i tried to make this point earlier i guess i want to expe today or it will not change it's the same amount of work but it will be done pursuant to code rather than some by code and some by sequa. there won't be changes >> and i think the thirty day notice and those requirements are going to be done even though we're pretty much i'm combeen if i were to take 10 projects in those new zones i imagine 7, 8 or be involved in this

program. >> they - can i testify how many invests you did this year on this? >> with site mitigation cases like as you're a developer you have multiple projects all in states of projection. my oversight program we have 1.5 f t e cases with 50 cases. we are currently 65 cases we're working on. the large amount of time is in

the review of the reports. we're trying to meet more with the consultants and go over their plan of action. and we sit down and discuss what the options that they're looking at for the mitigation of the hazard. it maybe removal or an engineer cap. that's the number of cases we're currently dealing with >> i appreciate the department of health being in the mix of this i think you make information available and educate folks but, you know, in the real world in the development of san francisco i think that making it part of the code is smart because it will

increase the workload of the department of health. i think - this is why is when things have to go through t a sequa process there's a handful of people who pay attention to this. in terms of codes and building permits it's every neighbors in that property. people do check argue website. it becomes much more real on the ground in the way it the sequa process is a little bit more removed. so i don't believe that will be the case that your workload will retain the same that it is part of the code.

i mean, we'll see. like anything else once we get into it and make the forms available we'll see how it progresses and i hope - you know, so we don't bring a whole other level of hardship to developers and folks who are doing this and so things move smoothly >> thank you. is there any more comment on this item? do we open up to public comment? >> is there a public comment on this item? seeing none we need to motion to vote on >> i'm sorry are we voting to pass this on?

>> to the board of supervisors yes. >> just as we're missing two commissioners here two i want to acknowledge that so - commissioner walker and commissioner lee had to leave. so we can vote on this now or wait until full commission that's pretty much where i would be >> even though i didn't speak earlier i share some of the concerns about the issues that were raised. i don't want to back up of the people doing the work and without, you know, being up front about it i'm concerned with our ability to manage the

department of health - the depa of health ability to manage this thing >> so why don't we do this we'll continue this to the next meeting and obviously we can think about it and maybe if we had some more questions. i would have questions on the staffing and the direction there. i would have questions about the timeframe to do this in the field. if you knew you had projects that took a certain time to do. and where staff would stand if the project didn't have to comply with this ordinance had to while the project was under construction and what is the

situation there in the department of health had to come out to observe the site. with those kinds of questions to be addressed as a commissioner i want to be sure this passed and is implemented out in the field and we want to do it as efficiently to the stakeholder. i'm thinking more of the smaller projects and they have to deal with. and the smaller ones don't have consultant and it can be very stressful. these are the issues i want addressed before i vote. so i'd elect to continue this to

the next commission meeting. >> there's a motion and a second to continue to the next meeting. >> john from the city attorney's office. maybe i can clarify a issue. the charter requires only the building inspectors here you're not required to act on it. so if you continue the public hearing you're still in the hearing phase you could also end of the public hearing and still consider your vote as the commission if you want to vote at another hearing. so you do have i think the way you've presented it everything would be intent both the

hearing portion and your decision michael if you do that to the june hearing that i but it's not necessary >> i think it's right with the realization that we don't have to it could go to the board of supervisors it becomes political that we're not quite ready and we'll be heard there, too so that's clear. thank you >> there is a motion and a second to continue this item for the next he meeting. i'll do a role call vote. (calling roll). the motion carries unanimously.

we're onto the item number 9 report fro from the nomination committee >> so i'd like to excuse commissioner lynch. >> okay. yeah so. >> how many people we need four poem so nobody else can leave. >> all right. so first of all, chair lee commissioner lee regretted that he had to leave. first of all, the committee we wanted to thank all the people who applied. given the short notice we had a good number of applicants and we decided to invite in 5

applicants, 4 actually came to our meeting and put a face on their applications. i guess we do - the committee did have a couple of recommendations. we wanted to recommend for the commercial property seat or manage seat the advisory committee mr. henry who applied and actually came to our meeting and he's been the the - i believe he's been the committee before. for the architect seat in the board of examiners we wanted to bring forgot 2 candidates.

we felt they were both qualified but there's only one seat so with that i'd like to put forth the nomination of mr. sugarman. and we actually mentioned if it's - if this body is open to it - because there's going to be more terms expiring in august we want to hold the candidates in the pool because for whatever reason if the prior folks leave >> any questions? >> our commission didn't elect.

>> the committee could decide 80 not put forward nomination. >> commissioner nails. >> it's not going to be voted on today, it's our report it could be voted on the next meeting isn't that correct. >> that's don't we'll have it imprinted and - >> okay. thank you. >> thank you for that commissioner. >> any public comment on item number 9. okay seeing none. item number ten commissioners questions and matters increase the staff at that time the commissioner can bring up practices and procedures that

are of interest to the commission >> the only one i was wondering for the next meeting to give us an update on the milestones for the next fill board meeting >> actually, i had been approached by residents whether there was a new list out on our website somewhere. >> any comments? >> future meetings and agendas at this point they could set a special meeting or place the agenda on the next meeting. our next meeting date is

june 19th. >> so i would again like to propose a special meeting. maybe over the next few months and kind of authorize the secretary to pole the commissioners open their availability and to work with staff. i would like a special meeting of the and i basement board to take care of some of those lincoln issues and give plenty of public notice and allow the secretary to arrange for the room and stuff like that >> i'll be sure to follow up. >> is there any public comment on 10 a or b? seeing none. item 11 review the minutes of

march 20, 2013, >> i move. >> second. >> and there's a motion and a second to approve the meeting of march 2nd. any public comments. all in favor? okay. the minutes are approved. item 12 do we have a motion to adjourn? >> moved. >> all in favor? we're now adjourned it is

>> the city of san francisco sfgtv meeting of the san francisco transportation authority occurring may 6, 2013, will begin shortly. >> good morning, today is monday may 6, 2013, and welcome to the personnel committee of the san francisco transportation authority. my name is avalos, the chair of this committee and the authority. joined to my left by commissioner cohen, and david campos will be joined shortly by weiner and mar. >> and the clerk is cheng and we also broadcast today by sfgtv staff.

madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> there are no announce.s. >> if we could go to the second item. >> approve the minutes of the april 1, 2013, this is an action item. >> colleagues, any comments or questions on the minutes? >> we can go into public comment on item two on our minutes and seeing no member of the public to come forward we can close public comment. could we have a motion? >> motion, and second. >> item three. >> recommend adoption of the revised salary structure. >> according to authority's personnel manual the review of the structure is performed to compare the salaries against other agencies. the authorities board last had a revision six years ago in may of 2007, the authority, does not follow the step

compensation structure, instead we follow on the job performance, structure, and if there are enough budget, we would approve any adjustments there. and in 2012, we hired cough and associates in compensation studies. they took a look at 18 of the 19 authority job positions, the one position that was not reviewed is the executive director. it included comprehensive review of the job classifications, description and base compensation and benefits. >> i would like to welcome katie to walk you through the report which starts on page 11 of your packet. >> thank you. >> good morning, to the members of the committee, my name is katie keneco, i am the president of cough and associates and the manager for this study.

thank you. that we performed for san francisco county transportation authority. i want to talk to you about the process and the methodology for this study before we begin, a compensation study we work to determine three variables, one is which agencies we are going to be studying as part of this process. and we chose seven agencies that we felt best represented the labor market for the authority. we were looking at factors that just focus services and population serves and ties to the agency and budget, and geographic proximity is important with the bay area being a fairly distinct market. the seven that we chose are alamena transportation, san francisco municipal agency, conser authority, and lngs tras

pourtation, mtc, sanmatao, and the santa clara valley, transportation authority. we also needed to work with the agency to determine which classifications we would be serving in the market. and because of the variety of classifications and their unique, we usually survey two-thirds, and in this case we did 14 out of the 18. we did not look at the executive director. and we also worked with them to determine what types of benefits we would be surveying. we wanted to look at top monthly salary, of course and we also looked at the cost of benefits in each of these agencies towards retirement, the insurance as sufficient as medical, vision and life and employee assistance plan and any leaves that they offer. so this would be vacation, holiday, and any administrative leave which is sometimes

offered to those in select classifications. so, after these variables were determined, we went and collected the data. we studied the classifications, the current classifications descriptions of the authority and got to know the body of work being performed there and we went and looked specifically not just at titles but at the purpose for the positions, the types of dutis that they are performing, education and experience and any licensing and certifications and with all of that knowing that they are not the same we chose that we felt were 70 percent similar and we collected this data and presented it in three spread sheets, one that summarizes the top monthly salary and one that summarized the information and total compensation. what we found out of the 14 benchmarks is that 13 of the 14 classifications were below the market. there were three of them that were within five percent, we do

consider within five percent to be competitive. and then, out of the total compensation, all 14 of the classifications were below market. we found that in the benefits area there were a few benefits that were more significantly below market that the agency, the contribution to medical insurance, for instance, was significantly lower than the average of the comparative agencies and the contribution towards management leave. it was also lower than the other agencies. but in the end, the authority decided that... >> what we have here in san francisco? the ta is lower than the other agencies? >> correct. but we decided then that we were going to separate out, the benefit and base salary and just make any recommendation to the structure to be based on benefits only. so with that, we went ahead and

created a salary structure, ranges that are two and a half percent apart and 35 percent wide and we inserted all of the classifications system into the system. which is what is being presented to you today. i think that structure is on page 79. in your packet. so, we are showing you here is what the current maximum monthly salary is, what the market placement, and the market median is what we use to make the recommendation and we feel that this best represents the labor market that it is not undually influenced by the very, very high and low salaries like the average would be. so this gives you information for each of the classifications. and there are four benchmarks, or four classifications that were not bench marked. we felt like we had enough market data to internally align them, based on common market

differentials that we will see in the class series. for instance, the planners, the planner and the principle planner were not surveyed but we got the information on the senior planner and we could apply differentials between, the senior planner to make a recommendation for the principal and the planner. any questions on the information or? ... >> any comments or questions? >> so just to go over this chart on page 79, the left side is what is the current maximum monthly salary within the transportation authority for these positions? >> exactly. >> the next column is the median for the market. and all of these agencies that you mentioned which in most cases is higher, except for the first, right? >> right. >> and the proposed minimum salary is actually the minimum so it is lower than what we see with the current maximum.

>> yes that is the minimum of the range that we created. >> then for the max um is what is correct and then you have the next column is the difference between the current maximum and... >> the proposed maximum and the current, yes. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> okay. no other questions or comments from the committee, we can continue with mr. kevin torer. >> thank you for your presentation and your work on this. >> in terms of fiscal impact, the revised salary structure does not have an immediate budget impact. because they are granted for performance not for inflation or cost of living adjustments. we are seeking a recommendation to adopt the revised structure on page 79 and we are more than happy to answer any of your questions. >> okay, thank you. let's go into public comment. any member of the public who would like to comment on this item please come forward?

>> and seeing none, we will close public comment. >> okay, colleagues this item is lie before us. i actually appreciate the work of the group that you have provided to us in terms of a new structure and that would be supportive of that in light of that we have had any adjustments since 2007, and it seems that it is time and we are seeing numbers that are well below what other agencies in the surrounding market provide in terms of salaries. so i would be supportive of that. commissioner campos? >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a quick question, and i too support the proposal. what is the over all financial impact on the authority? >> for fiscal year, 13, 14, we have not anticipated any fiscal impact. as i mention it is performance based. we typically don't see any adjustments more than 5 percent.

okay >> of the salaries, right now the salaris for 13, 14 budget which the finance committee will see this month is approximately $5 million and that represents 2.2 percent of our budget. and it is hard to say how much it would actually be right now. and until we have the reviews and evaluations, great. thank you and i appreciate the work. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner cohen? >> thank you very much. i think that this is just a clarifying question. you see, you don't have an idea how it will impact the budget for this year and which means that i would assume that you don't know how it will be for the future years to come, correct? and it is performance base? >> yes. >> and am i making an assumption that you have a set of criteria that you used to determine whether an employee is meeting their performance? >> right. there is a system for our evaluations and it is on a scale from one to five, based

on how well they do. that is where the assessments for their own job performance salary increases would come from. >> you said that this is just salary based and it is also does not factor into the health benefits or anything like that? >> no, we are just bringing a recommendation for just increasing the salary range up and instead of adjusting any of the benefits. we are leaving the benefits alone, we feel like that is not just the right climate right now to take a look and ask for and increase of the benefits especially what is going on with the other agencies right now. >> great, that is going to be my next question, if there were any plans to pay or to review benefits in the future? contributions, and employee contributions? >> right now, we are going for a pension reform, and we would like to wait until that is settled down before we take a look at the benefits. health premiums, of course, have been increasing over the past years. and we just like to wait and

see what the new rates will become before we bring anything before you. i would rather have more information, that way when i come back before the board i can really recommend a solid number. you also will see just recommendations to the increase in benefits in our annual budget. right now, for fringe benefits, we are slightly increasing it less than 15 percent, just to accommodate for that range. but, that is not very much compared to our total budgets. again that is just 2.2 percent in totals just no salaries. >> one more final question. do you have an idea of the time line of that of which you will be bringing the benefits? >> if there is, if it increased in that, it narrows us to bring it forward it would not be until later on this calendar, or later on during the year, maybe around september or october. we are on a calendar basis for