expenditures exceeding our revenue, our baseline for next year. we have closing to do just to end the year within our budget. if that means cutting things so that we can and the fiscal year within our budget. what that does not address are the needs of the system that we have not adequately funded over the years such as maintenance of the vehicles, which leads to read about -- reliability issues, cleanliness of the issues. all of these things that make this not the preferred mode of transportation of choice. we have a level of funding to meet our basic service requirements if you don't count special events and work around where we have system failures.

we have a number of electricians, mechanics, car cleaners that we need to operate a world class system. we maintain for basic safety. we don't have the funds right now to maintain for cleanliness and convenience. we have a structural problem and we will do what we need to do to bring the budget this year but this does not address the rest of the gap that we have underfunded for years if not decades. i put that as context because to the extent that we're able to identify funding for this initiative, which i think is laudable, we would still be making a trade-off verses those

of their essential needs and that needs to be part of the discussion. that is our fiscal reality. i want to commend the budget analyst for a very good report and identifying the expenditure impact and the revenue. i will say that i think that it is a good analysis. there is definitely some guest work involved. they did a thoughtful and intelligent analysis. there are some assumptions in their such as that we would not to provide extra service. we already have quite a number of lines and some of the youth in this room know that they are beyond capacity right now, particularly in the afternoons.

i have gotten some complaints from both students and it non students trying to get on our vehicles in the afternoon. the budget analyst report assumes no capacity increases as a result of this which is an underlying assumption of how much more ridership we would get from this initiative. >> i think they assume capacity increase, they just don't assume any service increased to handle that. there is an increase of 10,000 riders. there is zero assumption of any accommodation by the mta to to be fair to the budget analysts, what they're saying in other cases where demand has increased, we don't throw more buses on the street so it's a reasonable assumption. i don't dispute. i just want to point out that in the analysis, so what comes out is $7 million, if there is

-- if we do need to add more buses, that number could go up. and then i guess the only point i would make as to how we think about this going forward is there's kind of -- if the full extreme is free muni for everybody, and we're talking about -- which is a concept i know has come up before. and i could make a good argument for. what we're talking about is free muni for all youth. 5 to 17. i think there is a question about 18years old who are still in school. i've had a number of folks who don't stop at 17. but moving in the other direction, there are ways to minimize the revenue impact of this such as limiting times of day, days of week, months of year, limiting by income levels. and i appreciate reasons not to do all of those things. the other thing i would suggest

considering is a much reduced as opposed to a free fast pass. not only because that minimizes the revenue impact, but because that is an argument to be made that engenders buy-in, that people value something that they pay for, even if it's a very phenomenal amount. so i just kind of offer those for your consideration. what i would say in closing is we will be bringing this probably as an informational item to our board in two weeks, a week and a half on -- i think it's the 18th of october. and we're scheduling the item for 4:00 p.m. as you have. so that we can make sure to have an opportunity to hear from the youth and the parents and the public. what ultimately i would be comfortable in recommending to the m.t.a. board in terms of moving forward is the scenario that i think supervisor campos was -- worked very hard to get toward, which is one that is

fiscally sustainable. such that it basically does no harm to our fragile circumstance. so if we can develop, we have good understanding of what the costs are and we have an ongoing source of revenues to support the costs of this initiative, that's something i would feel comfortable recommending to my board and they still have tradeoffs to make about that. but a do no harm philosophy i think would be a good starting point. and i think that's where supervisor campos has been working toward. so that's all i wanted to say. i think this time should really be for the public and i'm not going to be able to stay. i'll watch the tape of this later and very interested to hear what the public discussion and the committee's discussion is. but thank you for the tunalt. and if there's any questions, would be happy to try to answer them. >> thank you, general manager riskin. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i wanted to

say that i think all the points that mr. riskin raised are points that hopefully will be part of the discussion in terms of what this looks like and the scope of this program. the reality is that there are -- you know, choices that have to be made and there are costs, economic and otherwise, that are associated with each one of those choices. the issue of whether or not it's only for a certain number of youth, raises other issues that are administrative in nature. there's a cost associated with that. and the feasibility of that has to be weighed against the cost of applying it to the entire population. there's also -- i've heard from people concerns that if you do it by income, you don't want to have stigma created where you have muni or the m.t.a. becomes the poor kids' mode of transportation. and then there's larger issue of we know we want to make sure

that we have as wide of ridership as we can and we want an investment in having a broad net in terms of the future generation of riders. but i think those are all discussions that we need to have. and it's important to raise those issues and i don't see it as an either/or in terms of protecting the system we have right now and not hurting it. i think that in fact, you know, there's a way in which you can do both. and still achieve our objectives. but i look forward to that discussion. and again, i want to thank you and your staff for all the work that has gone into it. and all the work that i know will go into it between now and the time that we, you know, take action on this. >> and just want to make sure that as we move forward on trying to achieve the way we were going to handle free muni for youth, we can commit your staff in that effort.

and you can work with our offices, especially with supervisor campos' office, on clear ongoing -- on clear time lines and ongoing -- you know, milestones. >> absolutely. i think the resolution that's calling for collaboration between all the different stakeholders were certainly committed to that. >> and who on your staff would be probably taking point on this effort? >> it depends on what direction it goes. so for the time being, it's me. supervisor avalos: ok. very good. thank you. >> thank you. public comment? we will hear from our youth. >> so i have a few cards for public comment. and why don't we go ahead in the order that they're called. and i'll read them off. nicholas presky. rachel brodwin. if you har your name please come -- hear your name please come forward.

stella rosales. -- estella rosales. the cards are sticking. yshon banks. renee contreras, i believe. andy wong. robin bonner and commissioner leah lecroy. >> mr. chair, i think i screwed up and made a mistake because we probably want to hear from the budget and legislative analysts before we go to public comment. and so i apologize. that was my -- it's been a long day. and so my -- >> i'm very sorry for -- >> my deep and sincere apologies. >> so we'll start public comment after hearing from the budget analyst, the budget analyst's report. and i think we may have gotten our signals crossed on this as

well so i probably have a role to play in this. and fred, thank you for coming here. thank you for your work on your analysis. and we're all ears. >> i had quite a day, too. >> you got a long way to go. >> good afternoon, chair avalos, members of the committee and supervisor campos, fred brusoo from the budget and legislative analyst office. i'll work through our report. a cost-benefit analysis of waving muni fares for students or residents, ages 5 to 17. and the objective of this analysis was to identify the costs and benefits associated with the proposal. we worked with -- we worked with both the school district and most the m.t.a. to obtain

numbers, ridership, cost data and so forth so that we could identify the costs and benefits associated with the proposal. as i said, it's already been mentioned that the proposal is for waived fair for youth 5-17, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. the numbers we worked through on this slide, the number of youth in san francisco, about 75,000, from the 2010 u.s. census. the number of youth enrolled in public schools, san francisco unified, 53,000, and private schools, 23,000. and the proposal is we dealt with it and assumed students would be eligible whether they're in public or private. and that could mean some nonresidents, particularly in the private schools. currently, some information on fares and riders. 75 cents is the basic cash fare

for youth right now per ride. a monthly youth pass is $21 a month. that's by the way an increase that's gone up 110% since june, 2009. there are approximately 36,600 youth riding muni per day. and that's out of a grand total of youth and adults of about 240,000. m.t.a. doesn't track their ridership by age. so we did have to go in and dig into the numbers. and make some assumptions. but we had some control numbers about the total number of riders. we knew how many youth were buying monthly fast passes and we had some other studies done by other offices and by m.t.a. itself. so we were able to derive some of these numbers that then result in the cost estimates. on the fiscal impact side, the costs that wedealt with -- we

dealt with are the primary ones, lost revenue what would no longer be collected if youth fare were waived. will he mass made some assumptions about increased -- we also made some assumptions about increased ridership with m.t.a. and associated with increased ridership. the muni transit assistance program which is where there are monitors at certain stops, particularly after school to help the crowds and the surges in ridership get on the bus and control the crowd situation somewhat when there are extensive crowds is a cost to muni, and we reviewed the costs for that as well. to determine the impact of that. if the program were implemented. clipper car transaction fees were another cost. we reviewed and have included in our estimates. besides some base amounts that are paid for the clipper contract, there are additional fees charged every time someone taps their clipper card or the clipper card is reloaded.

so we've included that in our estimates as well. particularly if the clipper card is used as the form of verifying that the youth is eligible to ride the service for free. use the service for free. supervisor avalos: could you explain further how the fees work for -- >> yes. the clipper or the company keeps track of each time someone taps or getting on the bus or going through a turnstile. and there is a charge, which is i think a pretty small charge, like 1 1/2 cents per tap but it adds up. so the costs right now is about $5.9 million a year that's paid by m.t.a. to -- for the clipper contract on top of some base amounts, some flat fees that are paid to the company as well. so if ridership goes up or down, the number of taps can change. and that costs can be affected

by it. so we looked at two options in our analysis. one is if clipper cards are used to verify that it's an eligible youth, who does not have to pay the fare, and then we also consider an option that school i.d. cards would be used if the program were for students only. and that can affect the cost. i'll show you in a minute here. on the savings side, we also estimated some changes in the fare enforcement program or proof of payment program since there would be fewer youth to check. there would be some obvious cases where evading fare would no longer be an issue because youth fare would be free. >> i've got a question on that one. >> yes. >> i saw that but i also thought an argument could be made that you would have to actually increase because there would be -- what we're saying, 18 and under? >> uh-huh. >> if i was a student at san francisco state -- >> absolutely. >> i would give it a go.

and don't we have to watch out for that? >> i'll get to this in a minute. i'll just say that what we did is make an assumption there would be some savings but not a full savings. we didn't assume the costs associated with enforcing fare evasion for youth would go away entirely. we assumed a portion of it would. because there would be a segment of the population that would no longer need to be cited or a lot of admonishment that goes on with youth as well. but we did leave some of the costs in for the exact reason you're saying. and that exists now. in fact i know it does. where there are 18-year-olds, the youth fast passes and when they were paper they would get those and now all clipper. so that wouldn't go away. we absolutely agree with you, supervisor sbrerned, on that and have left -- elsbernd, on that and have left some of the costs in on that bases. if student i.d. cards were used, there wosh some savings associated with that. which i'll explain in a minute.

so option one, which is summarized on this table, and you can see the bottom line is about $5.9 million in lost revenue, increased costs. and this is a net amount. so we made some -- we broke it up here into the monthly pass purchases and the revenue lost on that which is about $3.3 million. and then almost the same amount lost in cash fare. and that's about $3.2 million which gets us to a total in lost revenue of $6.4 million. this option that i'm describing right now assumes student i.d. cards would be used instead of the clipper card. so it eliminates that per tap fee. and the savings there is shown, and that's based on the percentage of youth riding the system. and per tap fee that is charged to them. and that's $891,6 20 as you can

see there in savings or fees that would no longer have to be paid. offsetting that, there's an increase assumed in maintenance costs. there's additional riders on the system. so m.t.a. would incur some additional maintenance costs. and here's the fare enforcement reduction. $300,000. >> if you can pause for a second we have a question from supervisor mar. >> if you can go back to the student identification cards. san francisco unified has a uniform card and then my guess is many of the private and parochial schools have similar magnetic strip cards. >> right. >> and you would use that card as if it were your clipper card and -- >> two possibilities i think supervisor mar. one, that it would be a verbual check and hold up the sfusc card and most private schools have some sort of card as well. or there could be some uniform card that all schools would have to use if they want to ride on the system. but we didn't assume it would be magnetic because then it gets into coordinating that system with the clipper system. and probably some untold costs

in that as well. >> it looks like this option one saves about $1.2 million compared to the use of the clipper cards. >> correct. and largely because going back to that per tap fee. maintenance i mentioned, the fare enforcement. some savings but not complete savings. just on the point you made, supervisor elsbernd. the muni transit assistance program we did assume some increase there. again, that's the program where the monitors are at the stations, particularly after school when there's a surge in ridership and youth waiting to get on the buses or street cars. and all that leading to then net cost of $5.8 million. the second option, then, is with the clipper card being the source of validation for the youth riding on the system. and it has -- a lot of the same assumptions about the maintenance and the fare enforcement and muni transit assistance program. but because of the change, instead of savings on clipper,

there would be an increase because there's increased ridership and increased per tap fees. and that amounts to $7 million then in net costs. there was some discussion earlier increased ridership. we did assume a change in riders. right now, as you can see, there's $240,000 weekday riders. that's adults and youth. what we estimated is an increase from the 36,600 youth riders now estimated an increase of another 10,000 -- of another 10,980. that amounts to a 4.6% increase in weekday riders. that of course, there will be surges and we do want to make that point. that some of the impacts would be of course in the high impact times, right after school. certainly in the morning going to school and more dispersed throughout the system.

and getting to the point mr. riskin made earlier about the impact on costs and service hours, we did work with m.t.a. and looked at their numbers on that. they assume an increase in service hours. we have not included that in our cost estimate. because two points. one is that in fact, m.t.a. has not funded similarly when increases have incurred in ridership. and there are many lines that currently function over capacity. in addition, the method that the m.t.a. uses to come up with what those costs would be doesn't disaggregate what the impact is of the increase in youth ridership from what is already the impact of bus lines or street cars running over capacity. so there is a number out there. they have an estimate of service hours. it's in our report. but we don't assume that that would be a cost that would be incorporated and that it's all' tributed to the increase in -- it's all attributed to the increase in youth ridership.

in our process, we spoke with many stakeholders both at m.t.a. and other agencies. and just want to run some of thee things by you. these are the nonquantified side of the analysis but some of the benefits that were identified or potential benefits. we don't have numbers associated with these. a lot of them seemed like reasonable things to consider. improved access to schools and extra-curricular activities for students is of course the obvious and large ones. since the system is used for -- by youth getting to school for the most part. and enabling youth to get -- be able to get to jobs at more distant locations if it's not something they can get to easily. and it's no longer a charge to ride muni. it makes getting to jobs more accessible. reduction in youth use of private vehicles, generation of associated pollution, reduction in the number of youth transit fare inspections. there would be a segment of the population that fare inspectors would no longer have to be

checking. and there are estimates from m.t.a. that i think about a 10% of the riders at any one time are youth that the fare inspectors are checking on. or possibly citing. reduction in dwell times on buses and street cars is a possibility that depends on the system that's actually used. if it's the clipper card, you really have the same system going as you do now. so it doesn't necessarily affect dwell times. it might be sped up with school i.d. cards. and then finally, enhancement of san francisco's youth and family friendly city which many of the stakeholders have identified to us and already been mentioned today. briefly, we looked at some other cities that have these programs. this is not a brand new idea. the two we foked on, were portland -- we focused on were portland, oregon, a program in fiscal year 2009 and 2010 and only during the school year so the fare is not free for youth during the summer.

but during the school year, it is 24 hours a day, seven days a week. new york city, it's had a program since the late 1990's. it allows three rides per day for yuket. -- for youth. between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. tempe, arizona, not one we reviewed has a program in place for youth and other cities as mentioned here, seattle and portland both have programs, free fare but only in the downtown corso getting around downtown, but it's downtown for youth and adults. chapel hill, clemson, commerce, california, island county, washington, logan, utah, and veil, colorado. -- vail, colorado. so those are the primary findings from our analysis. and i would be happy to answer any questions or provide any other information. >> thank you for your report. i really appreciate the work that's been put into this. >> thank you, supervisor

avalos. >> can i just say that it looks like portland, oregon's program has been in place for about a little over a year. and it's only during the school year. is there any -- any analysis of its success as it -- has it increased ridership from younger people and new york city's been in place for about maybe 20 years. but it's much more limited. and it's quite different than our very progressive ordinance that supervisor campos has introduced. but any analysis on how successful portland or new york has been? >> supervisor mar, we did contact both jurisdictions. portland has not done a detailed analysis. though they did one survey of i believe it was one high school where ridership went up 15%. they stated to us that it did not have an impact on -- or a significant impact on crowded conditions. and one of the concerns that

has come up from some people in some programs about this is -- does it affect the adult riders. do adults actually stop riding because buses are more crowded? and they did not find that in portland in their survey. in new york city, they really have not done a lot in the way of tracking it. it's been in place for some time. so we weren't able to get much data that provided information that would be youthful for comparison purposes. i think it's just embedded in the system now. and it's big. and people write it. and it's not having a lot of impact one way or the other on the system. >> so one upon the you made was that though some people may believe it would increase crowded conditions in buses, but the analysis shows that it hasn't significantly increased crowding on buses. >> in portland, oregon, right. we're not trying to say there wouldn't be some impact. there would be additional people getting on on. some of the lines are already crowded. when you look at the system

overall, it's not a significant impact. but at 3:10 outside of a school, the buses get crowded now. >> and i know your analysis was fiscal benefits, but i would also just add that i think the ordinance would help advance our climate action plan for the city if younger people are reducing their reliance on cars and riding transit so that it really does help achieve stronger climate change goals for the city as well. >> right. i agree. and we did include that in our unquantified benefits. but it probably could be quantified by someone but we don't have a number for you on that. so thank you. >> the analysis, this is for public comment. my apologies early for that confusion. >> ok. so if your name was called, previously, please come forward.

you can line up on this side. it will be facing us. your left. this side of the room. and we'll do two minutes per person. ok. thanks, linda. come on up. [speaking spanish] >> good afternoon. my name is estella. i'm from power. and as you all know, san francisco is one of the most beautiful cities but also one of the most expensive cities. and i'm here just letting you know that i'm a single mother.