quite a few incidents, people getting hit by cars, bikes, etc., this would separate the bad bikers from the good bikers. i did not know that i only had two minutes, that is all i had to say. >> thomas coleman, leonard lynch, micro roberta. >> good afternoon, mr. coleman. >> have been made a. i'd like to speak to the notice today that we received in regards to the changing contractor permit terms. it is brief, so i will read the first part. they are not intended for long- term, on the street parking. my concern is that i would need

to have defined for me what long term means. we have a lot of contractors with multiple permits. coming to and from their place of business over the course of a day, they could be several hours and one job location, or back at their place, take care of all of the paperwork. coming and going is an integral part of the business. if the legislation seeks to clarify the business of keeping your vehicle at 1,500 feet, or three blocks, instead impacting the workday, it becomes a very expensive issue for all the people in my association. everything in construction is very competitive.

every minute on a generally been project is more than $1.50. if you have these electricians working and walking to and from, as opposed to working, it becomes very efficient. i would like to take that into consideration. >> leonard lynch. followed by micro mark orszag. >> my name is leonard lynch. in a third-generation san franciscan. our cost per minute is $1.80 per minute. over 15 feet it becomes an expensive proposition.

going back and forth, it could take half an hour. this is half of the actual working day. it comes off the top of the overhead. an expensive proposition. if this is just another burden that we will have to bear going through, we will have to reconsider this situation. we must have had 300 trucks with permits. to tack an additional fee on top of that, you have to go to in from work as a service company, in and out all day with a parking ticket for parking in front of their own business? it is almost better to take the ticket rather than go three

blocks and what, or whatever. please reconsider this amendment that you are trying to propose. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. what's that afternoon, mr. gruber. we went to the rules committee of the board of supervisors and ask them to reject the reappointment on the board. it looks like standing up to the opposition over the working life. especially since we knew that this would not be successful.

we knew we had to send a message about not only some of the policy initiatives that have been champion here, but the direction of the agency itself. i am specifically referring to the current proposal, which the director has inspired, of leasing medallions to cab companies, one-third of all medallions, to be specific. this will rob 500 drivers of their futures, and it will benefit companies that, frankly, do not deserve it. many of these companies have thwarted their drivers' ability to obtain workers' compensation.

they regularly violate the terms of around contracts, of which they write. and they collect billions of dollars for year in under the table payments in protection money that drivers pay. these companies do not deserve it. >> the afternoon. four items. first, i would ask of the board could inquire after the status of the new shelter the installations, including the next meeting. signs in the shelters have been constructed. the second item gets into transitions for his service. an independent voice on this board, and a friend, his service

will be missed. greg petersen retired last night, after 22 years of service for. i was on during his last run. he was a wonderful guy. always tentative in being well- liked and i wanted to recognize his retirement. on a sadder note, a more permanent retirement, frank schisler, passing away last week, rick after retiring at age 95, he had lived 35 years, breaking a record for a retiree manager. in terms of time. he retract -- retired as the

superintendent in 1936. he helped to run a railway in the 1960's and 1970's and was quite a force to be reckoned with a wanted to recognize those transitions. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> looks familiar. >> good afternoon, directors. welcome back to work. happy back to work month. i want to briefly invite you to join us again. it has been helpful to be out on the streets with you all. thank you. coalition efforts, along with

your support and partnerships, it is of great interest to us. the rainy weather, which was great, with focusing more on the adult riders, these have been going out to thousands of folks , with increasing numbers of people biking and knowing the rules of the road, including pedestrians having the right of way, use your lights at night, etc.. the top-10 safety tips. we are getting these out in 10,000 bags in bike to work day. going out to 30,000 people electronically in the next few weeks. in the first three months of the year we have heard the first

nine adult bike safety glasses, these people are taking an four hour class on bike safety. we have also been working with you all to educate taxi drivers in muni operators on how to share the road safely. thank you for your help on that. i wanted to let you know that, adding that up, we have directly educated 1600 people. taxi drivers, many operators, and folks in the operators. they have been stepping up in a way that is unprecedented in my 15 years. we have a great partnership with the mta and the police department on enforcing, educating, making sure that

folks know. thank you so much. happy back to work with. thank you for all your work. >> moving forward, directors, you have had a request for two items to be severed on your list. 10.3 and 10.4, leaving 10.1 and 10.2. motion to approve? >> second. >> those in favor? aye. i would also like to announce that we have rearranged the agenda, slightly, to take no. 12, which should be cpc issue. some of those folks are here for that issue in particular. >> item 10.3. authorizing the chief of the bureau of claims investigation and administration of the city

attorney's office to settle and litigating claims against the sf mta for an amount not to exceed $25,000. >> in my opinion, this power should not be delegated. when you review the claims not exceeding $25,000, it gives the board the opportunity to review circumstances, ask questions, clarify procedures, and seek to avoid or reduce those circumstances that lead to these incidents. i think it would diminish your ability to do so. i do not think that this type of action takes up a lot of time or burdens the parties in any meaningful way. i would encourage you to not delegate this authority. >> is there a motion on the issue? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> discussion? those in favor? >> aye.

>> 10.4? >> supporting the issuance of revenue bonds to serve as assurance funding in the event of any delay or other shortfall in central subway, face to of the third street light rail project funds. >> good afternoon. >> commissioners, my name is bob with save muni. we are very much opposed to this. this is a desperation measure. you are $61 million short because the governor of california had the good sense to veto non connectivity bonds for the central subway and high- speed rail. as you know, high-speed rail is a very, very chancy proposition,

which may or may not go forward. therefore, what you seem to be doing is obligating the city to have least $61 million in revenue bonds by this measure. and since it is an open-ended measure, ladies and gentleman, it does a very clearly that are up -- all the shortfalls are attributable to the central subway. you might be attributing the city to a lot more than that. management won a one says the you do not finance short-term cash flow with long-term bonds. seo's in the private sector get fired for that. this is a terrible idea, even if you happen to favor the central subway, which i do not. i urge you not to authorize this. i know that the board of supervisors has to approve it,

but it is your responsibility to look carefully at the whole issue and see whether this is worthwhile. thank you. >> next speaker? >> david [unintelligible] . >> good morning. we are a petitioner in the abington high speed rail authority case, and i am personally the coordinator of this litigation, as well as assisting in the litigation. based on extensive involvement with high-speed rail legal issues, i would like to inform you that the chances of the authority getting funded in passing judicial muster in terms of claims on bond funds, there

is little likelihood that high- speed rail will get the money it is requesting right now. i have read each of your bios, which are listed on the website. i have been extremely impressed at how transit support of this board is. you may very well be the most transit supportive board i have seen in 30 years. given that, i am suggesting to you that there is no feasible source out there for funding these proposed revenue bonds. so that what is called a cash flow shortage is a cash shortage. with respect to your responsibility to keep muni afloat financially, i strongly urge you to not assume that these funds are forthcoming and

that there is a reasonable basis upon which to ask supervisors to issue revenue bonds. thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> how long. >> good afternoon, mr. long. >> good afternoon. we would like to ask you to delay approval of the revenue bond until there is a bond statement clarifying exactly the intent of this bond, the maximum amount of this bond, the bonded indebtedness, and the impact it will have on other muni services. in april 2012, april 8 -- six. the california transportation commission sent a letter to the sf mta and other transit agencies saying "this program has not been supported because

the project appears unrelated to the high-speed rail project or a comprehensive statewide rail plan. it later says that clearly the current program of projects remains unacceptable to the administration and will not be funded. this was very clear. the governor vetoed the initial $27 million previously. this letter indicates that there will be no approval of prop. 108 funds for the entire year. contrary to the language of the resolution, this is not assurance funding. it is funding that is being requested. we need very clear language that this is an attempt to be funded through revenue bonds with debt. as you know, the subway proposed does not go to the trans bay terminal. in fact, it believes the current

loop to the terminal and market street corridor. the subway reports to the fta and their own final eir states that 76,000 bus hours will be reduced on the corridor. >> jerry coffin, barbara schell. >> mr. chairman, members of the commission, i am a member of the save muni fund. thank you for taking the item off of the consent calendar. i will read a few questions that i think deserve detailed answers before any votes are taken. i have copies of a like to give your staff said they each have a copy. the first question, why is a central subway revenue bond issue needed? we do not think that the

presentation is accurate. what is the anticipated amount of sail, or sales? which categories of muni revenue will be tapped to cover the cost of servicing the bonds? what is the assumed annual costs of servicing and retiring the resulting deaths? -- debts? it comes right out the top, which is already under severe pressure. please give an explanation of the current concerns of the central subway project and the ability to successfully manage it that jeopardizing the remainder of the operation. we have concerns today. number eight, skipping a couple, according to the recent reports the annual cost of 2013 would run to $8 million per year in

today's dollars. more in 20 $30. it appears, depending on the amount it costs, retirement could have doubled the amount. is the mta concerned about the long term financial effect on the central subway? and in deciding to issue revenue bonds, did the mta consider the fact that cal train, was extended, many of whom elected to stay on the train is thereby reduced the objective central subway up to as much as 30%. >> michele, robinson, richard.

>> ok. let's thank you very much. my name is part michelle. i was requested to appear at today's meeting, as well as another meeting that follows this one. i am strongly supportive of the concept of a central subway. i doubt there is any investment we can make that will bring us as much return in the long run as the central subway. i am sure you are all aware of how superior the service is on the east-west subway. that is the subway that includes the m, k, l, n lines. but we have no comparable service north-south.

now the central subway to a large degree has been presented as serving china town. it is important to recognize, i believe, that once we get a bridge across the downtown portion of the city, which is a major source of conguestion that we can go on and serve the northwest quadrant of the city. now it is intended that this service would exist, in other words would tie together the southeastern portion of the city, including the large new developments in mission bay.

it will bridge the downtown portion of the city with three major stations -- >> union and china town. >> yes. >> thank you, sir. appreciate it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> andrew robertson, richard hanson. >> good afternoon. i am andy robertson here in support of issuance of the bond. we see the increase in public

transit good. by our count, 5,000 by the last census. we hope it will mitigate issues we see on third street. we see it as a welcome invitation and are excited by the name. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. commissioners and director, i think that it is perhaps time to consider whether we will have the money to run the central subway. new details say it will cost $15.1 million per year. you are considering revenue bonds. there is debt service. i believe we can end up with a perfect central subway but a

broken muni. i would like you to think of it in those terms. can we afford to operate the central subway without hurting the rest of the system. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i am the senior field representative from local union number 34. yesterday we sent our first members to work on a central subway. then i get the shock of my life that maybe this job is in danger. got a good job last month when pier 32 was cancelled. we would really like to see this project go through for the jobs and the city needs its transit. it is definitely important. i would urge a yes vote on

this. >> karen flood. steve taber. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. my name is karen flood. i am the interim director and i am here to speak in the measure of the contingency fund. we have been in support of the subway since 1996 the merchant association and since 2009 our motto has been no pain, no gain. we have certainly felt the pain but we feel the long-term gain. we realize that it is an investment in the future, future of transit and the future of the district. i understand it is a continuation of the third street light rail project which will connect to the southeast corridor and mission bay, south of market, which i know is

developing rapidly. we want to be connected to that. later if there is funding on to north beach and fisherman's wharf. we see a huge investment in our transit and in the city. we urge you to support the fund today. >> i am the chairman of the central subway task force. we strongly support the subway and extension to the north to serve the northeast part of the city. the northeast part of san francisco is the densest in the country not serve bide rail rapid transit. san francisco is the slowest of any of the systems.

the northeast has the slowest in san francisco and the stockton and third street corridors have the slowest transit in the northeast, 3.5 miles per hour. we desperately need rapid transit and a comprehensive system for the city and it is an essential element of that. we are just about there. we need to get the federal funding. we need to be able to show the feds that we have the ability to do this project. we are just about there. we urge that you support this additional commitment so that we can move the project forward, get it done and get it extended. >> good afternoon. san francisco chamber of commerce and the alliance for commerce and the alliance for jobs, partnership of business