phase of the audit and are t! row. that concludes my report. happy to answer any questions. supervisorñuz÷ãmirkarimi:z)ud6 c comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you.

legislation. thi. was delivered in themçvcç&÷ finance committee. anything to that? public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. eieí can we take this without objection? so moved. >> th>> item 7. reappoint brian larkin to the citizens advisory committee. supervisor.?d[,$e1v/v action? cu.jany public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. ÷u< appoint jolsna john to the geary ,i/l transit citizens advisory committee. citizens advisory committee. supervisor mirkarimi:c xj&y very good. any further commentary on this particular appointee? in any public comment? seeing none, public comment is

closed. &y4zlwithout objection. so moved. gh >> >> item 9. jadopt a baseline budget, schedule, and funding plan for phase 1 of the transbay joint powers authority's transbay transit center project. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: these j2tñítritems were delivered on e plans and programs committee. any public comment? 7u$jseeing none, public commens closed. j accept but commissioner campos. without objection. so moved. next item. >> item 10. allocate $3,480,803 in prop funds, with conditions, to the municipal transportation agency for six requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: a denver plans and programs. any further comment, deliberations? any public comment? seeing none, public comment is

closed. moves, without objection. next item. >> item 11. approve the third amendment of san francisco's 2008 lifeline transportation program (ltp) project priorities to include $1,691,391 for the municipal transportation agency's bus service restoration project. this is an action item. >>y

and voiced a preference that or implement transit service. #qy/g.ap6 and received one application from the mta for a bus service restoration project. however, at the time of

so moved. >> item 12. approve the san francisco safe routes to school education and outreach program for $500,000 in cycle 1 safe routes to school funds. supervisor mirkarimi: any

deliberation, any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection. so moved. next item. >> item 13. appropriate $790,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, for planning, conceptual engineering and environmental studies for the better market street project, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objections. so moved. next item. >> item 14. approve a vehicle registration fee expenditure plan ("expenditure plan"), making required findings, submitting to the voters at the general election scheduled for november 2, 2010, an ordinance amending the san francisco business and tax regulations code by adding article 23 to (1) adopt a $10 increase in the annual vehicle registration fee for each motor

vehicle registered in the city and county of san francisco, to fund congestion and pollution mitigation programs and projects, (2) authorize the san francisco county transportation authority ("authority") to expend fee revenue under the expenditure plan, (3) authorize the authority to contract with the california department of motor vehicles for collection and distribution of the fee revenue, and (4) authorize the authority to take all steps necessary to administer the expenditure plan and all programs and projects funded by the fee revenue; and appropriating up to $400,000 in proposition k funds to cover the costs of placing the measure on the ballot - this item was forwarded to the board by the committee without a recommendation. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: would you like to introduce? >> thank you. commissioners, i am referring to the item beginning on page 223 of your packet, specifically to the staff memorandum of july 16 on page 240. i simply want to give you a

quick overview on the process so far can give you a sense of the task at hand. this is an item that the transportation board approved us to develop and expenditure plan. essentially, the authorization was for staff to study, to analyze the possibility of placing a measure on the november ballot this year that would levy a $10 additional fee on vehicles registered with the county of san francisco. sb 83, which allows us to do this, from senator runny

hancock, sets a limit of $10. it allows congestion management agencies in the state to choose to place this on the ballot, which is why this item was presented to you as a rather unusual item. the authority board would be you boating to place it on the ballot. the authorization in december essentially gave us courage to develop an expenditure plan, which we did with the help of the advisory committee and stakeholder group and members of that stake holder group are included at the end of the expenditure plan for your information. it also authorized us to develop a benefit analysis, which is required by as the 83, because it is a user fee, and which show the people paying the

fee that this is a clear benefit. this analysis was conducted by outside analysts. that was presented to you back in may. the scope of the work our thrust was to conduct two -- to place this on the ballot, to gauge the likely success of a measure like this. we proceeded to develop expenditure plans. we gave progress reports to the plans and programs committee on this issue in january, april, may, and june. at the may meeting, we brought the other item included in this scope of work, which was scheduled for the delivery of this product, and we told the committee that because we had succeeded in getting a benefit

analysis, we were getting ready to recommend action on this item in june to give the board more of a number to need to have more deliberation. at the june meeting, we therefore brought forward recommendation of approval for the measures on the ballot. we conducted a poll in it march and it showed the poll being -- about being approved by 66% of voters. we thought that the matter should be placed on the bell from that. after some time, we tested and that measure against several revenue measures that were known or expected to somehow make an appearance on the november ballot, including the state parks thfee, and at the time we

also had a couple local measures, a school measure and a teacher resources measure. when the committee reviewed the information in june, it felt it did not have sufficient information to gauge the priority of this measure against other potential measures for the ballot. in june, there was another set of measures that had been introduced to the board of supervisors. we tested the measure again for potential revenue-generating measures. that is what you have before you today. the measure continues to get support in the 60's. consultants who advise us to say that it is garnering support that is statistically unchanged from the previous poll. so at this point, i think we have provided you with the best information we will be able to.

i realized there are some issues related to the polling of other measures. we have had questions from the committee which were answered about the sodality of polling. of course, we have attorneys with us here to repeat the information. the essential answer is that it is perfectly legal and there is history in california to corroborate. there is no problem with the expenditure from a legal standpoint. the expenditure of public funds to vet the viability of the measure before it is placed on the ballot. of course, the dividing line is once it is on the ballot, public money would become a problem, but we are not there yet. commissioners, that is the overall process on this measure. there is a small consideration

that i have to put before you. there is a measure backed by the california chamber of commerce and other groups which has qualified for the balance with 1.1 million signatures called stop it in taxes, and that would take any user fee in california and reclassify it as a tax. the immediate effect of that proposition on this sb 83 licensed feet would require two- thirds majority to pass. it will be an issue in the next election if that measure ends of succeeding. it will create a big problem for any other measure of that sort. i draw the distinction there between user fees and a tax.

this is a user fee, and that is why it only has the 50% threshold for passage. another thing i want to point out, we have been engaged with other agencies in the county. napa has opted out, but all eight others are serious about moving forward to put the measure on the ballot. we expect contra costa county to vote as well. marin county has already voted. the benefits of having the transportation community focussed in this manner, in a joint effort, it is it takes away any potential advantage of

one company over another for not having this thing. of course, the other benefit is that there would be an awareness about the region that this is the first new transportation revenue source authorized by the state in almost 20 years. so we would get the benefit of the press, moving forward. that is something that would be needed. if the polls are correct, this measure may not gather a two- thirds majority. any degree of awareness that we can garner from regional efforts would certainly be helpful to the measure. commissioners, that is as short a summary as i can give you on this issue. we have consultants from emc

research, who conducted these polls. these are the ones that did the reallocation of prop k. you may remember that we were able to generate a 75% vote in november. they have a presentation no longer than five minutes that i would like to give you to wrap up this item. >> supervisor daly: just a quick question. let me start by saying i support moving forward with this measure to the ballot. as a representative to the mtc, i think you are correct when you say that most attorneys in the region are also moving in this direction. that is something that has been discussed at other regional transportation bodies. i know emc did the research in

2003. i am wondering this time around how they were selected? i know that we were already getting pushed back about an out-of-county agency. >> this went through a competitive procurement. in fact, we brought them on board in march. this was awarded by the finance committee. supervisor daly: maybe for the consultant, how did we select a language, in terms of the questions, the actual language on the measures? >> essentially, a quandary with

measures that are not already approved for a ballot is what to consider the official language. we used the language that was used in the measures to introduce them to the board of supervisors for local measures. for state measures, we had a line with an already been through the legislative process. there was no issue with that. we do recognize emphatically that the fundamental purpose of doing something like this is to place this measure in the context of a more realistic ballot with other revenue- generating measures to create, if you will, a worst-case scenario. we realize that every measure is likely to be on the ballot. but in that sense, what is important is not so much of the individual measures, which is why there was no polling on the

individual measures, but more on the context they create. normal procedure would be to randomize the questions but we wanted to give you the worst possible scenario. after you have all of these other options, we revealed this one that we're interested in, of course without reviewing -- revealing that. we recognize that language for measures that have not been finalized could very well trained. so the bottom line is, this poll does not tell you anything about the measures but the influence on the measures that we are dealing with here on s p three. to that point, the consultant can address it further. there is a strong, statistical

value to this. in march, we had different set of measures. the fact that the number did not change from march to july shows that we are statistically correct. it does not say anything about how the other measures could poll once the language is finalized. but it does say something significant about house support -- stable the support is for sb 83. supervisor daly: i am much less a believer in polling, the impact of other items, then i am about the impact on the campaigns that are run. i wonder why there was no testing of the impact of the

arguments on the measure we discussed. emc will understand this, but typically, you would have a question, pushed for and against, see how they would impact up or down the impact of our question. i wonder why we did not move in that direction? supervisor mirkarimi: does that have prop k funding as well? >> the contextual strength of the measure, absolutely. the testing of the question, commissioner, was done in a larger set of questions that the consultant can explain. those questions are in your packet. whether the fee would be applied to the general fund, department of transportation, whether it

could be used for transportation purposes only. there was some of that. i think you should hear from the consultant. the answer to that question in the details on the pole itself, how it can support the case for placing this on the ballot. supervisor daly: one final question. i think you are talking about questions 15 through and that is kind of what i'm talking about but not exactly. 12, 13 caught my attention. 12 reads, "taxes are high enough. 40%. it is crucial to have quality streets, even if it means taxes." it looks like a majority someone

agreed. i understand voters can take two different things at the same time, but that caught my attention. the delta between i am not going to vote for anything and i will vote for that. >> you are asking key questions. on the issue of for or against, testing the limits of interest in sb 83, we did some of that in a march poll. we found support was solid for the measure, so instead we focused on the issue of the untouchable competition with other measures which is something that we fell in the committee was most interested in. we did look at the measure of pushing back and forth on the

characteristics of the measure in the march poll. we do have that questionnaire. what we found, essentially, was that we had a solid base of support. when we tested the language without education, we were getting 69%. after, 67%. it was still a home run, in terms of how people perceived it. there is a tremendous awareness about the pent-up demand for transportation improvements. as you recall, the expenditure plan approved by the stakeholder panel include half of the money going to street resurfacing. we have this amazing phenomenon now where even the bikers want resurfacing money. the streets have deteriorated to the point that they are not safe for anyone.

so we are seeing this groundswell of support in the public is beginning to noticed this. anecdotally, if we were to have this measure approved by the voters, it would allow us to double the amount of money that we get for st. reserves. i do not know that the public necessarily knows that intuitively but they see a need for improvement, and this should provide some belief. >> is it ok if we -- supervisor mirkarimi: is it ok if we hear from the consultant? would you like to ask her question now? supervisor daly: what month was the original poll? >> is coco work was approved in december 2009, and that included the two polls. the first one was done in march after we consulted the board. the second one was done at the end of june, july.

we had the fourth of july to contend with. supervisor daly: i am going to withhold my comments. supervisor chiu: i would like to make some introductory comments to freemont we will be hearing. many of us read in the newspapers today there are many of us here who believe this poll was extremely ill-advised and poorly designed. i am frankly disappointed that someone has moved forward on a plan that, frankly, was looking for results before they got them. let me use some examples, a question that tests showed the ta have been aimed vehicle registration fee that would reduce pollution from trucks, improve transit reliability,

making sidewalks safer for pedestrians and bicyclists? this sounds like apple pie. other polls that i have seen show different results. i'm disappointed at the characterization of other measures we are considering at the same time. supervisor avalos has a proposal that would increase the property and transfer tax on properties greater than $5 million. here the whole question read, should a san francisco increase this tax on companies, etc. it is confusing. the polling question related to my measure does not refer to the fact that my measure would reduce the payroll tax, which is in the description and language of my measure. if my measure murdered described in the same way that this tax work, it would probably read something like this. should the city of seven tesco

cut the payroll tax for small businesses, create hundreds of private sector jobs and bring in $30 million of revenue necessary for public safety and public services, at the end of the day, colleagues, regardless of what we hear from the polling firm, it is clear this was an instrument that had a specific design in mind. i do not think it further is what we want to in the city and i just want to say that at the outset before we hear the presentation. >> i think there were other pulls out that looked at that question. those were not the only two measures. >supervisor chiu: understood. most of these questions were incredibly vague and bias. >> emc research will be giving you a presentation. part of that is already on your de.