him with wise counsel, guaranteeing him success in his district commission. as he watches this d.v.d., we are certain he will see a reflection of himself. "under the wheel," november 16, 2010. here is a copy of the dvd. chairperson nolan: thank you. >> ann marie hodgson, followed by charles rathbone. >> as a recent resident to san francisco i knew i would experience inevitable parking tickets. this is not a complaint. after doing some research about the parking middle unofficial rules, i find they are incredibly hard to fight and given out very liberally because of that fact. it makes sense for sfmta.

it means increase revenue for the city. i hope in coming and giving this, not to complain, but to suggest the board discussed different policies for handling of parking tickets, or more broadly how it does business. this -- is this a message san francisco wants to send to citizens and visitors? it makes sense. give up tickets as many as possible since it is hard to get them overturned and we can fill our budget. i am sure you're saying this guy is complaining because he got a few parking tickets and should have parked more prudently. i have a current news article showing the budget crisis in sfmta, which i know you are all aware of already -- it seems that every year is worse than before. the solution the board has come up with -- increased parking fees and the volume of tickets handed out. in 2013, is this really the proper solution?

my proposed solution is to stop putting increased costs on citizens and visitors. instead of increasing revenue, reduce the amount of expenses to offset the deficit. the budget is $775 million, about $50 million coming from parking alone. please try to reduce your budget instead of placing the costs on a tax system. >> , charles rathbone of followed by dave siner. >> i speak on behalf of luxor cab company to raise a concern over the expense of the training class for a new taxi driver. without that training, new drivers cannot obtain a permit they need to drive a taxi. with every week that passes without the class, we come closer to the day when we are

sitting idle on the lot for lack of drivers. for that reason, we urge you to take action as soon as possible to restore the drivers. chairperson nolan: thank you. next speaker. >> dave snyder, followed by roxanne caldera. chairperson nolan: good afternoon, mr. snyder. >> good morning. dave steiger. by way of introduction but not by way of formal representing the organization, i and co- founder of united taxicab workers. i am running into a lot of problems. everything kind of broke down. i will get it to you.

also, i have sent out e-mail. i have come down here to give you a heads up that some of us are circulating a petition called an omnibus tax a driver security and passenger service -- taxi driver security and passenger service measure that would provide driver protection for what happened to mr. singe back in january when he got stabbed on state street. i have appeared here twice. director nolan and executive director ford indicated we should do something. we should get a report. that was never calendared. nothing was done. it is only a matter of time before someone gets killed. i think you might want to begin to regulate that, even if it does not come directly from tax. i will get you copies of this petition which are being signed by san francisco cab drivers to keep the regular dispatches in

the calves, but in addition to put in a centralized gps dispatch with real-time notification to all drivers and all 1500 cabs in case anything happens. this is a photocopy of a sample copy, because i am having trouble putting it together this morning. however, it is getting signatures. we have tried to give you a grace period to 2014, just like to introduce the hybrid, so you can calendar this, get public information, and go for it. i don't need to have on my conscience the death of another cab driver because you did not regulate proper security procedures. thank you very much. you will get copies as soon as i can get it together. chairperson nolan: next speaker is -- >> roxanne caldera. >> i am the associate director of the bright line of evedefense

project, which works on strategies to protect vulnerable communities. we have worked on a mandatory approach to local hiring on projects funded by public dollars, projects the city spent $27 billion on over the next several years. we worked a supervisor -- with supvervisor john avalos and the office of the work force development to help inform the proposed mandatory local hiring policy for construction, which was first heard at the board of supervisors land use committee last week. local workers and community advocates came out to support the legislation. over the span of several hours, only three speakers spoke in opposition, while nearly 40 spoke in support. i am here because we understand that mta director matt ford has

concerns with the legislation. we would like to hear directly from him as to what those concerns are. we have endeavored to negate the potential of increased costs of building, and also to preserve the ability to deal with the nuances of local hiring on segments of projects funded with federal dollars. we need to know what the director's concerns are. commissioners, the good faith approach to local hiring has failed. we have a copy of our recent report, the failure of good faith, which documents our city's failure to meet longstanding local hiring goals. san francisco local hiring today is at an all-time low, with only 20% of local residents working on city projects last year. this look support -- this looks to dip further into the teens this year. we ask you to support the mandatory local hiring legislation and to provide

direction to director for to work with us in passing this law. thank you. >> nathan door is the last person to turn in a speaker card on this matter. >> i am from cap cooperative. i am here to address an issue which has not been mentioned. until two or three months ago, there was a person assigned at the taxi division for clearances for drivers who wanted to drive a cab. in order to do that, the have to get clearance to go to school for a week. that person quit. as a result, the process has come to a dead end. there are now folks that want to be school administrators, 100 people waiting for clearance from the mta taxi division so they can go to the school and get a job. a job is waiting for them. i do not know what the hangup is. if you can do anything about it, that would be helpful to 100 people. chairperson nolan: thank you.

director heinicke: i would ask the acting director of work to address the last comment. >> i certainly will. >> the next item is, with public, now closed -- the next item is the consent calendar. these items are considered routine unless a member of the public or member of the board wishes to have an item severed or viewed separately. members of the public have requested that item 10.2b with regard to fairfax avenue be removed from the consent calendar. no other member of the public has asked that an item be severed. chairperson nolan: is there a motion? so moved. 10.2b, right? >> severed at the request of member of the public john eaton.

director heinicke: ok. >> good afternoon. i am a little bit new to this process, so forgive me if i made your day a little more complicated. i request your support on no parking on fairfax avenue. i am a business owner who has had a business on the street for over 10 years. it is a very quiet, nice place to work. my wife and i both work there. in the last week or so there has been an influx of rvs. there are people basically living there. that has resulted in increased garbage and human waste on the street. it is not cemetery. it is not a good working condition. -- it is not sanitary. about a week ago, several came back. i think that yesterday dpw was

out there picking up used motor oil, bags of trash, and things that would not normally come from anywhere but the rvs. chairperson nolan: just to be clear, you support what the staff has proposed? och all in favor, say aye. moving on to the next item. >> items 11 and 12th of concern -- and twelve both concern taxis. would you like to call them together? chairperson nolan: do so. >> item 11 -- a proposed ordinance to move the police section to division one of the transportation code and to authorize employees of texas services to enforce specified

parking regulation for taxicabs. item 12 is to streamline the investigation and hearing process for medallion applicants, increase public participation, clarify the process for settlement of complaints, and revise various provisions related to the driving requirement. one member of the public is interested in addressing you, charles rathbone. >> good afternoon again, directors. i am here on behalf of luxor cabs. item 11 -- this is a set of changes to the regulations. deputy director hiyashi solicited speed back from the industry on these, and we are pleased to see the final version includes changes requested by looks or cap, including every word and that prevents inadvertently making our taxi magic product illegal.

it is good. we think this is -- all of the changes in here are certainly, i think, are excellent changes. item 12, to my eye, is a good government measure. it shortens and simplifies the cumbersome permit process without sacrificing transparency. it also fixes awkward language regarding the driving requirement, which is kind of been a running joke in the cab industry for 30 years about "intent to drive." i am delighted to see clear, unambiguous language replacing that. our comment is to thank you very much for both of these measures. chairperson nolan: does anyone else care to address the board? this is a lot of work we have been hearing about for a long time, so thank you very much for pulling this altogether.

hopefully, most drivers will share mr. rathbone's enthusiasm for it. can we take these items together? is there a second? all in favor? so ordered. >> item 13, approving amendments to division 2 of the transportation code to remove parking exemptions for city vehicles or vehicles operated by city employees and less developed parking permit is displayed. -- unless a valid parking permit is displayed. >> i move approval. chairperson nolan: all in favor, say aye. >> item 14 is a discussion and vote on whether to hold a closed session and invoke attorney- client privilege is. you are going into closed session for labor negotiation and to discuss the performance evaluation of the executive

director. chairperson nolan: is there a motion to go into closed session? >> so moved. chairperson nolan: all those in favor? we will go into closedeither ma. to disclose or not disclose? >> any further discussion? so ordered. the meeting is adjourned.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor mirkarimi: very good. welcome. i would like to thank sf g t v for their fine work in covering this. madam clerk, please read the roll call. >> [roll call] supervisor mirkarimi: i expect commissioner mar to join us shortly. please read item #2. >> [reads item]

supervisor mirkarimi: any public comment that of public comment is closed. that is taken without objection. very good. item #3. >> recommend annual compensation for executive director for fiscal year 2010-2011. supervisor mirkarimi: mr. malkovich. >> this is a follow up your last meeting that took place in june. according to our code, the authority board must provide for the director. the original date or deadline for compensation was june 30. at the september meeting of the board, the board chose of every

year. while anticipating a complicated month in september, scheduling board and committee meetings, i figured that i would bring this to you now so that we would comply with the deadline. the last board meeting was the 15th. this seems like a timely moment to consider this. what i brought you, in the spirit of full disclosure, normally this is taken up in the same meeting where you evaluate my performance. but because there was a change requested by the board in the time line for making the determination, you already have done my performance evaluation on june 29.

at this time the committee gave a score of 4.5, which is between good and outstanding in our rankings system. at the time the committee chose to defer action compensation given that the budget was still going on. so, it really is not my intent, and i do not think it would be appropriate, to rehash the poor performance evaluation memo, but there were a number of things that happened this year that were of great significance. between the bus rapid transit project and the still parking project, this year we brought in over $200 million worth of federal funds directly out of the authorities advocacy. what we envision for this coming

year is a pretty heavy-duty schedule of activity. not just to continue dealing with projects that are of significance in the program, including the central subway and presidio parkway. the number of studies that we have, the next step in building the rams project, $100 million of federal money that we have secured, and also because i see more closely related to my own function as an authority a very significant workload in terms of advocacy both here and washington, d.c. there have been major see changes in both places. the main concern will be positioned in san francisco programs in the new house. we are blessed with the

representation that we have in congress, but i think that the key, and some and we have discussed with those representatives, is that we need to be prepared. we do well because we have a great partnership between the technical and staffing of the partnerships that we have. and the great advocates see that we have in the house and senate. but you need things that are well thought out and prepared ahead of time. we also need the ability to essentially market the program through the merit of the projects and other people in washington. including people in the administration and on the field. i anticipate that with the changing in congress, there is going to be an extra added workload of preparing and positioning the program in washington, d.c.. there will also be a significant amount of pressure to participate and have substantial roles in the development of the

surface transportation act, which is a first-year federal funding bill. in sacramento, of course, a new administration an opportunity to develop new opportunities for our program. i expect to be quite busy this year. in addition that, -- in addition to that, closer to home, transportation planning staff retention, this would seem unusual at a time of economic downturn, but the funds that have flooded the transportation field and which we are puzzling through for the next couple of years means that there is competition to attract the best and brightest engineers and

planners. so, we have to be careful to set up a really good staff mentoring and training retention plan. those of the kinds of things that i have to work on. i feel that this coming year is a year of significant challenge. looking back, officially the last time the board of compensation for me was may of 2008. so, we have a compensation charge that is several years old. to believe we do a survey every two years but i have not bothered because we are swamped with other things. but it is time to do that. regardless of what happens today or what the board chooses to do, we will be doing a survey for the next fiscal year. i am hoping that you will consider and will be happy with

whatever decision the to make. supervisor mirkarimi: comments or questions at the moment? supervisor mar: in may of 2008, what was the increase at the personnel at that time? >> [unintelligible] supervisor mar: from step four to step five? >> it was actually from step 32 step 5. -- step 3 to step 5. our project is the highest rank in the nation with more of an increase and i should point out

that there is no proposition increase, these all have merit increases. supervisor mirkarimi: as you correctly frame, the discussion that we had on this originated back in june. the normal cycle for this discussion is usually of a june to june basis. based on the fact that we decided to have a meeting inserted now, do you think that that should adjust our allocation in terms of steps? or does keeping to that level -- what i detected from you when you were making those comments was that this was new and different from what was done in the past to. based on everything we have achieved over this last year,

with regards to consideration, do you think that that could call for us to hold back in terms of making the adjustments? >> are you talking about the adjustments or the regional activity? supervisor mirkarimi: adjustments. >> commissioners, it is entirely your call. i certainly do not want to put to in a difficult position as far as policy, but this is the first time i have held policy commission as i m appointed by the board but an employee of the

authority. it is essentially, your pleasure. your call. it is not clear from the memo how we resolve the issue of adjustments in this case. the adjustment is to be for the fiscal year. i would not expect that he would make a retroactive statement adjustment. in fact, i would propose to the board if it is your pleasure and clarification, essentially the budget is done on a fiscal year. all that we would do would be amendments of salary for the first half of the year so that you do not feel that you need to make a retroactive adjustment. salary from january 1 through december 31, we would essentially divide that through the fiscal years.

that way when you make a decision, it is not retroactive. were you to make an adjustment today, it would be effective only january 1 and for the next six months. actually, for the next year, starting january 1. supervisor mirkarimi: understood. colleagues? supervisor mar: thank you. i am torn about this. on the one hand i think it makes sense. it is well deserved and i think that a step increase with no increase having taken place over the last 2.5 years seems reasonable. especially considering how it compares to other agencies in th