else i would mention would like to have his done by the end of the year. this is not going to happen by january 1, two dozen 12. in my opinion, it is possible that we could do some of it. but not the entire thing. most likely, if we were able to do all of this, the full impact would not be until july 1 of the new fiscal year. a couple of things about the testimony. in addition to those options, the important thing is to see this in the context of our budget. we will see pieces of that very shortly in our workshop. from individual departments and how this would fit in about service implications, additional

vehicles, police, all of these things that we might have to do. more information would be helpful about these other cities that have some version of it and how it has played out. have other communities learned lessons in terms of implementing a policy like this? at the end of the day, the end of my comments would be the most compelling argument i heard was that 61% of all the kids incenses go would be eligible for reduced or free lunches. that is a startling statistic in a city as affluent as san francisco. that there are that many people in that much needed. to me, that cries out for some kind of a solution. i appreciate supervisor campos' resolution. he is calling on multi agencies

to work and make it happen. we do not have the ability ourselves. but the transportation who commission, which is the funding body, that is a possible source. the transportation authority, which is the sales tax measure. we need some specific things about where the money is coming from. and where it is going to be taken from. we have been through this a couple of times before where, you will do this and take it out of something else. it is almost impossible to do. those are my thoughts. director reiskin: i do not know if your list meant to ex glued exploring a low-income option -- chairman nolan: i did mean to say that. director reiskin: 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. >> you can see that it is amazing. you can hear that it is refreshing. you reach for it because it is irresistible. and the taste. simply delicious. san francisco tap water. it engages the senses. 311 is an important resource for all san franciscans. shouldld 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.