you have to speak right into the microphone. >> i am a principal with cmc research. thank you for your presentation. i will take you through the results of the poll we just completed. this was a fairly short ball, so i will go through it quickly. this is a standard poll that we do for other revenue measures. as was explained, we did a baseline poll in march that asked other questions. you have seen the results of that. i am happy to answer questions on that poll as well. this was a really a very short track to do a few things. first on methodology, we did do 510 randomly selected interviews. we did offer the survey interlanguage is, english,

spanish, and chinese. this is unbearable to other polling that we have done on other revenue measures. the context of this poll, it is a tracking poll. to see whether or not things have changed since march 2010. i think you will remember that back in the spring we started to ceasee improvements in the economy. although that we are seeing some, it is not as much as we had hoped. so we feel like we wanted to go back to ask about a revenue measure. also, as we noted, we asked about other revenue measures on the poll we did in march. but given that things have changed, voters had been given a fairly long list of the revenue measures to vote on, and we

wanted to put this in context and to bring this back to you to see how this would fare in the context of other revenue measures. we also wanted to see whether or not it would reach two-thirds coming given the situation that it may have to meet that, if the november measure passes statewide. we also wanted to look at a future vehicle registration fee measure which had been talked about in the future. we wanted to ask some questions about that. first, we asked about perception of need. we also asked this question in march. we asked if there was a need for transportation improvements. it is probably no surprise to you to see that san francisco voters are very aware of the need.

80% say that there is some need. clearly, we do not have to explain to voters a lot about the need for the money. we do ask -- first i will show you the comparison to march. the vehicle registration fee measure, the language that was tested has been marked on by the cta to develop a language that would appear on the ballot. that is what we wanted to test. we received 62% of voters saying that they would vote yes. statistically, there came from the 66% we had in march. to show you the context of how we asked this, the goal here was not to test the other measures but to give voters the

idea, the fatigue that they will feel when they see the ballot. you have all seen it. you go to the ballot and you see, i have to make a lot of decisions. we wanted to simulate that in the poll. we looked at the likely state ballot measure. then me read a series and randomized a series of measures that had been talked about as possibly appear on the ballot. again, this was not designed to test each one in death, but to give the voters a context. at the end of that, they have this $10 vrf. and went again, 60% of voters voted yes after hearing all of that. we do feel confident, as we did

in the march poll, we do not see statistical change. what we have concluded from this is that is where our best level of support is on this measure regardless of what is on the ballot. we then asked about potential 2012. then we asked to look into the future. there is possibly a vehicle license fee from 1.5% to 2% of the market value of the vehicle or trailer. fairly cut and dry measure. may not appear in this way on the ballot. we were testing the driest language. you can see in comparison, the vrf measure talking about where the money would be used. this is fairly cut and dried and

we still have good support. one of the things we are trying to gauge is whether or not passing something that would impact the ability to raise other revenue in the future. our feeling is although it is only 50% support, if that language could be improved, to make it more appealing to voters. one of the things we wanted to look at -- we are looking at this for 2012. what is the revenue that will be used for transportation projects? we had a high awareness of the need for transportation projects. now we start to see voters be more divided on this. we have no idea what this measure would ultimately look like. this would be an addition to the $10 registration fee. we did not point out that it would be in comparison, but they

had already heard about the measure. when we actually said it would be on top of the $10, 42%. but we know a lot will change in two zero years. voters will be asked to vote on a lot of things. we do not expect it will be put that way. when we go to the general fund, we get the lowest levels, but otherwise, we get high levels of approval. so what we see is there seems to be good support for the vehicle registration fee. even when we put into this context of a lot of other revenue measures, it appears to be stable. that is what we saw in march when we presented arguments in favor, a series of arguments that opponents might say we continue to see the support level stay above 60%. we do not think that the

passage will ultimately affect the chances of a 2012 measure. given our experience and the polling that we have done, given that support today is at 50% even when we used the driest language, we do not feel like in will have a huge impact. i think there is a unique opportunity to put this on the ballot now, the opportunity to have a new revenue source, and other counties will be doing this as well. supervisor mirkarimi: is that it? that include your report? >> yes, i apologize. we can take any questions. supervisor daly: i certainly hope the transportation authority would act to place this on the ballot. i think it is irresponsible step to have polled this measure and recognize, for this cost, we

will encumber a $400,000 cost to put this on the ballot. we will have to pay for ballot- making and other things that we do not usually pay for. i think it is possible to look for the context and the measure. senator mark leno has been very vigorous in trying to get restoration of vehicle license fees to try to make it possible for our city and county to vote to restore that. that path has been blocked consistently. i respect president to come also as a member of the board of supervisors, advocated for a. still, we have the opportunity to put a measure on the bill that would allow us to fund programs that include repairing local streets and roads, improving liability, pedestrian safety improvements, smart traffic signal technology to

prioritize transit, and manage traffic incidents, programs that encourage people to use more sustainable forms of transportation, transit bicycle carpels, and all of the programs have to have some benefit to those individuals paying the fee. the expenditure plan contains printable among other objectives focused on funding smaller-back products that will coakley provide tangible benefits, provided their geographic distribution that takes into account the various needs of san francisco's neighborhoods and insure accountability and transparency every year. the aeschylus and others who are injured because the state has taken away so much of the resources that we traditionally have had to improve our roadways. the conditions of them are some standards. we considered a major measure of

last year and clearly could not win the support, was not perceived to be necessary. for my purposes, this is an inappropriate thing to do as executive directors have pointed out. this is the first time in a decade that we have had the opportunity to dedicate a funding source for the programs that we have worked so hard to program and oversee with our own agencies in the city. clearly, this is something that the voters are ready to support. i think it will be good for the city. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, commissioner dufty. on one to ask a question to the consultant. -- i want to ask a question to the consultant. you mentioned the contrast between now and 2012. and there is debate about the idea that we could not pursued and advance this year with the

hope that we might have the chance to do something much more robust in 2012. why would we do that? >> what we see from the date is two separate issues. when we asked about the $10 fee that can be passed now and can provide 1 revenue source, we see strong support for that. when we asked separately about a 1.5% vehicle registration fee increase, we also see 50% support. we can consider those in two different places come in two ways. a lot can happen between now and

2012 on a number of different levels, whether they are transportation measures or not. my feeling is, given the research today, given what is going on with other counties on the ballot, including this new revenue source, the first given to the transportation department in 20 years, this is an opportunity to do it now. the polling that we have been doing, what we vote on may not affect voters in a few years. it will not necessarily have the impact to pass something in 2012. supervisor mirkarimi: commissioner campos? supervisor campos: i just wanted to address an issue that was raised today, an issue around

the legality of an agency of the transportation authority doing apoll. with respect to that issue, there are a number of questions that come up. a separate one is whether or not we should do that. that is a different manner. the question of whether or not we legally can, i think it is important for us to be very mindful of, and that was discussed at the plans and programs committee. i specifically asked about that question. my understanding from council is and that the transportation authority has the ability to do this. i just want to make sure for the record, that that issue was raised today, that we have legal counsel on the record. so through the chair, if we could hear from the attorney. >> has my name is steven roberts.

i am familiar with the vehicle registration fee. there is a very clear answer, like many legal questions. it is perfectly legal to pull out this. that was the case in 2008, out of santa barbara, which held polling was actually the responsibility of an agency looking at new measures because there would be a greater expense of putting it on the ballot. it falls squarely within not only in the right, but perhaps the duty of the agency looking at it. there was a case a year and a half ago in the supreme court looking at government agencies. in that case, the santa barbara case was mentioned and approved. it is clear from a legal standpoint that pulling in advance of a measure like that

is perfectly proper and within the powers of the authority. supervisor mirkarimi: since commissioner campos opened the door on this, there is some even this -- uneasiness of polling the vrf against the other measures. i agree that the question was not well-advised. how does this conform with what you said about pulling -- polling on the vlf? this perception may not be warranted. >> if it helps, i am familiar with a number of the other

counties. all of the polls and i know about pulled against other measures. particularly, the parks measure. i do not think it makes any difference in the legality of it. i understand there are questions about the appropriateness of it. polling against the other measures can offer assistance as to whether or not this will pass. i think this falls within the same realm as polling, is illegal,i9 one can debate the appropriateness to the question, but the concept is part of clearly illegal. supervisor mirkarimi: there is a clumsiness about this, to say the least. i think that needs to be addressed for future reference, about how this effort was administered so that there is no misunderstanding.

i do not know how it is how you set up a protocol, but i suggested in the press yesterday, that there be some sort of policy that makes sure if it is contextual, that there be some policy that sets up checks and balances, unless, of course, it is well vetted. i agree, earlier, as one of my own taxes were on their come i was not pleased. at the same time, i do not know how we would establish the process. >> two things. the consultants that corroborated this, it is a tough thing to try to replicate a feel the a ballot.

there will obviously be a number of different ideas about what is a fair measure. that is why we emphasize this was not intended to do any kind of depth polling with the measures themselves, but to your fundamental question, which is how we avoid this situation in the future, and i think what council told you it is that there is almost a due diligence aspect to during this preliminary polling, so that the agency does not waste money to put something on the ballot that does not have a chance. in this case, that is not the case. we would not want to have that ability eliminated in the future, but i have thought about the issue, and i think what would be practical -- and practicality is the issue because some of these things happen in short order. i think it would be

inappropriate for something like this, to develop a policy that would require a review of the actual survey instrument by the plans and programs committee, finance committee, depending on what the measure was. we have a structure with five members of the board on the committee that would give almost a majority right there. that would give us a level of comfort that clearly you do not have now, based on the process we followed. we could codify that in some board resolution that we could pass next month when you come back from recess, so when you have that precedent established for the future and staff has guided us on how to proceed. it is entirely doable. there will be a time impact, anything that needs to be done through committee will require weeks to process the information through. it may be worth its weight, if

it buys us a better sense of assurance that everyone feels fully informed. i should reiterate that we are instructed to keep everyone informed, bring the full extent of the work program to the board at the very beginning. i understand this material is tentative and can lead to misunderstandings. i would be happy to work with you to try to craft some sort of policy and moved to a committee structure. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. a couple more speakers. supervisor chiu: obviously, i share your concerns about this poll being funded by taxpayer dollars. i would expect a formal policy to deal with this in the future. from my perspective, i cannot support this today. i say that in the context that

supervisor dufty mentioned. the vlf was something that i was at the lead sponsor on last year, with supervisor dufty. i think this is the wrong time to do this, unfortunately. we have been extremely crowded ballot. we have been a significant need for revenues. there are already several measures that are on the ballot. the mayor's hotel measure, later, counsel, hotel measure, annan i think that if we're going to place anything else on the ballot, we have to put on measures that result in real revenues for general fund needs, not a measure that will provide kenny's on the dollar for congestion and pollution mitigation programs and projects. as important as i think these things are, at the end of the day, i think we have to take a real setback, look at what we want to accomplish in november,

and be focused and the discipline, and that is why i will not be supporting this today. supervisor daly: thank you. supervisor campos: i'm just going to make a quick remark. in terms of the policy, i do think that we need to have a policy. i'm still not sure that, notwithstanding the legality of it, that it makes sense for us to use public money for this purpose, so i hope we have an opportunity to have that discussion. it is clear that there are legal ramifications for doing it. i just am not clear that that is the correct approach. as one of -- i do think that we need to have a discussion about that. supervisor daly: if there is no

further discussion, we will move into public comment. any member of the public would like to weigh in, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. if there is no further deliberations -- commissioner dufty. commissioner dufty: i make a motion to move this and place it on the ballot. supervisor daly: roll call, please. >> alioto-pier aye. avalos nay. campos aye. chiu nay. chu aye. daly aye. dufty aye. elsbernd aye. mar nay. maxwell aye. mirkarimi aye. there are 8 ayes. the item passes. supervisor daly: the item passes. thank you.

i know we will continue this discussion on a few different levels. >> item 15, introduction of new items. this is an information item. supervisor daly: colleagues, any introductory items you would like to present? any public comment on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 16, public comment. supervisor daly: last opportunity on public comments. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 17, adjournment. supervisor daly: meeting is adjourned. thank you, colleagues.

>> with my artists, eight of them are working in tehran, iran, the capital city, and one is an iranian american based in san francisco. the problem is really a

collective exploration in the day and the life in tehran. it is the largest city in the middle east. for the gallery, one of the first pieces you see is one piece which is a laser-cut peace, it taken directly from the map of the city itself -- a laser-cut piece. it represents the geography of the city. it is positioned right next to another work by an artist who took a 77 taxicab runs and let the potholes and the city turns of tehran dictate how the city would be portrayed. >> [singing] >> one of the other pieces that to experience in the one-day

exhibition is from another artist, a recording of state radio from tehran, and is played for four speakers. >> [speaking foreign language] . >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> the entire gallery is covered with white vinyl on white walls, really minimalist, and the kind of the merged -- of emerge as you walk through the room. >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> these are excerpts from the radio broadcast that you are hearing in the space. it is just another visual reference 0.2 hopefully

transport you to a different place -- reference to hopefully transport you to a different place about one day in iran. >> good morning, and welcome to the rules committee. to my right is eric mar. supervisor alioto-pier is in route. the clerk is linda wong. covering the meeting for sfgtv are jennifer lowe and don gardner.