where there is a will, there is away and i am confident that we can make this work. [applause] >> i will say something that i know will be unpopular, but there is a will, and we have talked on this personally. but we haven't been shown the way. that is why i was ready to vote for the staff proposal, and to vote for a full package later if it doesn't put a hole in lifeline services. so. that is my view. we should take a vote on the proposal. but my view is that this is not a referendum on if this board wants to have free muni, it is about how we fund it. >> thank you. >> the director -- the proposal is contentiant on funding.

so -- [applause] [inaudible] >> if the funding doesn't go through -- >> this is the debate we just had. dois this contingent on funding. >> they have a one-world answer, why don't you? the lifeline funds are coming to san francisco. these are coming. they could be used for this purpose. some of these are capital funds, but this can be done. up to $5 million, are these funds that would not otherwise be coming to us, and so those

are the ones that are in play, at this contingency. >> and what would you do with the lifeline money if you did not use this for director ramos. >> this is for the other services that we have spoken of, and does not mean that we would not find those services, but we would have to look elsewhere in the budget. i think, again, i stand by my recommendation and i think that this is the right policy. this is $6.70 million in two years, in a $1.60 billion budget. this is why we have multiple passes that the budget. this is why we have the language prepared for the board, if they wanted to go in a different direction.

there are some trade-offs and i want to be clear to everyone, there are trade-offs as we go to this larger population. but those are the tradeoffs that we can make. >> do you have your best guess of, in terms of the operational impact and the service impact that this will have, and what will this cost in terms of the budget impact? >> all that we have, and this is something that we provided back to the budget analyst, we have the rough numbers based on the writer ship models, that this many more would generate this many more service hours, and if we provided additional service hours, to work within the existing capacity, we know about these costs and they are very high. they are the absolute worst-case scenario.

there are a lot of people who say that these kids are already riding muni, just not legally. it would make legal what we do have, and would make a difference with how many people jump on this, and a lot of people are not riding muni for other reasons other than the 35 cent cost. it is reasonable to think that in some areas, after school there will be impacts regardless of how we do this. it is likely that a larger majority than the rest of the kids are low-income youth. we may have an impact in the service to the extent that we do under these proposals. we will have to address these

during the course of the year. >> i feel that i am remembering back to the first time we have this discussion. we said we did not want offer something that we would eventually have to take away. i am 08 afraid of this as we go down this path. the public commented that we heard today was incredibly -- get reaffirmed to me that for the low-income families, this is a problem, paying for muni. i feel that there is a certain segment of the population, and i know this from reading the documents that came with this, muni is not the transportation of last resort. the income levels show that this is not the transportation of last resort.

we need to make this safe and reliable and make certain we do not have meighen's issues, and make certain that we're putting all of the buttons on the air. i think that this will do more to have -- to help all of these muni riders. if we go down the two-year pilot, it will end in a couple of years where i think offering this -- this is so much more sustainable. i am worried that this is just not sustainable for free muni for all youth. this proposal fell like a good compromise. maybe this is something that people were not happy with but something this big, this is a huge step, offering free muni. we can't ignore that. i feel that extending this to all youth will not be sustainable.

we will create problems that we were not anticipating. i thought offering this was sustainable and then we would put this in the next budget. i am afraid of what we would have to give up to make that stretch and i am not willing to do this. we hear about the wheelchair lifts that are not working, and we hear about the overcrowding. i am trying to get on at rush hour, this takes four or five buses. to use this money to make it better for everyone, or people in other brackets. people with disabilities -- and seniors who are low-income. i don't think extending this tall youth is the best use of funding. is there anyone else on that?

we will have to take another vote. >> may i make one more? i know that there are other funds that have been identified, and i know that supervisor campos and his folks are putting themselves out there. they are elected and have to win confidence. if they put themselves out there, we have to work with that. granted, i know we are responsible, overall for the system and i will hold myself accountable. as a regular muni buss rider, i feel this shortfall in terms of operation. i think that we can tighten up in a few places, with some of the capital problems -- that we

may need to train back a little bit. i am confident that we can find this -- and most importantly, in terms of the two years and having to pull the plug on this. we're asking for people to pay for parking meters on sunday. in the future we will need to ask for people to vote for another revenue measure on the november ballot. it seems we would get more support from everyone if the system was viewed as something for more people and not just for the low-income people. that is why i am putting forward that resolution. thank you for everyone. >> we need a voice vote. >> bridges?

>> aye. >> brinkman? >> nay. lee? >> nay. >> oka? aye. ramos? aye. 3-3 vote, the motion fails. >> all right, in light of that, we need to continue the budget discussion to the next meeting. >> and continue this item. we should not revoke -- referred to the status quo. we only had one staff proposal, and i don't think that this -- you had six of six board members vote for some kind of program. let's not just stop and have no program when you have 100% for some program. the direction needs to be for

the staff to go back and work, with the supervisor's office and find what the alternative staff proposal would be. >> with the board consent, we will ask for item 14 to come back to us at a future meeting, hopefully the next meeting. >> it has to be the next meeting to go into the budget. >> i would agree, we owe the public some resolution. i think that we should vote on this again. >> this is what we will ask for. >> an item 15 and 16 would be continued? >> it sounds like we have to continue. so we have some direction?

>> i want to make certain that i understand, is the direction to return with something that funds free muni for all youth? >> what we -- >> i guess what i would say, if this is the direction, i don't see why you wouldn't vote on something now. [applause] >> if i'm going to come back, either way. as the director said, everyone supports something. i am not sure why you would not want to vote on anything. if your directing me to come back with a budget that is based on muni for all use, it will be the same budget with an adjustment. >> i would rather -- finish this today. >> amen. understanding the

direction, otherwise, maybe i misunderstand. >> there has to be an impact. >> if you approve something other than the staff recommendation, i will have to come back with a revised budget. i just want to know what my direction would be, leaving here. if you vote, i know exactly what this says. >> i think -- we have the direction on something, this is for the people of san francisco. >> i am at a loss here as to

what the direction as we are giving the executive director. >> my question remains the same. if you find the free youth, where does the money come from? he will have to make the budget adjustments. you said that the responsible thing to do would be to go back and tell you where this will come from. i don't want to vote on a program with significant budgetary impact until you tell me what the impact is going to be. if there is money coming out of the existing lifeline funding, to subsidize the phares for the low-income adults, and this proposal would require us to take that money, and some other existing amount of money, we need to know about the trade- off. we have asked this question of each other and a lot of people,

and there does not seem to be a clear direction on this. that continues to be my issue. >> the direction would be to come back with a revised budget proposal to fund free muni for all 5-17, showing the difference in the balance for today. >> i would say yess - it is not. it is a drop in the bucket in the budget. [applause] >> i am -- >> i guess the direction to the executive director is to come back at the next meeting, showing where the budget would come. >> no. >> we don't have to do that. it is a drop in the bucket.

>> i don't think i'm comfortable voting for a budget we have just taken $6.7 million out of. i don't think that is prudent or wise. i don't think i can do that. so, do i have any kind of member consent on asking the executive director to come back, showing us where the money would come out of the budget, to know what it is we are voting on? >> yes. i would like to know the increased operating costs. >> i don't know that he'll know. >> then you are walking in blind. >> help me here. i don't think you know the direct hit on operational cost

by the next meeting. you won't know until you have the pilot program. >> this is to the extent we can ballpark them. we are not accounting for them in the budget. >> you will not know more of that in the budget -- >> what i would solve for is the $6.70 million. >> this is what i interpreted. the only thing that you can tell is where you really modified to extract to meet the budget target for all of this. >> this is correct. >> and we can look at the proposals, side by side? >> the biggest source of lifeline funding is the capital funding, to reduce the budget

revenues by $6.70 million. this would be one approach. we cannot pull this out of work orders right now. >> there is another source. >> the direction of the board is to continue 14, 15, and 16 to the april 27 board meeting. because heineke said they could provide additional discussion with regard to the other options in the budget, should they so desire to discuss those items to provide any other directions, when he returns he has the full impact of the board, and he knows the wishes of the board with regard to the other aspects of the budget.

>> these two items, we have had discussion and they are closed and they are being continued for the further vote. >> we have had public comment on 15, the we have not had the board discussion. could we go ahead and have a discussion -- >> there is an interest on the part of the community, with the speed of our decision. we will get some additional information, analyzing the budget impact in what you do to accommodate the full muni use. at that point, we can vote on everything. we've had public comment and discussion on 14. is this how it is playing out, roberta? >> julia? >> if you -- if you undrtaertake

this dicussion, we have yet to see 16. you could see the vote and take public comment, and there would not be a lot to do in the next meeting. >> i think we should have the board discussion on 15. we will have that discussion. >> item 14, just for the youth -- item 14 is continued to april 17. the board's consideration, pending further discussion -- with regard to how he would resolve the budget issue. so the board will continue and discuss among themselves item 15, with other thoughts and discussions.

and when they return on april 17, they will have the input on the other items. >> and may we have two budgets. >> he will bring a revised budget with the options for the board's consideration. >> you already have this one. you have the alternative for the budget. the balancing items will address the remaining -- >> we cannot vote on the budget unless we see where the $6.7 million is coming from. >> let's move on to the

dicussion on -- discussion on item 15. i know this was a long and arduous day for you. it was confusing for all of you and for all of us. thank you. >> so on item 15, i have a set of questions. >> yes, director. >> so -- one of the items we are funding and impoising on the citizens at a high level, are the stae -- state court fees to motorists with increased parking citations. and -- i realize the hour is late, but i want t oaso ask thi.

the state is using this for courthouse construction? >> i do not have the specifics. one of them is the courthouse construction. >> for the state courthouse construction, the trial court house construction fund. these different kinds of courts. >> we are asking people to get parking tickets to pay to the state for courthouse construction. >> the state legislature. >> i guess my first question, and we can answer this later, is san francisco even getting back the money? are we increasing parking citation costs to find the courthouses in other counties. i would like to know the answer.

i suspect we get a higher rate of parking citations with the level of parking citations than we do spending on the to courthouses. this is something we need to do as we educate the citizens into why we are doing this and why this is unfair that this is being imposed on us. >> i do know that the administrative office of the court has undertaken a master planning process, and though there is nothing in the near term that is here, because many parts of the court system here are relatively new, the criminal courts operate out of 850 bryant, at a building past the end of its life. part o fthf the capital plan anticipates moving the functions out, part of that would require the courthouse to move out.

when the courts build new criminal courts, that would be replacement money in san francisco. there were some discussions trying to get them to advance their time line, in the next 10 years. >> i am not suggesting that san francisco is getting no money. basically we implement a couple of increases for the state mandate, with information on whether or not we are getting back our money, were paying an unfair share to other counties. this would be an important piece of information. the other question is, if we have taken any formal actions to ask the state to stop doing this and just passing on the budget issues to the drivers, and is this feasible to implement the recommendations that this be

broken out as a state tax, as it would be a sales tax if we were purchasing something from a store. >> we will have a separate, line-item number. >> you can see from the direction of my question that i am troubled by this because every time that this is passed on -- i worry that there has not been the appropriate response from the city and county of san francisco. the drivers and the newspaper editorial board are angry at us when we pass the indexing policy to prevent excessive parking citation increases and now that policy is being undermined by the fact that the state is imposing mandates on us. i want to understand if this is unfair to the county and what we can do to stop this in the

future and at least educate people so that they know why parking citations go up. and we are abiding by the indexing policy that was put into place. my next set of questions on sunday enforcement. this is noon-6 only, and you would get this in blocks of time. there was comment about someone stuffing a meter every 30 minutes. the proposal would be for larger blocks of time. the notion of somebody being tapped on the shoulder, and whoever's building that this is -- this is not going to be a problem on the sunday parking? we do this in congested areas where this is already at 85% capacity to begin with. this is not a situation where there will be no turnover.

by definition, this is a place with turnover problems. >> we propose to implement this on all meters, because all meters are at this level. >> i saw all of the neighborhood studies. i had urged on that, that we do a pilot with the district -- and this is something where we have to be very cognizant of the business communities. noon-6:00 only is directed towards that. i would still like that and i understand -- when you sit in this chair you do not always get what you want. i very much appreciated him coming here and saying that the

chamber is for this, with concerns. this attitude needs to be recognized and appreciated, and i would ask us to keep a close dialogue with the business community, and if we see that this is harming business with some of the other concerns, i would hope we will address this very quickly. the final thing, under this current budget proposal, we are living by the reserve policy. this is the end of my questions or interrogation. thank you. >> on the sunday meter enforcement, we give them four hours. but you have to have the parking meter to do this. not all of the meters are geared to be a