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 desk. supervisor mirkarimi: 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 therk