And that ultimately was, in 1999, as the result of a Charter Amendment, proposition e, became its own independent, what we call the sfmta. And certain powers and authorities that the board of supervisors had relative to Budgetary Authority when i first became a member of the board in 2001, the board of supervisors would literally approve each and every yellow, red, white, blue curb, and i dont know if you remember, but the land use and Transportation Committee used to have pages of red zone 25 feet west of, you know, stockton and what have you. And in 2007, there was a wyatt spread sense of creating the sfmta had not realized all of its promise. And we were at a juncture, and the juncture was should the board of superviso board of supervisors reinsert itself as it existed prior to 1999, or should it hand virtually all legislative authority over to the mta, and i became the author in 2007 of proposition a, which folks in the taxi Community Still dont believe i did not realize would negate proposition k, but that was an unintended impact of that. Although most of that got rolled into the new transportation code. Long story short, at supervisor safai stated, the idea was to get the politicians out of the Transportation Business and to give that relatively insulated body the ability to make tough decisions that politicians either dont want to make or get in trouble for. The problem is as supervisor safai stated, and this is not a criticism of any particular mayor, is that the mta ended up being an agency without checks and balances and largely thinks it is an entirely executive branch function. And so therefore, while mr. Mcguire and his colleagues come and tell us whats going on, if we dont like it or our constituents dont like it, we dont really have any legislative ability because i put that with my colleagues in 2007 before the voters and the voters adopted, and it ithas h many successes. But hence what is before us today. Is that. Supervisor safai yes, thank you. So i would just say we can mtae Public Comment on this item, but i would just say, we have heard and we need to have some additional conversations with those in the taxi industry, so were going to continue this item for one week to have those conversations, but right now, well just go ahead and open it up for Public Comment on this very important issue. Please come forward. Hi. My name is Richard Rothman and im a resident of district one. And i have the same frustrations with mta. You know, if they say no to a traffic sign or crosswalk, thats it. Theres no hearing or public appeal. Those people, you know, they dont have to answer phone calls. They can take their time. I think there needs to be checks and balances. Maybe if its going to be postponed, maybe theres a Legislature Administrative responsibilities that could be changed. Two that i would like to see is have a planner and engineer assigned to each area of the city so we would know who to talk to, instead of calling 311 and maybe youll get an answer. But if somebodys actually specifically responsible for that area, then you know if they cant do it then they would assign it to somebody else. And the other is if they say no to a stop sign or crosswalk or some minor improvements, maybe there needs to be an appeal process like the board of permit appeals where there could be a hearing instead of just saying no. Let them come explain why they say no and let the public come and say why we need these changes. If we need a Charter Amendment, ill be 100 behind it, but maybe some of these changes can be made without having the Charter Amendment. But i feel something definitely needs to be done because theres really no checks and balances in the neighborhood. Thank you. Supervisor safai thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, chair safai and supervisors. My name is brian weedenmeyer, and im the chairman of the San Francisco bicycle coalition. Im not here this afternoon to defend the sfmta. I think the record shows frequently weve been among its harshest critics, in asking them to do more, to be more responsive, to do more outreach in our neighborhoods, and to make the streets safer for all users. Id like to present the letter that we presented on above of our 10,000 members and on San Francisco of walk sf, and from a separate letter that was sent to you from the San Francisco chamber of commerce urging you to continue the consideration of this Charter Amendment. The short version and consolidated version of that is we do not deny there are problems within the sfmta that needs to be fixed. This is not the solution. This charter brings a sledgehammer to a problem where a scalpel is needed. I cannot emergency a scenario in which we create two city departments that does not further bloat our citys budget and create more waste and inefficiency. I think the changes that we need are doable within our current framework of one agency, and i would urge you to reconsider in Charter Amendment. Thank you so much. Supervisor safai thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, sbrieupervi. Im charles rathbart. Im a long time participator in the taxi industry, and thank you for giving us the chance to weigh in on this whility ae still incubating. My concern is i would urge you to make sure in advance, if it gets power over the taxi cabs, that it has the full legal authorities that are needed to carrie out its duties. In particular, three items. One is the illegal authority to conduct department of justice fingerprint based background checks. Second is to make sure that the agency or the new department has the Proper Authority to issue high dollar amount citations. The mta currently issues 5,000 citations for illegal operation of a taxi cab. My recollection is it was quite an undertaking to get that authority. It was not automatically something that the mta had. Lastly, the citys paraTransit System depends on prop k sales tax dollars and those go through my understanding is they go through the mta and ultimately through the paratransit broker. If the new department is going to have the authority over taxis, please ensure that nothing happens to interfere with that flow of funds. Thank you. Supervisor safai thank you. Next speaker. My name is herbert winer. Im an entailed stakeholder of mta. For me, mta stands for more train wrecks ahead. Its an agency thats too big to succeed. Right now, i cant imagine the burden thats placed on ed reiskin for monitoring traffic and muni. Its an overload. They dont exercise powers. They dont excite bicyclists for riding on the sidewalk, which is plainy illegal. And right now, the most significant groups, the bicycle groups, the citizen coalition, and vision zero. Were up against nonprofit corporations that have deep pockets supporting tlem. How can we possibly make our voices heard . The el taraval line was a disaster. People who are disabled and seniors have to walk long distances to the bus stop. This is insane and its cruel. Insanity is perhaps forgivable. Cruelty is not. So supervisors can act on behalf of their constituents in their districts, they should put this on the ballot. Basically, i disagree with the bicycle coalition. The surgical precision thats needed is not a hammer strike. Right now, the model thats needed for the mta is if youre not under the bus, youre under the wheels. Thank you. Supervisor safai next speaker. Thank you, chair safai, board members. My name is mark gruber. Im a board member of the San FranciscoTaxi Workers Alliance which has not yet come to discuss this measure, so im speaking of my own impressions, speaking for myself. While the details of this measure need to be worked out, and i have a number of questions, and im sure the board will have a number of questions, i do want to express personal support for the concept of checks and balances in this legislation. If the board of supervisors had retained Regulatory Authority over taxis back in 2009, the disaster that is the medallion Sales Program might never have happened. The board ceded its authority over taxis to the mta based on false assurances from mayor newsom. Supervisor peskin knows this story very well. Within three months of the mtas take over of taxi regulation, the mayor went back on its word. This has ruined dozens of drivers lives. Dozens have defaulted on their loans and many more are in prospect. Likewise, if the board had kept ultimate authority over transportation, the disastrous impact of uber and lyft on taxi drivers, the taxi city and the streets of San Francisco might well have been avoided or at least greatly diminished. I acknowledge efforts within the mta to mitigate the damage done by tncs, and that program, but its been too little, too late, and what all this goes to show is too much power concentrated in too few hands leads to no good, so id like to see this go forward, and im eager to see good afternoon, supervisors. I represent medallion holders, and you have to realize the taxi industry as far as the mta is concerned is the ugly step child. The only thing they wanted us for was to finance buses, which they did by selling between 500 and 750 medallions. And most of the medallion holders that bought medallions are now bankrupt. Theyre struggling either to buy food or to pay for the medallions. So far, there are 70 defaults on these medallions, and the mta is currently being sued by medallion holders, and it is also being sued by the San Francisco federal whatever, savings, trust, federal board who largely financed these. And now, could itself go bankrupt because this represents half its policy. The other side to the coin is because of politics, that we had a particular mayor at a particular time who decided he did not want any legislation against tncs. He has bankrupted the industry. Thank you. Karl winkman. Mta has power over various entities, including taxi. Your amendment introduces checks and balances. A few months ago, mta ignored your unanimous resolution urging them not to assess a large renewal fee on 1100 typically elderly people and distraught medallion holders. They never reinvested in taxi. Not even a single radio add. Instead it used profits for muni needs, including employee compensation. 45,000 uber and lyft drivers flood our streets playing dodge ball. San francisco countered the tnc numbers by enforcing state vehicle laws on our city streets. For example 100 of tncs violate vehicle code 260 prima facie by not having a license. [ inaudible ] tncs lose billions annually and the practices violate antitrust law. Notably they have yet to mandate a single app for the 1800 licensed taxis, even though that will better serve constituents in your out lying districts. I look forward to working with you to upgrade the current structure, and thank you for assigning taxi to the new department. Supervisor safai next speaker. Hi, supervisors. My name is richard magu. I went to uc berkeley, got a bachelors degree in european history. I went to sf state and got a masters degree in history, and i was in a Doctorate Program at Santa Barbara that i didnt complete. One of my specialties i learned is that the progressive republicans around the turn of the 20th century decided that it would be a good idea to take politics out of the hands of the people and assign it to large commissions appointed by all knowing scientific administrators who would be able to run the government efficiently without the influence of corrupt politics. Now that was in 1900, circa, and its been pointed out many, many, many times in fact even originally at the time, that simply failed. These large organizations, these appointed commissions, boards, what have you, eventually become political. Anybody with a bachelors degree that has taken at least two history courses should have known this when they allowed the creation of the mta. The mta has now destroyed our lives, destroyed well, not just the mta, but the cpuc, but the mtas own mission and comission have led to the present situation. I this is, like, i think the mta are simply waiting to see what happens. Theyre not for us, theyre not against us. They just want to see how this all pans out with uber and lyft and figure out how to make money from it. How to get taxes, how to charge them 5 cents perride and that goes into the city coffers. Its just like the horse and buggy. The old business supervisor safai thank you, sir. I appreciate it, but your time has run out. Thank you. Thank you for your time. In 1999, voters approved prop e. This stated, for too many years, San Franciscos Municipal Railway has been the Public Service its citizens most love to haste. What should be the nations best Transit System is instead known for late trains and buses, long delays in the tunnel, frequent accidents, accidents and dismal customer service. In 1999, there were expectations by the voters that mta would bring improvements. Theyve had almost two decades to do that, but has that happen . Now is the time for voters to weigh on whether the mta experiment has been a success or not. I would strongly urge the board to respect the voices of the voters and place this charter on the june ballot. Let the mta and others make their case in the voter handbook, not in the board chamber. Thank you. Supervisor safai thank you. Any other members of the public wish to comment on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. So as i said, we intend to, and a lot of it was represented today. We intend, both supervisor peskin and i, to have some further conversations with those in the taxi industry at their request. I think we need to give that a little bit more time, so i would like to entertain a motion to continue this item to the next meeting. Supervisor yee before we do that supervisor safai oh, supervisor yee. I didnt see you. I apologize. Supervisor yee yeah, yeah. No problem. First of all, i want to thank the authors of this. Im going to say that this issue of a check and balance is important to to me. I put something on the try to do something in 2016, i believe, making a Charter Amendment to maybe get to that check and balance with different mechanism which is to have the board be able to appoint commissioners on the mta and at the time, even with no really campaign to move it forward, it almost passed, and i think, you know, if we had added something, it would probably have gotten through the hurdle. So im looking at this a little more carefully in terms of how the checks and balances would be than to have just the board have the ability to appoint commissioners on there. Supervisor safai thank you, supervisor. Appreciate that, and we did talk about that, and as part of our process in rolling this out with groups that you had put that forward and in some ways, in that same spirit, were trying to create a mechanism with which we would have more authority and there would be some more checks on the overall system, so we really appreciate that. So id like can we entertain a motion to continue this item to the next meeting on january 24th . Supervisor yee ill make that motion. Supervisor safai so moved, without objection, it is ordered. Please call the next item. Clerk item number 8 is a Charter Amendment for the june 5, 2018 election to provide that whenever the projected budget deficit exceeds 200 dplr million, the city is not required to increase funds for certain museums, funds or cultural centers, provide these funds remain unspent and maintain the commitment to maintain and fund a symphony orchestra. And we a and we are joined by supervisor tang who is the primary author of this Charter Amendment, so ill hand it over to supervisor tang. Supervisor tang thank you very much. So back in july, supervisor peskin and i had introduced this, and this Charter Amendment mainly does two things, and ill speak to the third thing in a bit. But one it provides a mechanism for us as a city to pause the growth of set asides. Not cut, not eliminate, but pause the growth of set asides during an economic downturn when the citys projected deficit exceeds 200 million at the joint report. Second it requires that unspent baseline and set aside fund be returned to the general fund starting in fiscal year 2018 and 2019, and i will introduce an amendment to that piece, as well. So based on a hearing and a report that we had asked the Controllers Office to put together, and i want to thank the controllers staff for that, San Francisco, we currently have 19 set asides. That is the most out of any other jurisdiction in the entire nation. Just by comparison, los angeles has two adopted set asides. San diego has one, and san jose has none, and i believe this actually puts San Francisco in a position where the city may not be able to respond to the needs of priorities in the future. And of course, i think set asides sound really good when taken on an individual basis. Of course when you see a library set aside on its own, you see a childrens baseline on its own, a dignity fund on its own, all of it, of course is something we would all want to support. But when taken as a whole and as new ones continue to be added, i do think this poses a huge budget balancing problem for us in the future. I think its certainly very convenient for us to punt to the future and ignore problems that we cant see, but i think thats you know, to me, thats not okay. And hence i have this measure before us today. Also, according to the report from the Controllers Office, a voteradopted baseline spending in our city has trael increased from about 200 million from fiscal year 19941995 to 1. 2 billion in the current fiscal year budget and a projected 1. 6 billion in fiscal year 202122. So the thatportion thats mand