Continuity Reports Reviewing the State of Prior Recommendations Pension Reports Page 1

The City is relying on the Mayor’s pension reform proposal that will, hopefully, appear on the November, 2011 ballot to address the City’s health care plan’s unfunded liability. However, as presently written the higher contribution rates mandated in the measure would only apply to employees hired after January 2009. Higher contributions for the majority of City workers hired before January 2009 do not take effect until effect until 2016-2017. Therefore, the measure will not begin to have a meaningful impact on the City’s health care costs for several years.

A number of employees in the Fire Department and to a lesser extent the Police and other departments continue to receive annual salary increases in excess of 10% in at least one of the three years before they retire. This leads to a deficit in the City’s retirement system account, which is calculated on an anticipated 4.5% annual salary increase. It also unfairly spreads the costs of pension spiking to other departments that do not engage in this practice.

Being proactive now in finding a permanent location is a preferable alternative to waiting for a situation to arise where the Department faces a looming deadline to vacate Pier 48 and has yet to find a suitable alternative location. __________________________________________________________________________ 17 CONTINUITY REPORTS Limiting the geographic scope of a possible Department of Elections move to within the Civic Center is a sound decision.

Being proactive now in finding a permanent location is a preferable alternative to waiting for a solution arise when the Department faces a deadline to vacate Pier 48. __________________________________________________________________________ 19 CONTINUITY REPORTS PARKING FOR THE DISABLED – ABUSE OR OVER-USE? 2006-2007 Disabled placard abuse is one of the most significant challenges to parking management in San Francisco. It’s a fraudulent way of people being able to park free for an unlimited time. It hurts all motorists, disabled or not. Judson True, SFMTA Spokesperson San Francisco Chronicle, 1/4/10 SUMMARY In its report, “Parking for the Disabled – Abuse or Over-Use?” (hereafter, “2007 report”), the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury studied the rapid increase in the number of disabled parking placards (hereafter, the term “disabled parking placard” also covers “disabled license plates”) issued to residents of San Francisco and its impact on the competition for curbside parking. There are more cars registered to San Francisco residents than there are legal on-street parking spaces. The large number of cars that daily enter the City from adjoining counties only exacerbates the parking problem in San Francisco. This in turn is taking a growing financial and emotional toll on the City and its residents. Over the past few years, the growth in the number of disabled placards in California has accelerated rapidly. By 2009/10 the number of disabled placards registered to San Francisco residents had reached roughly 56,000, including temporary placards, one for approximately every 15 residents of the City, and more than double the number of outstanding disabled placards in 1996. In order to obtain a disabled placard, an applicant is not automatically required to undergo an actual full scale medical examination. For applicants whose disabilities are not readily observable and uncontested, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) merely requires the submission of a certificate substantiating the disability signed by a physician or surgeon, an optometrist, physician assistant, chiropractor, nurse practitioner or certified nurse midwife. A disabled placard permits the registered owner, “…to park at any legitimate curbside space, any green zone, any blue zone or in any City owned parking lot, but not in a City-owned garage, for up to 72 hours without paying any fees.” 2 This applies only when the car is directly transporting the person to whom the placard was issued. __________________________________________________________________________ 20 CONTINUITY REPORTS While the State of California exercises authority over the issuance of disabled placards, the City of San Francisco does have enforcement powers regarding the lawful use of disabled placards. With this in mind, several of the recommendations contained in the “2007 report” offer practical steps the City should take to curb the misuse of disabled placards. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

While the cornerstone of SFMTA’s current policy for dealing with disabled placard abuse is open ended consultations with its stakeholders, the City’s largest stakeholder, namely those who actually pay to park, is not being entirely neglected. As Mr. Tom Nolan’s refreshingly candid comment made clear, this group will continue to function as the City’s cash cow, filling the revenue hole partially created by disabled placard abuse through paying higher meter rates and parking fines.

In combating disabled placard abuse, the Department of Parking and Traffic is currently operating under an overly restrictive enforcement protocol. This has made enforcement unnecessarily cumbersome, expensive and ultimately ineffective.

These are not easy issues to discuss dispassionately. Our natural inclination is to be compassionate and generous toward those with major physical disabilities. But there are also __________________________________________________________________________ 27 CONTINUITY REPORTS matters of equity and responsibility. It is the government’s responsibility to insure that these privileges are not abused and result in an unfair financial burden being placed on the City’s residents. It is not enough that city residents are forced to witness on a daily basis the flagrant misuse of disabled placards on the streets of San Francisco. They must also suffer the added indignity of having to pay higher parking fees and fines to fill the revenue hole created by that abuse.