tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 5, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm PST
options on the table. >> you know, an express lane is not going to solve the issues today. we do need to find ways to fund desirable and attractive alternatives to driving, faster public transit from the neighborhoods. one of the things i hope you look at in the study is to study the possible alternatives that an express lane could help fund. i do think that it is also important to see if there are ways to make sure those attractive alternatives come into place at the same time as the hov express lane. that is consultant because the revenue is not there yet. it is anticipated. if there was a way to offer those immediately and collect the revenue in the future. and i see the director nodding
her head. that would be ideal that is similar to the london mobility congestion plan. when the pricing went into place they had invested in public transit options. that is for people who did not want to pay the fee there was an option on day one available to them. in the plan study i was shown yesterday, it is not a tippuous express -- continuous expression lane going north until the end where there is congestion on the 280. the hov lane is focused on southbound in the p.m. hours. you know, i know thi this is thn the study place. i would like to see the outcomes. yesterday it asked about the hov
lane. that would have a tremendous negative impact on the 101 for the traffic coming south of san francisco and an that is why it is not stud died. i don't know if that is the concern you expressed and that is why we are not moving forward with that. i very many interested in the outcomes. we want to see less vehicles coming downtown and more people using alternatives. i am struck by a fact the cars are san francisco residents, not necessarily from south bay as we think. there is a huge impact in the district i represent from the vehicles on the road for both air quality and pedestrian safety and others in the south market area. thank you.
>> chair peskin: back to you commissioner. well, do you want to respond. >> no that covers it well. >> i would like to add on to what the commissioners said. the biggest reservation i have is i see in the next two items this is a $6 million potential request. part of this request is taking away from street surfacing programs. in the city reallocating funds. that is a significant amount of money to do a study of this purpose. it doesn't seem to be holistic enough. we have the request on the hairball. we have the desire to look at traffic. supervisor kim brings up caltrans. mission bay was designed to connect with caltrans. let allow more cars on a faster
pace and not focus on those foings into the area where growth is. the focus should be getting out of the cars into the train that has invested a lot of money. it doesn't seem to me to be a holistic enough study. the price tag is exorbitant. it is taking away from the resurfacing the street. it doesn't make sense and i ride that every day. although there is a gap that comes closer to king street and mission bay, there are two lanes that come into san francisco on the weekends that is backed up. that is on 280 on the northbound then to 4 then back to three. if you remove one bay it would
back up the traffic into superintendent row nan's district and to my district. you would create a bottleneck now. you are going to create a significant bottleneck. i agree with superintendent kim. the real traffic is 101. i know you are saying that will create more traffic? has a study been done? $6 million seems exorbitant. that was one of my esservation -- reservations on the toll increase before this was designed for a purpose of things. we are trying to get to a certain number. i would rather focus on executive traffic. >> that was important with each
point, commissioner. in terms of the transit aspect all of us are working hard to improve caltrain. the electrification will come along. today it is full. people cannot get on the train. we have folks that wish to take transit but there is no pacific. this body soon will move that forward. that is a regional priority we have established a partnership with san mateo to bring downtown extension into transbay. when we provide that excellent transition we can tack well 101. we have not looked at taking off the lane. we believe that would reverberate throughout the system if we took off the lane
today. it would be west of 101. caltrans has given us the signal that was a nonstartter. in the northbound we are talking about piping to shoulder to make an prelane. to get to the front of the lane to get to king street. ideally we would have a bus lane connecting to the third street bus trains to take buses to transbay. that is the transit connection that underlines this project. on day one mtv has given san mateo funding for the bus study. it including consideration of additional buses as well to take
advantage of 101, exiting to the exceptiontention and new lane from the shoulder, a new tried lane created from the shoulder. that would cause a design exception to not standard. that is the potential solution we are looking at. regarding longer range we have to continue with the high-speed rail and get trains into transbay, allow buses to go from third street red lines. by looking at these together. i think we might want to rethink. how are we managing together with san mateo and and take clara. -- santa clara. if the decision is made to
pursue express rains and if there are met revenues that will be important. on a holistic basis with our partners. >> chair peskin: in so far as commissioner cohen has not spoken. >> thank you for recognizing me. i put my name on the list because i wanted to just ask a couple questions to make sure the executive director had an opportunity to get in on this conversation. it is an important discussion to have. the supervise sour safai eraises important points. this will be a enormous number of new san francisco residents this is southeast. you mentioned the warrior stadium. you think about peer 70 and the
illinois shipyard is 12,000 housing units. there is an incredible amount of congestion flooding into the city on the southeastern ordinary southwestern corridor. it is important that westin to have these conversations. i want to also thankfully for elaborating and acknowledge we are also doing a part of the congestion management study inside district 10. this works in concert with the other studies that have been conducted and future studies to come. this is not only about 101 but also 280. as we also think about does it remain? do we tear it own?
how does that connect with high-speed rail? there are a lot of different large moving parts that are part of this conversation. i want to give toys to. >> commissioner sheehy. >> one last point. when i look at trying to machine age traffic coming into san francisco. you pay from the north and you pay from the east. if we are looking at doing this we should look at ways people have to pay to come in from the south. i see the hov lanes as a bod date and $6 million. the traffic congestion on the southeast side of town are going to explode.
these aren't really solution. the solution to my mind is to make the southern routes to the city mirror the north and isocrats with a cost. thathat is my comments. >> chair peskin: commissioner kim. >> i know both commissioner cohen and i are looking at congestion pricing and it is great to hear from commissioner sheehy on this as well. it is important to put this problem into perspective. i appreciate the congestion management program. >> reporter: we got. it is astounding that we have added 50,000 new residents and 100,000 new jocks. the scale is hard to put into context. think about new york city with
8 million people. imagine if they added 1 million new jobs from 2009 that city would be in gridlock. in a city of 800,000 people in fine we have added 100,000 new jobs and 50,000 new residents. i think it is unfair for any city to have been ready for that time of growth -- type of growth. we were not prepared for reasonable growth. there is no way to predict and be prepared for this level of growth. i think that it is upon us to be creative and move ex peeddient leo the alternatives. we know the city is not working for workers and residents. some of that we planned for and some we couldn't have planned for that type of growth. it is important as commissioner
sheehy mentioned there is pricing through the bay bridge for those from the east bay and north bay through golden gate bridge. it is important to look at something from the south bay. we really need to invest in alternative options attractive and reliable for our residents in san francisco. that is a big portion of our checks on the road and what is causing congestion today. >> chair peskin: any public comment on this interesting item? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is an information item. however, it does have implications relative to item number nine. we will have an interesting conversation about that in a
short moment. mr. clerk, could you please call item number 8. >> allocates 335,200,500 in funds with two 00,000 in prop k funds for one request. this is an action item. >> good morning deputy director for policy and programming at the transportation authority. you have a handful of items in front of you today from the sfn of mta. first is $600,000 to replace the disconnect switches required to be manually operated. should they need to be operated. those switches allow for the power to be circulatessed between the wires.
they flow through the conduits. mta is replacing them through a couple of different phases. this is one. the vanness bus programmed project will replace eight of the switches in the city. the rest will include are few file. it is a high price tag. it does include a significant amount of trenching and conduit work to replace the feeder cables underground and the switches are throughout the city some of the conduit work is relatively significant as far as mileage, as far as distance it will need to be connected to. that is that request. it also allows a minimizing of downtown.
if it is out at substations they can be operated remotely which lethey are not. wwe are looking at increasing reliability and reducing maintenance costs. next request for the golf quarter signal upgrades. this is planned for many years. we funded the design phase in the past. we are not expecting a significant impact or real impact from the vanness bus rapid transit project going on concurrently with construction phase. the current alignment of the lane configuration and two lanes in each direction on vanness is not going to change during the construction change of the golf street project. the next request is for bicycle facility maintenance to restripe the green bike lanes and boxes and replace the safe
hit poster in your city. you may request maintenance calling 311 or through the 311 app or website. the last request is for the $200,000 request from sfcta for recaltrans required document. a project initiation document to advance the next phase over work for the management study which you heard about. project managers are here as well. >> chair peskin: any questions for step on item 8. seeing none any public comment on item 8? seeing no public comment. public comment is closed. is there a motion to allocate said $3.65 million?
$6.08 million in local partnership program funds to three san francisco public works street re-surfacing project and exchange of $4.1 million in lpp funds with equivalent prop k for the lpp fund exchange project with conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning again. in april of 2017, the governor of california signed senate bill one. this is a suite of programs that are funded through a gas tax and vehicle registration fee revenues to approximately $5 million per year -- sorry $5 billion per year. san francisco is expected to get just about $60 million in formula funds and this is for a
host of projects on local streets and roads, highways and transits on the fix it first for the state highways and the local streets and roads portions. i will focus on the local partnership program which is one of the local and regional investments. i would like to point out a great website for folks if you are interested in looking at senate bill one. rebuilding caca.goff. there is an beractive -- interactive map that you can see these coming up through the package. the state local partnership program $200 million per year that is made available to jurisdictions half through a formula and half through a competitive program. it is to reward jurisdictions
that have voter approval of taxes, tolls and fees or self imposed fees solely dedicated to transportation. in san francisco as administrator of the prop k sales tax and vehicle registration fee they are eligible for the program. the cycle one fundings that we are slated to eve over this current fiscal year. next year is cycle one and two in cycle year 20. they released the confirmed shares this week. the total we are expecting is $150,000 more than what we included in the materials. it was an estimate at the time every lease of these materials. the state throughout the establishment of the program has given guidance to jurisdictions and the state these cycle one
funds should go on construction ready projects. this work to show the voters the been fits of sb1 ahead of a potential repeal effort which may be considered in november. looking at the prospects for shovel ready projects in san francisco, public works re-surfacing program. which is a good track record of bell delivering projects. they provide highly visible benefits to the public. it includes curb ramps and repair of curb and other aspects of the president-elec the proje. with a dollar for dollar match required you need to look at projects around $4 million in size. this street re-surfacing project
we recommend to receive the local partnership programming are about that order of magnitude. there is also prop k available to fund the local match for these projects. >> this shows the projects we are recommending. they were selected by public works staff based on the pavement condition scores, all of the street segments are considered at risk in the pci in the mid 50s. that would be a newly paved street. under these guidelines required by the california transportation commission of contracts and other reporting requirements and delivering projects and the project costs are the order of magnitude. it is good timing with the available of the funds and when this projects are underway.
you can see the projects and districts on your screen. the other aspect is fund exchange of $4.1 million in local partnership funds for street re-surfacing with an equivalent amount of prop k funds for the managed lanes review phase. prop k funds will advance the project to phases we anticipate. it will be extremely competitive for state and local funds. under the congested corridors program, it means the u.s. 101 caltrain corridor is highly congested. the project is part of the managed lanes prioritized by mtc to make it a great candidate for the bridge toll should that be approved by the voters this
year. with that i can answer any questions. the next step is very briefly. the projects will be submitted to the california transportation commission next week. ctc will adopt the program at the end of january. then the funds would be available to the department of public works. we would return to this allocation for the local match and environmental review phase should this item be approved. >> chair peskin: thank you. commissioner safai. >> is the request for $6 million? am i clear on that to study the hov? $4 million? >> we are recommending programming $6 million in state funds to street re-surfacing
projects with a fund exchange of $4 million for the managed lane project. >> it is a $4 million study? >> that would be the amount. >> can i ask director chang, i am trying to wrap my head around why we need 4 or $6 million to study this. that seems like a significant amount of money for this study. >> it sounds like a lot of money in the world of environmental review it is what we expect. there is a portion of this which will be funded for the four miles from 380 to the county line. it ends up being more than what we are seeking for our part in the county. the environment tell process a lot of analyzes that we need to do for caltrans. they do this across the state.
they require the studies to be done. one potential bright spot is back in 2012 or 2013. san mateo was successful in psyching matching funds. they asked for the money from private employer this is the corridor. if we are successful for programming, not allocating, just setting aside. >> programming the money. have we agreed on the scope or is this an idea? >> to set them aside because the ctc requires us to tell them what we want to do with our local partnership planning funds. we need those on resurfacing and those can be delivered to the voters. the previously prompt funds were
to environmental work. it is to the you genesee of the ctc -- urgency of the cbc we are bringing to you. we would like to ask private employers to match to help supplement. >> you are taking this from street re-surfacing funds? does that decrease ability for street re-surfacing? >> no, we are adding $4 million. it goes from 4 to $6 million total we would give to public works to do re-surfacing. >> where is the money coming from. we had $6 million of public money. then they would give the $4 million to us four managed us. that leafs them up $2 million. >> so they are taking it away from something else?
>> they are to receive $4 million of prop k for re-surfacing. this keeps that hole and $6 million adds two more. it is a funds swap. they would release the $4 million to allow it for managed lanes. it is not officially eligible in the prop k program otherwise. >> maybe it should stay that way. since you are swapping money. leave it and not use the money in that manner. >> commissioner yee. >> it is a moment where i really do appreciate where this is going in terms every surfacing. i notice quite a few streets in district 7 finally. i am curious, when do the issues
that we try to push is the undergrounding of the line and somehow in recent months or about a year ago there was a decision to maybe take a sabbatical from thinking about it, and i am trying to find ways where we could reactivate our thought process and get it going again because i feel like if we keep on assuming that why take the next steps with no money? then you are never going to the next steps beyond that. you need a vision so we could go after the money in the future. i have been sort of disappointed that it seems like we are going
to move to take a step backward from that concept, maybe two steps backward from the concept at this point apuse basically some funding that is sitting there which is substantial. it is not quite enough to make a dent on the whole program, but i think is it $70 million? >> it is $70 million as part of the development agreement. >> the plan now seems to be, okay, since we don't have enough to do the tunneling, then this just wastes that $70 million and moves the tracks to the right side then we don't have 0 0 - $70 million that is community was supporting, which was the tunnel. >> i appreciate your reminding us of the $70 million in the
developer commitments and that the public needs to move it forward to commit those. the underground project is moving along through the studies we did provide funding for. mta at some point a year ago decided to put it on hold pending larger priorititization conversations we need around the rail investment strategy. my understanding they were moving forward with the central subway to go to fisherman's wharf and the m undergrounding that is one of the highest priority projects, four car capacity an chronic the diagonal of the city. i assure you they are interesting in it. it is in capital investment. the work that we have been doing with mta has shifted to city wide transit planning and
particularly rail planning. you saw earlier this year the transbay corridor. how does the rail come into the city in district one, for example. we are looking at rail extensions to the second transbay tube. the m line continues to be a high priority system for mta, downtown expansion and potentially a southerly correction to connect to third street light rail. these are set up through the scoping word. jeff hobson is leading that with the planning department and mpc and bart and caltrain. you can expect a scoping and early planning round information in the outreach hopefully in the string. >> i would appreciate any
movement as quick as possible. when we are talking about other people that they mentioned the situation and we are looking at the apartments, 20,000 more people in the feature living in that area. the m is already at capacity. if 2 0 -- 280 is clogged now. >> thank you, sir. >> chair peskin: commissioner fewer and then commission near sheehy. >> piggybacking this does nothing to alleviate the traffic concerns running through district seven for one and two on the highway 1. that level of congestion is
almost unbearable now. i just want to mention that although i understand that we are studying another other door. i wanted to shine attention on the fact highway 1 continues to be a nightmare. as the commissioner said we are going to experience a lot of new housing. i would like to see what we have in store for that plan, and it looks as though we are a city that is grow very rapidly through a lack of planning that we are hit where we are now and alsandbecause we are not lookint transportation while we are approving development and housing plans. district 7, 4, 1 and 2 will experience more congestion on
highway 1. >> point taken. commissioner sheehy. final thoughts before the motion. >> i just want to understand. if that $4 million isn't allocated fo for the managed lae study, that has no impact on the re-surfacing, right? >> correct. the resurfacing money would be there the $4 million for re-surfacing. >> and the additional $2 million? >> that could be there as well, exactly. >> what would happen if we didn't spend the $4 million on study? what happens to the $4 million? >> through the chair the supervisors commissioner sheehy would be available to resurfacing projects. >> okay. thank you.
>> chair peskin: so colleagues, i hear the discussion that we have been having. i think what staff has proposed and is before us has been discussed. i think the crux of the policy consideration is whether or not as expressed by some of the commissioners we want to start a long-term planning investment in the 101/280 managed corridors. some of you do and some do not for what little it is worth as your chair, i think it is a long term worthwhile investment that over time will be needed as you heard with over 100,000 people anticipated to be coming up the corridor we have to do more than caltrain extension. at some point we have to bite the hov managed lane bullet. that is my thought.
why don't we see where the votes are. is there a motion to move item 9 forward? okay. if there is no motion we will not consider item number 9. is there any public comment on item number 9? seeing none, public comment is closed. i will ask one more time is there a motion to approve item 9, the fund swap of $6.08 million in local partnership program funds? >> made by commissioner cowen and seconded by commissioner tang. a roll call please on that item. (roll call).
>> clerk: item 10. >> chair peskin: is there a motion now that commissioner kim is back and we had a tie vote. mr. taylor i need legal advice. in our other incarnation we would need a majority of the body in the board of supervisors, six. in this body we would only get to five is it a majority of those present and voting or majority of the body at the transportation authority commission? >> since this is a procedural matter a majority of those voting. >> if we go to the trouble every sending the vote. >> you still need six votes, yes. there is no reason to go through it in my short as chair we will
reschedule for the 12th. commissioner cohen your name is on the roster. >> i was going to make a motion to rescind the vote. >> stephe receive if we get to e majority we won't have enough. >> my name was on the roster you acknowledged me. i want to be on the record that i make a motion to rescind. >> made by co-help and seconded with kim. without objection. the vote is rescinded. seconded by commissioner tang on that motion a roll call please. (roll call).
>> this is on the motion to approve. >> that fails on a 5-4 vote because we did not get a majority of the body and i will as i indicated previously schedule this for december 12th. next item, please. >> clerk: item 10. approve the 2017 san francisco congestion management program. this is an action item.
>> chair peskin: mr. sana the floor is yours. >> i am a transportation planner with the transportation authority. i am here to provide an update on the congestion management program, cmp for the year 2017. >> chair peskin: this is a housekeeping matter. can we have a motion to excuse the commissioners breed and fewer made by commissioner safai eand seconded by commissioner sheehy. we will take that without objection. >> as a management agency of san francisco we are required to monitor and report the performance matters related to congestion every two years. it including monitoring the lol the delay from auto speeds.
we are unique. in addition we monitor the traffic performance metrics, transit speeds and transit speed ratios. we are aware this plan that san francisco has seen rapid growth in the past few years in both jobs and housing. however, the jobs growth has out paced population growth by a factor of three. all this can be expected to have a significant impact on vehicles during peak hours. not surprisingly, we found that automobile level of service has declined from the past cycle in 2015. we observed that average speeds have decreased across radius facility types and in the order
of 4 to 8%. however, this is much better compared to the 15 to 20% drop in speeds that was observed in the previous cycle of monitoring cycle for the period of 2013 to 2015. looking at the long-term trends it appears like it has declined from 2009 and looking at the maps it appears like the most significant hit areas are downtown and south of market. transit speeds have remained steady at 7 to 8 miles per hour.
auto to trap it is speed. -- transit is more competitive related to auto. the transit ability to maintain performance is due to the radius transit priority treatments the city is make anything the past few years. considering this for the transit first policy especially in the light of the rapid jobs and housing growth in this period. it includes updates in the initiative and improvements in the forecasting model. in the cycle for the first time we have moved the cmp to a database solution and created a web based tool for both exploding and visualizing this data. i would like to take this
opportunity to quickly demonstrate the website which went live this morning. it shows a radius automobile service mapped on san francisco cmp road segments for the latest monitoring cycle of 2017. years later it can easily update this map for the past monitoring cycles. in addition, it can be switched between a.m. or p.m. peak. one could look at the specific segments by clicking on these links and this will update the chart on the right and i have clicked on the 280 segment. you can see the speeds have been declining over the past few
years. other metrics including transit speed, transit liability and auto to transit speed ratios. this will increase accessibility to this data for both the planners and the general public. thank you. with that i will take any questions. >> thank you for taking my suggestion and including the url. it is congestion.sfcta.org. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> thank you for that presentation and for that tool that is only the bearer of bad news. are there any questions for staff? seeing none. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this dismal news? seeing none. public comment is closed.
item has been approved. >> chair peskin: i am sure commissioner safai ewill click on 280 and research it very carefully. next item please. >> clerk: item 11. approve the 2018 state and federal legislative program. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: it seems like we just finished last year's legislative program. >> we come to you monthly with proposals for recommendations on state legislature and the program. it is an opportunity to look back at what happened in the prior year and look forward to what the opportunities and direction we as an agency want to take to inform our motto month actions over the next year. this also provides us an opportunity or you an opportunity to guide us and us an opportunity to also give
direction to mark watts in sacramento. 2017 was really the year about senate bill 1. that was a fantastic passage but we are still looking at significant challenges funding transportation. i think revenues will be a theme next year. we a that cap and trade will be one of the major measures discussed as the expenditure after 2020 is to be established in the next year. other themes we anticipate will be on the forefront next year is continued talk about the regulation of new technologies, we saw many bills last year and we want to make sure to stay on top of those and look to advance the san francisco interest. also, on the near material her eye don is the opportunity to --
roar eye don. -- the speed enforcement pilot the city has a priority for next year. also seems the pricing and project delivery improvements that are a regular item. sponsorship of bills, things that we in particular might look to lead the effort, the first is related to the managemented lanes effort. it would be as they have mentioned there is an opportunity that santa clara and san mateo are moving forward. they have authorization. we would like to keep the door open to join them and maintain the local involvement in that effort extending to san francisco. a second bill would be to authorize tolling on the crooked part of lombard building on a study from earlier this year.
with the transportation management on treasure island to pursue a pilot project for automated vehicles. and the task force is developing recommendations soon to be released and we anticipate there may be necessarity of going forward and getting authorization for more revenue measures next year. i am happy to answer questions. >> any questions from commissioners? any members of the public to testify on this item? seeing none public comments is closed. is there a motion to approve the 2018 state and federal legislative program? seconded by commissioner sheehy and we have the same house, same call. the item is approved. next item please.
>> clerk: item 12. accept the audit record for the fiscal year ended june 30, 2017 this. is an action item. >> good afternoon. it is still morning. i am proud to present this. i am the deputy director for finance and ministration. i would like to thank or finance staff. this is the first year we produced a comprehensive annual financial report versus the basic financial statements you have seen before. the audit is now more comprehensive with an economic narrative. i would like to thank the finance staff and auditors for this year. they have gone above and beyond in any other year we have seen this item before the board. we hope you find this more digestible and user friendly. to the audit results.
we have the lead auditor here to answer questions or present how he came to the conclusion of the clean audit for the financial statements and for the interchange and the bridge structure projects. would the board like to hear how he came to the conclusion or just take action? >> chair peskin: i suspect my colleagues getting ready for a board of supervisors per visors meeting would not having said that this is an important thing to do publicly. if we can have a brief presentation that would be very helpful. we are dealing with fiscal issues as the ta, it is important to do that. please approach. .i will turn this over to our lead auditor. lead auditor. >> good morning. i am in charge of the audit.
the purpose of the audit is to share the financial statements. meaning that we audit the balances that you will see on the financial statements, confirm the balances, confirm the sales tax, look at project expenses, ensure the important numbers are stated in all material respects. the audit includes additional audit scope, single compliance audit and opinions were clean opinions, meaning we are no exceptions or findings to the audit for the current year. i could go through the financial numbers reported within the financial statements if you would like me to. i have reviewed it with staff. would any of you like that or have you all looked at it? okay.
i don't think you need to do that. i want to thank you for your work and congratulate miss fong on another clean audit. it is nice when we have no material weaknesses or comments of any kind. hats off to miss fong and her staff. >> this is a annual financial report that gets sent out to an agency that reviews the statements to make sure that it add heres to the accounting principals out there. it is a bigger package this year compared to prior years with additional information. kind of like on a competitive bases over the past 10 years. many is nonfinancial which is the purpose of this report. it is a comprehensive annual financial report. i want to thank the staff for helping us out in completing the audit. we had no issues or findings to report with respect to the
audit. i would be happy to take questions. >> any questions on the auditor of the oncation. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed. is there a motion to accept the audit report for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2017 made by and appropriately so commissioner tang seconded by commissioner yee. same house and same call. it is accepted. thank you again. mr. clerk. can you please call items 14 and 15 together. >> clerk: item 14 on final approval evaluation of public performance for 2018. this is an action item. item 15, final approval set annual compensation for the executive director for 2018.
action item. >> chair peskin: i don't believe we need a closed session. if you want it we can have it. on november 28th. the personnel committee considered the accomplishments and issues relative to the executive director's perform answer during 2017 and went through an extensive worksheet and recommended a rating of exceptionally good reflecting the committee's reflection of the performance of miss chang against the board established perspectives after discussion of her performance and looking at the pay for similar work in nearby jurisdictions, the personnel committee recommended the compensation be increased by 4% four the