ok, good. i wanted to talk to the young leader of power. he pointed something out -- this is not just us all of a sudden deciding that it wouldn't it be nice to hand this out. the explanation is there is a cut in school bus service that is out of our control. the school board would tell us is out of their control. there is something new that has arisen. it is not just us trying to give something away. this is our responding to something new. that is an important point that was brought up today. i am sorry i did not mention it earlier. chairman nolan: i understand the issue that was raised. there might be summer -- some ways around that. i understand a number of the

kids in the city do not take advantage of the lunch program because they are feeling stigmatized by it. one final thing -- how many fun of things that i said? -- how many final things have i said? we had a president several years ago who was forced with a serious budget shortage. he cut service by 10%. we were urged by the mayor and supervisors to restore as much of that as we could. we restored 641% -- 6.1%. there was an effort by the mayor and supervisor david chiu who wanted to know when funds were available. that is a responsible template. we could come up with our initial program.

director reiskin, what you to do about this? director reiskin: very helpful comments from the board. what i think is great about this is that it is a grassroots effort. i saw the testimony, not only today, but much of the testimony from last week at the board committee meeting. as supervisor avalos referenced, a better and, more compelling group of speakers and then we see at any age. i give great credit, particularly to the youth that came out for this. this is a pro-muni initiative. this is not a group of folks in organizing against transit. these are people who want to

ride muni and want to ride in a legal way to do important things in their lives like get to school and to extracurricular activities. i think that is great and fully consistent with our transit- first policy to. i think it is a great direction and it is great to hear the support to export this in more depth from the board. just a few points -- in my mind camara -- in my mind, the vast majority of the public testimony, discussion in the media, discussion of the board, is focused on affordability. from a policy standpoint, there is a case to be made. while there are broader goals, there is a policy case to me made that this is about affordability.

my kids do not need a free fast past. with that said, i think it could also be true that it is not only the 61% of kids in the public schools who are eligible. there is this paperwork hurdle. while i started this thinking that the right thing to do would be on an income- restricted basis, i think we would end up missing a lot of kids that we are trying to reach. we will explore that further. i have someone come around to the idea that, not only is there a big administrative burden on trying to do this in an income- limited way, i think it would fail to reach some of the kids than we would want to. [applause] do not clout yet critics -- do not clap yet.

in terms of free verse is reduced, it is worthy of consideration that some even nominal fare for a monthly pass is something that we would consider. not just to offset the revenue impact, but because, for a lot of services, people value something more that they pay for. even if it is very nominal, i think it's something worth exploring in. i appreciate the direction on that. i think there is a question, we have heard some people say free fast past or free muni. we are trying to move people to clipper and get away from fair transaction. it does not give us all of the data benefit that clipper provides.

there is a case to be made that free or reduced would apply to the pass and not the single pair. it also helps address the problem of san francisco people that this is intended for versus everyone else. we cannot make that restriction of clipper, but people coming from out of town are more likely to pay cash bear whereas people here have better access to put the card in a monthly pass. that is something that is worthy of looking at. i further call to appoint a staff person. it has not been well defined enough for me to figure out who the right person is. is it operational? is there finance? we do not have financed ministers sitting around waiting for projects to come. we have offered quite a bit of staff time. my own and others on this issue will continue to do so. we will make sure the right staff resources are there.

and we will identify someone who can serve as the single point of conflict. whether we have someone designated as that person or not, we are fully committed to talking with the various stakeholders to move this forward. one thing i want to emphasize that supervisor campos says and i want to give him credit for this -- it has been his goal, working with us and the other stakeholders, to identify three years' worth of funding. to enable this to happen. to the extent that that could happen, or to the extent that that happens, we need to wait for our own budget process to develop. if we determine that the need is $8 million per year between the mtc and the school district

and transportation authority, we can jointly develop a financing plan for that. we do not necessarily need to wait. as for us and bringing something back sooner, should that finance plan, which some are confident would come forward sooner, if that is possible, then we would not need to wait. we want to be mindful of not having parts of that finance plan that would otherwise come to us. i will ask that the private sector is something that, at the mayor's direction, we have started to explore. in that could be part of the solution here that would reduce the burden on the public resources. a few folks mentioned education. rider education is something that, when i have discussed with

the unions, it is something they feel very strongly not just for youth but for all riders. there is a real opportunity here for a little bit of a quid pro quo. the people of san francisco making this bold policy move to reduce or eliminate shares in exchange for help from all of those community groups from the school district, from us, to do that education that will not only help educate the next generation of transit riders, but that the system work better for everybody. this education system is an important part of whatever we do moving forward. goodlatte to all those who came to smoke, not just to advocate, but for all the different bodies will be seeking funding to help us put together a package to

inseminate that kind of education. in terms of looking around the country and establishing a precedent, i would say, there is not really a strong precedent for this. in the whole country, we found to cities that have done it in limited ways that we have heard we may not want to do or would be practical for us to do. ironically, because of the clipper system. i think we would be blazing new territory here. i think we would have to be comfortable that that is what we are doing. i do not think we are going to get a lot of insight from elsewhere. there have been some issues. with the portland program. the discussion here is at a much larger level. we would need to be comfortable with that. i guess i would just close -- i appreciate the direction from the board.

we will work particularly with our operations folks and finance folks to continue to see what we can get out of the school district. there were some other ideas we should look at -- bear increase and service reduction. those are things we would probably bring forward in a future budget. i think we have good direction to move forward. as soon as we can to bring something back for action in korea -- bring something back for action. director ramos: in the comments i made fort youth -- for youth in to ride the buses. we talked about there's possibly increasing. that is the last thing i would want to see happen. i would want to see the movie other way. i am not going to make the call

right now, because it is unrealistic. at the same time, we ought parking that is free on sundays. people do not pay to park after 6:00. at the same time, we are paying to it ride muni after 6:00 and before 6:00 in the morning and on sundays. if we are going to raise fares, i will look at changing some parking revenues. it is only a share. -- pnly fair. the car's make this operation is expensive. if we could advocate for a new revenue stream that is doing the right thing, i think it is a win-win, so to speak. chairman nolan: thank you all very much for coming in.

i really appreciated. [applause] secretary boomer: item 15. discussion and vote as to whether to conduct a closed session. secretary boomer: the board of directors met in a closed session. they took no action. there is no discussion of anticipated litigation. >> i move not to disclose. chairman nolan: and there is a second. secretary boomer: that includes our discussion -- that concludes our discussion for today. chairman nolan: good work,

everybody.

>> hi, my name is melissa griffen. and a member of the league of women voters of san francisco. >> proposition b authoress the city to authorized to hundred $48 million in bonds to improved street structures such as bridges. this would come with an increasing property tax, if needed, to pay for those improvements. the city is responsible for

maintaining about 850 miles of streets. a study shows about half of the streets any major repairs. the city can only use this bond money to pay for and repairs city streets. it will improve lighting, sidewalk extensions, trees, and landscaping. renovation programs to increase safety, and add this traffic signals to improve muni service. the mayor and the board of supervisors have to approve the final project. this measure requires the approval of two-thirds. is the right here with supervisors got leaner --

supervisor scott wiener. why should we vote for proposition b? supervisor wiener: this is a bond that will address some of our basic and critical infrastructure needs it. we've seen this across the country for the last few decades a bank it will help with quality of life. it will help put people back to work. it addresses the infrastructure funds for our roads. to resurface our roads. basic maintenance. it also provide significant funding for work on our city bridges and overpasses and other infrastructure that is

deteriorating and needs capital work, and also provides for eda acceptability. >> opponents of this measure have argued that these bonds should not be used for what they perceive as ongoing maintenance of our streets. -- what they perceive as ongoing maintenance of our streets. how do you respond to those accusations? supervisor wiener: we should have been doing a better job the last 30 years maintaining our streets. i will not argue that. the fact is, we are where we are today. we have almost $500 million. the capitol assets like the park, like the bay bridge, muni. is appropriate to use bond

funds -- it is a prepared to use bond funds to do capital infrastructure work. this is not for filling the random pothole. this is for capital work. road resurfacing, road reconstruction, not basic operating. >> in the past years, voters have not been receptive to the idea of the streets fund or when they are proposed on the balance. the measure needs two-thirds of the voters to pass. what makes you think this is the year voters will go with that? >> a strong majority of voters do support having the capital work. our polling has been strong this year. six years ago, we got the 66% of

the boat would no campaign whatsoever supporting or explaining at. this year, we're trying to really educate the voters. we think we have a chance of getting 2 2/3. 2/3 is a high threshold even though this is a popular kind of bond. we feel good we will have a shot of getting their. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next up, we will discuss proposition b with upon the. >> i am here with judy berkowtiz, an opponent of proposition b. do you oppose this? >> san francisco neighborhoods voted to oppose prop b because

we've already paid for these street repairs. payment has been in the form of property taxes and other taxes. we do not feel we should pay for them the second time. or in this case, a first time, because the board of supervisors had already passed two ordinances at the board, the law pieces of legislation that pay for exactly the street repairs. one was $40 million. another was $42 million in the past couple of years. not only that, but this is a general obligation bond. general obligation bonds are supposed to be a one-time fix. this is not a one-time fix. this is maintenance. >> proponents argue that

regardless of where the funding comes from, if we do not fix our streets now, the cost to implement these fixes will go up exponentially in the next, say, 10 years. how do you respond to that assertion? >> the streets of san francisco are terrible. they are the worst i have ever driven on. i am sure the department transportation agrees. i do not know it because will rise -- if the costs will rise in the next 10 years. i think it is important we do fix this ries. the money that has been allocated should do so. this has been taken in the form of, as i said, our property taxes. >> if this does not pass, how do you suggest we go about finding street repairs and other kinds of repairs that are being funded by proposition b?

what would you like to see cuts? >> there are less people working for city government now than there were 20 years ago. however, salaries are several times higher than they were. we could cut out a lot of the managers. department managers. if they were released and more park and rack -- rec playground managers were hired, then we would have some money we could spread around. however, again, it the money -- if our property taxes and our rent pass-throughs are used for what they're supposed to be used for, then we would have the money. >> thank you very much. for more information about this or other ballot measures, please

visit the web site of the san francisco league of women voters at sfvote.org. remember early voting is available as city hall. if you do not vote early, both >> about four years ago, [inaudible] look at how beautiful this was. there is our relationship to the planet.

these regions are the wealthiest, the most powerful. that really has impacted the planet. it is almost impossible now to go anywhere and had it really be completely dark. there are very few locations that you can find. that means our relationship to the sky, there is a way where we dominate the sky. we cannot see anything really. we are blinding ourselves in a way. >> you can look at the images, they are beautiful.

when i started four years ago, there was a conversation about environmental issues that was very different. this is not being talked about in the way it is now. . this has just been like an amazing growth. i anticipate the project to be something that opens a dialogue to public interest in these ideas. so the work is really made to be seen in this environment. it's been show in museum, in gallery, but never in a public setting. and it's kind of ideal for both myself and the works to have this real dialogue with the

public not only in san francisco but people coming from all over the world. >> since the dawn of electricity, that light is something that people feel connected to and inspired by. personally, there is space to keep that alive, just finding balance. the key is to find some balance.

>> proposition a would authorize the san francisco unified school district to issue bonds to repair and upgrade more than 50 school facilities. property taxes could be increased if needed to pay the principal and interest on these bonds. the bond funds would be used to repair and replace major building systems including electrical, heating wat, water, security, and fire sprinklers. remove hazardous materials. improve accessibility for people with disabilities. make necessary seismic upgrades.

replace permanent structures and perform other work necessary to apply closure -- codes and regulation . they can't pay for teachers and administrative salaries or operative expenditures. the biggest issue in america today? segregation still exists... racism... the repression and oppression of women the educational system stem cell research homeless people cloning government health care taxation announcer: so, is there anything you're doing to help make a change? i'm not really doin' anything. ummmm [sighs] got me on that one...