on either the refunding or the new money. >> correct. what this item does today is allows us to move ahead and post the capital planning committee on the new money bonds and the board of supervisors on the refunding and new money bonds. >> your basic strategy is to recushion the covid impact on the operating budget. >> exactly. this will allow us to do that over the next three fiscal
years. >> the new money bonds those could be used for either purpose as well as a straight up take a capital backlog. >> yes. both of those are options. the main thing in our work with the under writers and with our fa's is that investors will be looking for to us use these funds on specific project that's provide value to the agency. in either of the scenario that's you referred to which is back fill of covid lawsuits or movement to the operating budget we would be able to do that with these funds. >> would you be coming to the board that you would be fund withing the bond proceedings. >> yes, certainly. that's one of the things we're coming up with right now for the
new money specifically. we'll be principling that to the capital planning committee prior to going to the board of supervisors and when we come back to the mta board we'll have a more detailed list of how those proceedings will be used. >> last question is, i think one of the extra slides that i reviewed preparing for the meeting, i think it's slide 18 if you could put it up. >> sure. give a moment here. >> the big gross numbers over decades really doesn't resonate with me. these arele annualized debt service costs of various scenarios. >> yes. the table on the left here
provides the three scenarios that we covered. for more detail because it would result in the highest debt serve service over time we broke out option three. it shows you the back loaded debt service which is the same as here but pair this with our existing debt service to show what the total debt service would be to the agency with this whole three hundred million. >> our existing debt service is a little over 20 million. if we were to sell all these bonds up to three hundred, we'd be basically doubling it. >> roughly. that's correct. >> and we have a limit, don't we, on how much debt we're supposed to have outstanding in terms of debt service cost. wouldn't this push us up against
that limit. >> thank you for that question. assuming our current projections and recovery of operating budget three percent per year what we get is a percentage of the debt service as the operating budget around three point three percent. that is assuming that recovery from the top through 2022. in no case do we get higher than the 5%. that's the sfmta's policy as a percentage of debt budget. that's number is 5% which is the limit. we would not be going higher than roughly three point three to three point 5% assuming our current projections. >> and right now we're well
below it, presumably. >> that's correct. i believe we're below 2% currently. >> just in terms of comment. i do think this is a smart strategy. i think fact is, we've got to deal with the operating budget first and foremost. stealing capital money to deal with your operating problem is never a good long term strategy. i think this softens the blow of having to do that if we have to do it. it also gives us a way of taking advantage of a market that is honestly so good that you should borrow money even if you don't need it. and we need it. i would like to thank the staff for coming up with this idea.
they've really flushed it out well. i'll be supporting the action today. thank you. >> thank you. i tend to agree with you. >> thank you. i agree with director, you guys worked really quickly on this at a time when we desperately interim cash flow. i think just to start i'm fully supportive of this. it's a very normal way for the public sector to look for some additional money and i do feel like this is a sound approach. just a couple of questions. this is mostly looking for confirmation and clarity. i heard staff mention that the new money bond is really the one that is less time sensitive, right? that's the refinancing that is the eight and a half million
because we have that march deadline. but the new money although less time sensitive is still time sensitive to us because it does back fill some of our state of good repair project funding gaps and also as staff already stated takes advantage of the current interest rate. maybe i'll pause there. either confirm or correct what i've understood and disstilled here. >> thank you for the question. what i would say there is that yes, we are working on more of a delayed time line for the new money compared to the refunding. we would not want to wait too long in moving ahead. that's for a few reasons. i would say right now our credit rating is good. we may get down graded as a part of this transaction but as you
saw with the recent down dwraidd in november. the credit agencies are going to rate us and our debt regardless if we move forward with this or any other transactions. that is a consideration. even though the federal reserve indicated they will not raise interest rates in the immediate term, we still don't know what could happen in potential markets.
>> does it have an impact on the two transactions for us. >> we are working closely with our financial advisor. throughout this process, i spoke with them yesterday on this specific topic. it would not substantially increasing our finance cost. this is splitting up a transaction like this into new money is pretty common practice and for some of the same reasons we're doing it which is logistically it can be easier and many times as easier to present refunding which is resulting in savings and separately the new money which is resulting in additional debt
service and deal with those things discretely. it would not- >> have you seen of other new money occurring since the pandemic. how we're stacking up on that? >> i can speak to rating down grades as well. i can touch on that first. the sfmta has done really well compared to our peers when it comes to the financial impacts of covid. prudent financial decisions have put us in a position where we
have descent amount of contirng contingency reserves. that's a better position when it comes to our credit rating. in terms of down grades that have happened there have been others-four i believe that were highlighted by others. mta, those were the largest issuers. everybody's been rated thus far. we're not unique in that way. in terms of this refunning refug transaction. the san francisco airport recently did a refunding and this was in the june/july
timeframe. they did refund their debt. they are similar to us in certain ways that they've been significantly impacted by covid and in the transportation sector. they've locked in savings on their debt. the chicago transportation agencies have refunded bonds. i don't recall if it's new money bonds as well. there are many issues for the states to lock in those cost savings for short and long term. >> great. thank you. >> thanks. any other directors at this point before we open it up to public comment. seeing none, we'll open it up to public comment. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> okay.
with that we will close public comment. the matter is back before us. what say you? >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> secretary, can you please call the roll. >> (roll call) the item passes and the next item on the agenda is item 15 approving contract modification third street light rail systems to resolve contractor claims for a additional work performed under change order in the amount of
29 million eight hundred forty eight thousand seven hundred thirty six dollars and fifty six cents for a modified contract amount. >> good afternoon, directors. sorry about the feedback there. i'm going to introduce this item. i'll be joined by two other speakers. i believe they'll be available to provide some more details. edgar is a consultant of the mta and served for many years in our
public works department. he is continuing to work with us as our lead negotiator and strategist when we continue to deal to bring on commercial and legal issues. try to settle our liabilities to they can get the project done this spring. i'm going to put the presentation up on my screen now. >> us directors can go off camera too to help with the- >> okay. the presentation you see on your screen, we're going to walk through the matter perfect us right now which is a proposal asking for your approval to
modify the contract with the federal subway. it's technically known as modification. changes that have been made i'm going to walk you through what some of those changes are. we're asking to approve. mostly i'm going to introduce edgar who is going to go into detail how he has been negotiating those items. we'll give you a cross summary. what tutor initially asked for and what we negotiated down to. we'll finish with a conclusion and recommendation and talk about how this modification fits within the broader sense of the
finances. >> i'll start with the history here. i think we've explained before, the project requires us to from time to time modify the contact because the contract refines different site conditions especially when tunneling underground. sometimes there are systems or design details that look good in the drawing. there are also many instances where we the mta have asked to do something different than what we originally designed back in owe 2013. changing the materials being used on escalators to changing some of the fire codes. with the fire codes changing and
us being required to change the existence of the sub way. always going to be a bit of a living being. the change orders are evidence of that. the numbers here show you in 2019 you may remember we started talking to you about this. in 2020, this board issued a unilateral contract modification to begin to pay some not all liability that is accrued here. that was issued unilaterally. our analysis showed that we clearly owed this money. we told you that we thought it was in the agency's interest to pay this liability nowl rather now.we now we had more of these
through the cost summary. and the process he went through to come to these negotiations. >> good afternoon director. board members. my name is-can you hear me all right? am i getting audio feedback? >> we can hear you. >> i apologize. i'm a consultant to the mta. i'm helping the agency to deal with change orders and claims negotiations on the central sub way project. by way of background as tom mentioned prior to my arrival in may of 2020, the mta already reached out to the federal transit administration to validate their approach to group six hundred seventy one exchange orders into a single modification. the mta concurred with the
dollars. the actual expenditures of labor cost of materials and reconciles of order to make sure that we arrive to a reasonable and fair price. this is the first step we took to review hundreds of change orders whether we looked at tee tails or change orders the slide in front of you is a cost summary that shows how we have applied to the total sediment-to
any questions or we can move to the last slide where we have a set of recommendations and conclusions. >> anybody have any questions. i have a question of how their estimate was 20 million off from where the final estimate. what accounted for that difference. >> that's a good question. at the time the change order dollars for issued. the full scope wasn't known. they were only able to price a portion of that work. more information became available and they were able to price the rest of the change orders. >> directors any of you have any questions at this time? >> as a conclusion c mod134 that
omnibus. we don't know for sure how many there will be. >> and then-okay. thanks. >> this is the last slide. i'll be happy to answer any questions or have tom help provide additional input for you. >> i guess the only other question i would have-you mentioned in one slide that a bunch of the change orders were less than fifty thousand dollars. are we looking at the remainder
of the change orders to be in those magnitude or be larger probably. >> there's a mix of change orders, director. when we come back with omnibus two we can go over segregation of cost. >> hi. thank you for preparing this presentation. clearlystaff has been working very diligently. i would like to maybe just state again the frustration how prolific the change orders are. this is not how business should be operating.
i think for folks out there who are not particularly regularly dealing with contracts, from my perspective this is very unusual. this approach by the g c to overwhelm with hundreds and hundreds of change orders is-i think at a minimum not an efficient way to do business. the concern is that by doing this approach by back filling. it erodes the city's ability to essentially make different financial choices had we known the costs associated with it up front. what i mean by this is that if the contractor came to us first before doing the work and told us, hey, we have a problem in
order to address this problem it will cost you another hundred thousand dollars. we may have said hold on let us think about it. maybe we would have changed it to reduce it or eliminate t. because they've gone ahead to do the work we're forced to do work that they actually did. it just eliminated our process and ability to make financial decisions in a responsible way. i have a fundamental issue with how these contracts and change orders happen. i understand that i'm just maybe sharing frustration that is something that occurred in the past. i feel this my opportunity to state that position. i want to make it clear this is not a practice that we should continue to have moving forward. we have lots of capital
projects. i know that staff is aware of this. i just want to state that in the record. i think-i've also asked the question of staff in the past, for me it's a little difficult to only look at the financial request that is being presented in this particular agenda item. i don't want to take things out of order because i understand staff is preparing omnibus two and three to us. as we think about contracts and funding and our overall financial situation, i do feel that we need to talk about it in entirety at least to have some context of what we're really looking at. i think without putting staff on the spot too much here, are you in a position where you can
share a bit more about what the overall project's budget is looking like. are you prepared to speak to that today? >> yes, thank you. i would-can i give some general feedback i hope will provide some context of what we're looking at here. it's pretty clear that this project is overbudget. we have been bringing change orders to you as you said on a pretty regular basis in terms of the overall cost on the project, i don't think we talked about that. i'd like to come back with more details and back those numbers up. i'm prepared to say i think we're tracking this project to be approximately 15% over budget. depending on your point of view is-anything over budget is not
acceptable in these financial times right now. i don't want to minimize that at all. that said, in transit, mega projects do have a history of being far more than that over budget. the 15% over budget that means going up to buy more items to pay contract items an close the project out to get this thing ready for the right of public in 2022. right now we're looking for over one hundred million dollars to fill that. money we don't already have budgeted to the project. that could go as high as one hundred thirty million dollars.
>> thank you. when you say 15% over budget that is over the budget including the continge efnsy contingency.>> that does include contingency, that's right. as we begin. this project had a four percent contingency. for a billion and a half project, if we were doing it again, that's something i would definitely do differently next time. had we built in a fifteen or 20% contingency for jobs of this size, we'd be talk being this project being slightly under budget at this time.
>> you mentioned strategy, we want to have these discussions in a fashion-the reason the consultants were working with edgar, we want tutor to prove to us that we owe them money. we want to take a hard look at the billings and time sheets and all the document dollars. documents.we know we're going ty to the contractor. we can settle quickly for things
that we know we owe or negotiate a little harder where we think we have a stronger position than the contractor does. >> one of your answers gave me a another question. that is the completion date. what is your level of confidence with spring of next year. >> i would say 90%. you should never be 100% confident that-there's always some unforseen thing that can happen. we're buttoning things up talking to the contractor about-checking all the tasks that need to get done so we're able to hit that date. >> do you have any sense that the contractor is delaying
strategically or are they just trying to get it done as fast as you want it done. >> i don't know. i hate to speak to their motivations. i think we've reached the point where it's in everyone's interest to finish the project. we're on the schedule that we have right now. there's no way they can make money by dragging this out. that's what can i say. >> thank you. >> i just have two remaining questions. one is from a project management standpoint, it seems interesting and maybe challenging that we would ask for six hundred seventy one change orders of
what would be a sense of the budget implications of those change orders. it would seem like you would want to know instead of just letting those pile up what those implications. the budget is going to go where it's going to go. can you help us understand the thinking and strategy there. >> that's a really good observation director. we've allowed tutor to go ahead with change orders. letting that go for as long as it has, i think in retrospect in coming to you more often with
those changes and-i shouldn't say realtime but more frequently and not letting six hundred plus changes buildup. one thing we did starting last fall was reinstitute a management board where there was a more formal process where the various stake holders and agreeing to a price. there's a internal paper trail we can count on. some of the changes in this omnibus. we could have been doing that much sooner. >> yeah. i know those weren't your calls tom. i know that you've been picking up a lot of the pieces here. it does some like some interval or threshold whether it's every
year or hundred change orders would make sense. not necessarily bring to the board but have a sense of what kind of budget we're ringing up. procedurally if we do not approve this settled amount today and you have to go back to tutor and say no, this doesn't seem like a great deal for us. can you help us understand then what would be your next move? does that set us all back. i feel like we have to explore that pathway a little bit. >> there's the working relationship part of it and legal part of it. from a working relationship part of it it would be pretty tough because the process edgar described was a pretty good faith negotiations process. we were able to bring their initial number down. more importantly we were able to
see into their books and fronsic forensics in a way we weren't able to see again. it would be tough for us to go back to that table without approval. from a legal point of view, like i said, this has been building up for so long, i want to be careful i don't play lawyer here. we acknowledge a pretty serious liability in public. it doesn't seem like a good idea-that would create liabilities as we get into final settlement or lawsuit down the road. >> okay. thank you.
>> we will go to public comment. since we have no commenters on the line. do i have a motion or is there further discussion? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> nobody i think relishes in approving this especially since we don't know what's down the pipe. we've been down this path it feels like forever. i just want this project to be over with.
>> i think even amongst all of my frustration and my sharing of my thoughts around the best practices problems here, i do recognize and actually really appreciate staff's approach in at least splitting out the omnibus number one where we have clear evidence that this is clear work that has been done and i do in this case feel the confidence that we owe teudor tr this amount that has been negotiated. i have broader problem with how we got to this place. with that i'm ready to vote on it. thank you. >> i agree with you. i appreciate everybody taking so much time and effort and really
digging into this. i'm encouraged by the fact that i believe at the board meeting before we talked about changing the way we award these large construction projects. changing the way we do the change orders. changing the way we award these large construction projects and taking an experience like this and history with a big contractor into account when we do that. i just want to make sure as we go through this and move onto the next large project whoever is on the board, whoever is in charge-it's hard when there's turn over, a company they are pretty good at what they do. i'm happy to support this at this point. >> great. with that it looks like if there
aaftermath of dealing with a design that was never going to be able to be pulled off. i think this is the third or fourth batch of change orders that i've seen on the board with the central subway project. each time i was asking for an estimate for the cost to complete. we only got them in closed session which as i understand a way to deal with legal business. that cuts the public out. and if you're going to learn your lesson, we don't need to wait for the next project. there was not nearly enough transparency in how it was going. that's a mistake we can fix
right now. we've gone a long ways doing it simply by serving the numbers that tom gave us today. we have our work cut out for us getting the rest of the costs settled for us and raising the money to pay for the project that was built. i hope today as i'm comfortable as it is, it's a good chance to start again and see if we can end this project a little better than we began it. >> all right. thank you. it looks like you had something to add. >> yes. thank you for the specific comments. i do want to thank you for noticing that this is a bigger mile stone. and that this project was not cut out for success. i in fact am very proud of the
staff team for turning this project around at only 15% over budget. i would like to go hear who inherited this from two previous project manager. i would like to thank edgar lopez for leading tough but fair negotiations. i want to thank tom who has helped to turn things around by keeping everyone coordinated as well as documenting the lessons learn. we've learned a lot of lessons. early in 2021. when i talked to you about how we applied to many lessons.
we've tried hard to learn these tough lessons and will be prepared in the coming months being smarter of how we procure projects from the beginning and provide risks between ourselves and our construction contractors. >> did you have a final comment that you wanted to add? no? okay. great. i think we have a motion and a second. can you please call the roll. >> certainly. (roll call). >> the item passes and we move onto the almost last item on
your agenda. authorizing the director to contract number 1289 corridor improvement project with pedestrian monitoring services in the amount of two million eight one thousand dollars. no time extensions and making environmental review findings. this item was extended from the previous meeting. >> i have staff here to take us through the update from our last meeting. we have peter and with us. >> good evening chair and directors. thank you. i'm going to share my screen with you.
exactly the cost estimate and how staff came about defining the costs. and i know that there was a little bit of confusion over the numbers last time, so this definitely will clear it up for me. i did have a question about your overall contingency which compared to the last item, this project had a much more i think normal contingency plan. so in the $19.2 million that you're citing as the remaining balance after we settle this particular change, what is staff's current anticipation around any future unexpected costs or any other change orders that we might have to face? i think that similar to my question in the last item, the
bottom line question for me is really is staff feeling like we're on budget, and if not, what do we expect to be over budget by? >> so we've been tracking -- and this change was among them, we have been tracking a number of possible requests by the contractor or change order requests by the contractor. moving along. we are very close to exceeding the contingency. the construction management staff, as i said, has been tracking the changes that are possibly in the pipeline.
and the main item and this goes back a little bit of what was discussed for central subway, is the m.t.a. and the construction have been working on kind of a catch-all omnibus. walsh gave us their official number a few weeks back which we think of course is too high. and we are reviewing it. so follow we get that change, i would have said that change order request, i would have said that we were going to finish within the contingency. now it's going to depend to some
extent on what the final value of that shore up or the shore up change is. now by approving this change now, for example, walsh has a chunk of money in that overall true-up for pedestrian monitors. and this contract mod as i said saves $4 million over walsh's initial claim and that will be removed from the true-up because that item will be settled. but according to walsh construction, there's about $50 million in unsettled true-ups out there that we are currently working our way through. >> great. are there any other questions? it looks like that's the only
hand that i had up. and being that there's no other questions i will open it up for public comment at this time. moderator -- >> you have one question remaining. >> caller, are you on the line? >> caller: hi, yes, my name is gloria berry and i was listening to the one board member who mentioned transparency to provide transparency tow the public. whether it's in regard to the central subway or to the street project. and i'm not really involved with these matters, but just a simple google search of walsh construction company has raised some concerns to me, especially since this is the year of corruption in san francisco. i would be interested in tabling this matter until one of you have took the time and due
diligence to contact the f.b.i. to see if anyone has been involved with any kickbacks or fraud with it comes to this company. i see that they're not part of the better business bureau. i see they've had liability in the st. louis bay bridge collapse. i see they had another employee sentenced to prison for corruption and kickbacks and fraud. so i would be very interested in that being done and then a simple solution to pedestrian monitoring, with the city developers received $25 million from the city to provide these same type of jobs to black people in san francisco, specifically bayview hunter's point. so in the interest of equity i would really recommend other avenues of money that's already been received by the city to fulfill jobs for people and to
get with the office of racial equity to be see if that could be done. >> thank you for your comment. thank you. are there other any additional commenters on the line? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> with that we'll close public comment. i just clarify that walsh is already our contractor, not a new contractor that we're hiring for this project. but i think that the point is well taken about exploring other community groups to do this kind of monitoring for us in the future. i guess just a question to you -- part of this project probably had required some l.b. components. i know that it's a big project. can you talk about what the l.b. component that is associated with this portion of that project? >> there is -- or there are --
s.p. and l.b. components. rather than trying to give percentages off the top of my head because they vary on the principle, and the one that i do remember off the top of my head is 100% of the trucking on the project has to go to disadvantaged businesses. and so -- but it varies by trade and by -- it varies by trade on the project with the percentages that were set. and i can come back or we can provide that information broken down in extreme detail and walsh's compliance with. it because i know that our office or our contract compliance meets with them on a regular basis and we review their paperwork to ensure that they're meeting their goals
before we send out monthly pay apps. >> great. and in terms of other -- again, just we don't have any reason to believe that there's any issues or we haven't had any issues that are related to some of the other issues going on in the city that we're aware of related to this contractor? >> no, nothing like that has come up as far as i know on this project. >> thank you. directors, any other questions or comments or a desire to just make a motion? do i see -- director lai, your hand is up. >> thank you. to follow up on the public comment, peter. could you explain a little bit about the scope, because my understanding is that it was already envisioned as part of
the contractor's scope to begin with. the change in front of us is really just -- we realized after we started the project that we needed more of that service than was initially scoped. and can you talk about it in context of maybe some other department projects, because, i mean, for example, i had a bunch of p.c. related work, and they had flaggers on both sides of an intersection. it seems that they were folks from the contractor i suppose to a third party. so maybe just educate us a little bit about the complexity of maybe bringing on a separate entity to take on that work and what tradeoffs there are. >> sure. well, as i said, the contractor entirely responsible and we could -- if we had foreseen the need, we might have approached it differently.
the -- the specifications for the flaggers are fairly standard across the city agencies. this project has public works, p.u.c., and sfmta components to it. and the specifications were pulled together by the three city departments. under certain circumstances, particularly when working in crosswalks, and the contractor was making at least one flagger for each crosswalk that is closed whose sole job is to control the pedestrian traffic. in addition to that, there are other flaggers on the site. there are flaggers that are specifically responsible for moving the vehicles such as trucks or backhoes in and out of the construction site. and possibly depending on the traffic control set-up, the flaggers for moving private cars around the construction site. so depending what work was going
on you could have three, four, five flaggers working that particular portion of the construction site. as i said in the presentation, the pedestrian traffic at times got to be so heavy that people were ignoring the barriers that were put up and the flaggers that were out there were insufficient to keep people from wandering into the construction site. the contractor put out the additional staff that they needed to keep the site safe, but then wanted to be compensated for it. and that led to discussions and discussions with the city. okay, how do we best pay for this work and best get the additional staff that is needed? and the main difference between the pedestrian monitors is the level of experience. in order to work on a city
project a flagger has to have a year's worth of experience working on other construction projects. and the pedestrian monitor can be fresh out of the union hall just having gone through the flagger training course. so there's a difference in the level of experience and that's why one has to supervise the other. and it was determined that because of the biggest challenge was pedestrians, we would use pedestrian monitors, and that's how we reached this point. the contractor was meeting the letter of the contract. they needed to put in more effort than originally anticipated by either the contractor or us, and we agreed that we needed more bodies out there and this is the best way to provide them, to meet everybody's requirements. >> thank you for that. are there any additional
questions or is anyone going to make a motion? >> i'll move. >> second. >> great. okay. secretary, will you please call the roll. >> clerk: certainly. [roll call] the item passes and we move on to item 17 on the agenda, discussion pursuant to code 67.10b as to whether to invoke the attorney-client privilege for closed session for counsel. >> so we will open up to public comment. any member of the public wish to comment on evoking our attorney-client privilege and going into closed session? moderator, are there any callers on the line? >> you have one question
remaining. >> great. all right. our commenter? >> caller: can you hear me now? >> yes, we can, mr. tropel. >> caller: still alive. never mind. so this closed session under item 3 under closed session, i believe that is correct. it is properly calendared as a 5497-67.10b, closed session to discuss the director's performance evaluation, but item 17, i think that reference is inapplicable. i don't believe that this involves the attorney-client privilege and this does not involve legal counsel. there's no pending litigation. so the reference to 67.10d i believe is misplaced. this was a similar comment to what i mentioned two weeks ago. so in the future if we could really be careful on which references to the government code and the admin code are
applicable, because it depends on what's happening in closed session, it's not a standard template. maybe i should go to law school in my spare time. all right, thank you very much. happy new year. >> thank you. thank you very much for that. and any additional callers on the line? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> okay, so with that we close public comment. directors, is there a motion? >> motion to go to closed session. >> second. >> secretary, can you please call the roll. >> clerk: [roll call] okay. >> we will recess -- >> we will
>> reconvening from our closed second. can you call the next item? >> clerk: announcement of closed session. >> the board met in closed session to discuss the employment employee evaluation of the director of transportation. and then item 19 is the motion to not disclose the information discussed in closed session. do we have a motion? >> second. >> clerk: (roll call). >> okay. the item passes and that concludes the business before you today. i adjourn the meeting. have a great holiday. >> have a great holiday.
>> clerk: we have a quorum. and the next item is item 2. president's announcement. >> president mccarthy: good morning, and welcome, everybody, to the building inspection commission meeting, december 2020. sonya, can everyone hear me? doing a sound check, okay, good. i'm the president of the building inspection commission and i am joined today by my fellow commission members along with the director patrick o'riordan and the senior d.b.i. staff. as reported recently by mayor breed and public health directive, the city is unfortunately experiencing another increase in covid cases and hospitalizations. resulting in more restrictive city-wide measures. that will hopefully once again successfully reduce the pandemic infections and the
hospitalizations. covid-19 remains active in our community even though yet we now have a federal, state approvals of vaccines and thus yet there is definitely light at the end of the nearly year-long covid of pain and loss. until the vaccine production and distribution are more advanced, i continue to urgently ask the customers and the public to support our ongoing need to follow all health protocols. which remain essential for the public health and safety. it is essentially important for our customers to follow protocols when they come to 49 south van ness to drop plans or apply for non-planned permits on. behalf of the commission i thank all of our customers in advance for their diligence and ongoing support and, again, i thank d.b.i. leadership and staff for their ongoing heroic work during this complicated and still
threatening circumstances. i also want to respond to the arts guild in the chronicle titled "san francisco building department is a mess." not only was i frustrated with such an infactually in my opinion incorrect piece, but i also felt for the employees who have overcome so much in these difficult times. i wanted to address inaccuracies in the article and correct the record. we all know some changes have -- we all know that some charges have been filed against high-profile department heads but they were from other departments. no one name or face defines our department. the -- excuse me, the mission was mentioned yet again, and despite the fact that the
records show that d.b.i. performed well. this permit set in planning for eight months and is currently right now under review by the department of public health. while these delays are very unfortunate, this is not a building department issue contrary to the quotes in the article. d.b.i. does not have -- does have -- excuse me -- does have an online system. our system allows anyone to check on the status of any plan checking permit or complaint online. the article uses an example and when i looked into it further i discovered that there was a notice of violation for working without a permit. this work was triggered -- this work triggered a.d.a. standards which are hard -- really hard -- for small merchants to comply with. these are not d.b.i. standards, these are federal standards.
in recent weeks i have watched the board of supervisor sub-committee hearings and listened to the conversations about prohibiting permit expediters. while i agree with much of what they are trying to accomplish, i respectfully disagree with the directions that they are going about it. >> we lost you there, we can't hear you. >> president mccarthy: the building -- can you hear me guys still? yeah? can you still hear me? >> yeah. >> president mccarthy: the state building code -- let me start here -- the permit process is complicated. the state building code has over 6,000 pages. and in addition the san francisco amendments add another 1,000 pages. each year our approval process
has become more and more entangled with complexity by our legislative body trying to respond to our ever evolving society and needs. it was only a few weeks ago that the all electric building legislation was passed. this new law will bring with it an array of new challenges for both the department and our customers, but as a city that holds itself to high values, this department must move forward and adapt to meet the needs of customers who will face these new complexitys and challenges. these complex codes, while some hire permit expediters, but the process needs to stay open, transparent and accessible to the general people who choose not to hire an expediter. i feel very strongly that we can do more to achieve this goal.
i was hoping that we would have had this conversation back in march, but, unfortunately, it has been all hands on deck in the department with covid-related issues. at some point in 2021, when we get through covid, i would like this department to present a report to the commission about ways to improve the user experience and provide as much transparency on the permitting process as possible. a few examples -- and i want to stress that i'm open to any and others are -- a plan to create a d.b.i. as a concierge program to provide the public with the same advantages as those who hire permit expediters. a team to assist and explain the nuances of plan checking to those who need assistance. i would also like to have a liaison to attend the weekly
planning commission to help to explain building department codes and policies and identify conflicts between building codes and planning codes. we are also in the midst of developing a new process whereby those who have previously violated permit laws in the past undergo rigorous plan check review process. i also think that we should implement a strong media presence to educate and to inform the public with what we do and help to break down the negative perceptions. i recommend that the management assign a liaison who would reach out to every board supervisor for routine updates so we can keep the lines of communication open and transparent between our services and our customers. and, finally, we need to revisit, restart, and reengage
on finding a better online system where the other system failed us. 2020 has been remarkably tough year for all san franciscans. we have an opportunity to use 2021 to do better. let's embrace what we have learned and improve on our weaknesses. madam secretary, that concludes my president's announcements. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on the president's announcements? >> there is one public comment. >> clerk: okay. then on the president's -- just one moment.
>> hello, henry? >> caller: yes. >> you're unmuted. go ahead. >> caller: okay, great, thanks, thank you. good morning, commissioners. my name is henry camilois, a caster of d.b.i. for over 45 years. through this year the interim director o'riordan took over the reins of d.b.i. faced of the challenge of moving to a new building. in no time we were hit with covid and that was really making it difficult to keep issuing permits on the calendar. however, thanks to the interim director o'riordan, the assistant director and everyone at d.b.i., the process continues as best as it can considering the circumstances and, yes, it has been a struggle. recently an article came out in "the chronicle" about a past member -- of not only the planning commission -- but also the building inspection commissioner that had wanted to
build a gazebo in the backyard. she was claiming to get a permit from d.b.i. i'm appalled and i find it difficult to believe that she was unaware what the process was. and yet she could have built a gazebo not exceeding 100 square feet and eight feet without a permit. d.b.i. is absurd, and the permit is sending out invitations for appointments (indiscernible), however, once an application is filed it seems to languish. i don't know if it's done as a team or not, but the agenda should be prioritized and it would be good to have a team that does just that. interestingly, i'm finding the planning and processing of applications in a matter of days and from d.b.i. i'm told that it's three months if i even get a response to an inquiry. lastly, thank you president mccarthy, for the
extraordinary presentation. you are right on. this process is getting so complex, it's hard for us -- even architects to go in and process a permit, no matter which department you want to go to. i have been doing this for many, many years. i remember the days where, you know, you could walk in and it was really, really simple. no longer. thank you once again for allowing me the chance to speak to you and i wish you all a happy holiday. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, henry, for your comments. next speaker, if there is one. >> there are no more speakers in the queue. >> clerk: our next item is item 3, general public comment. the b.i.c. will take comments on matters that are in the public jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. there looks like there is one person with their hand raised.
john? >> you're unmuted, caller. >> clerk: all right, thank you. >> caller: hi there, my name is moisa garcia, and i live on van ness and i am calling to express deep frustration with your housing inspection services. i feel that only until a matter is risen to management level or to your level am i actually ever heard. i filed a complaint in july about some very dangerous entry stairs to my unit. and i only ever heard back from an inspector a month later after i emailed the various department heads and the head of d.b.i. and even though i have been in contact with your department and inspector, i filed a complaint on october 28th for a variety of
things that are happening inside my unit. i heard back on november 9th about scheduling something, and i didn't hear back until november 23rd about having an on-site inspection that you felt that was necessary. and now it's been three weeks and i have not heard back at all from a housing inspector that i have been in contact with for months. this is ridiculous. we're living -- we're living in a pandemic and i'm constantly home as well as my housemates, and it seems that this department doesn't even care about what the conditions are of this unit. and i would really like to hear back from someone as soon as possible. thank you. >> president mccarthy: could you state your name. moises garcia, 1457 van ness, 94100. >> president mccarthy: thank you
for that, mr. garcia. >> one more caller is in the queue. >> president mccarthy: sonya? next item, sonya. >> clerk: i forgot to unmute myself. 4a is commissioner's questions and matters. inquiries to staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. >> we will go through the normal way. vice president sam moss? >> vice-president moss: no, i'm okay right now. we can keep going. >> president mccarthy: thank you, vice president. commissioner alexander-tut please.
>> commissioner alexander-tut: yes, i have a question somewhat regarding what -- (indiscernible) so let me know if this is -- anyway, let me know if this is inappropriate, but around a better forum for this, but i was curious also regarding the article -- is somebody who is -- whoever it is, i don't care if they're on this commission, but someone who is not a professional who works in d.b.i. all the time, is there a place where people can go and say do i need a permit instead of having to hire somebody to make that assessment for them? does that exist? >> so, you know, in anticipation and i do get the question. so what i would recommend is that in the next item 3, commissioner alexander-tut, that you give it some thought and we'll calendar something in
january that we could address and talk to those questions for you. and if there's anything else that you want to add in there, we can make it a line item to kind of, you know, to address pretty much what was discussed in that act and so on. because i know that we have a lot of questions as commissioners on it. so i'm quite okay, if that works for you, i'm totally okay. >> commissioner alexander-tut: that works for me and having this as an agenda item and hearing public comment on it and being able to ask questions because as commissioners we want to have, you know, to be able to answer questions as well and to understand, so i appreciate that as an agenda item. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. >> president mccarthy: next commissioner is commissioner kevin clinch. >> commissioner clinch: nothing, thank you. >> clerk: commissioner jacobo. >> commissioner jacobo: thank you for those comments on the article a i