will have been much better operation through the corridor. that concludes my presentation. chairperson nolan: members of the board? director brinkman: i will just say thank you to staff for the work on the bike lanes. i happen to a couple of the public meetings where you were gathering information. staff did such a good job answering questions and presenting all the options, and gathering community feedback. i know there is some disappointment with the timeline of the project, but it was the original timeline that was proposed. it is unfortunate that things cannot be sped up a lot in the city, but that is the reality of it. i think we will end up with a project that has really good community support. it is another example of people's appetite getting ahead of us. people are looking at this stretch to take some of the cyclists off the panhandling and move them onto the street. we will have to ask staff at

some point to let me have an update on that, on whether it is something that is just as difficult or less difficult due to the extra traffic lane that exists along the panhandle. i want to say thank-you to staff for their work on the bike lanes. i think it will yield a fabulous project. >> i realize this is not quite before us, but i understood from your comments of the current direction of this -- and start over. when we started this, there were a number of options presented. one of the things considered was impact on traffic lanes. what i am hearing you say is the current just of this, although it is not finalized -- the impact would be to street parking, but no reduction of traffic lines in that corridor. executive director reiskin: that is correct. stuff like that a number of options. based on the feedback and

analysis, our recommended option would be removal of the parking lanes on those three blocks, not impacting the traffic lanes. chairperson nolan: would anyone else care to comment? >> item 8 is the citizen's advisory council report. i do not see the chair here. chairperson nolan: before the public comment, i am assuming most people are here today to talk about the budget. what we have in terms of the -- do we have much public comment other than the budget? >> there are people that have turned in speaker kurds for public comment. also for item 11, the budget. there is an overflow room in the south light court, and a spanish-language translators is also available. chairperson nolan: we should get right to the budget part of it, since most people are here for that reason.

>> there were initially a few taxicab operators that showed up but were concerned about taxicabs. you might want to clear that up. chairperson nolan: and i know there are folks who want to talk about free muni for youth. but those are not here except for in the budget. there is not a separate item. it is also important to note the board will not be taking action on the budget at this point. before the presentation -- one of the goals for today is for members of the board to indicate what specifically is possible. we want to acknowledge that this is a fluid document that is changing. we have four more meetings to go with the public. we have lots of things that are good to happen between them. it would be helpful for the

staff, the agency, and the public, if we were able to give some sense of where we as a body are, particularly relative to the proposals listed for balancing the budget. i will be prepared to do that, and i hope our one else will as well. a presentation comes first. executive director reiskin: i do not have a presentation, as we provided one at the last meeting. but i would maybe offer some opening comments to frame the issues or refresh folks where we left out. then we can move to public comment. where we had left off in terms of the expenditure budget -- we made a number of -- i have developed a number of proposed cuts to the budget. if you recall, we started out with projected shortfalls in the

$45 million range for the next two fiscal years. i was able to find significant savings or propose significant reductions in various areas, from management to equipment budgets, to bring down the expenditures below the level of the anticipated revenues. what i also indicated two weeks ago in the proposed budget is to properly fund the maintenance of the system. predominately, the muni system, but also some maintenance on the parking and traffic side, as well as safety staff and crossing guard staff. these are areas that i think have been cut or frozen in the past that leave us with a system that is not adequately resourced in terms of maintenance. as an example, we had a switch failure in embarcadero during

rush-hour, a critical switch that every train that runs through the subway system is impacted by. it is a perfect example. we did not stage this for the budget hearing, but it is a perfect example of why we need to have the person power to maintain these switches. the same goes for overhead wires and our buses and trains. over the years, as agency expenditures have been outpacing revenues, and there has been an understandable reluctance to cut service, we have cut maintenance. we have cut cleaning. we have cut training. what i am proposing to do is to bring to the board a budget that reflects a much more adequately those supportive services that directly impact the customer experience, reliability, and

safety of the system. i was able to find a number of things to cut out of the budget. but then i am proposing to add, so we are properly maintaining the system and can deliver our service plan properly. what that does is it creates, based on what i presented last time, a $19.60 million shortfall in the first fiscal year. there are gaps we need to close through either increased revenues, which is really what is on the table today for public comment, and/or a combination of service cuts or other expenditure cuts. before i turn it back, i want to throw in some things that either are still outstanding or have evolved since we last talked about this.

we already had a state court house fee that was attached to parking citations, a $3 fee. we are absorbing $2 of that, something on the order of a $2.40 million impact. we have since learned there was an additional state feet, another $3 that the state has imposed, starting this past january and running through the end of next fiscal year. that has an additional $3.40 million impact that either adds to our problem or we would pass through to people receiving citations. that is something i did not present last time. we have taken a close look at our fare revenues. although we have seen a small

increase in ridership over the past year, plus the fact that under commander milatello's direction, the fair inspection program has become more efficient and productive -- based on those changes, we are projecting fare revenues in excess of 1 million the first year and $1.50 million the second year. we also are anticipating good news from the general fund, based on the report that will be coming out this week from the controller and the mayor's budget office that we think will be helpful in terms of additional revenues coming in. there is some good news and bad news there. on the expenditure side, what i indicated last time was increasing fair enforcement to

come in line with all-or boarding. we want to budget for a full year instead of a half year, which will be an additional half-million the first year. what i did not include in the expenditure budget, but are really still open items -- we do not know the impact of retiree health care. those numbers have not yet been entered into the system from the controller's office. what we have not included is any savings from labor negotiations. as you know, we are currently in contract with the transit workers union. but all of the rest of the union's that make up the balance, more than half of the work force, our contracts are open. we are negotiating with the department of cuban resources on new contracts. for example, the 4.62% decrease

in wages that those unions contributed to closing the gap in the last two years -- those expired at the end of this year. then there are cost of living increases. we have not anticipated and the labor savings. that is something for your considerations. this budget assumes a number of positions to be grant funded that in all likelihood will not be entirely grant funded. some of the folks who work on capitol planning have been budgeted as though they are grant funded, but they are overhead position supporting capital projects. not sure yet what the impact of budgeting those folks in the operating fund or overhead fund, where they should be, will be. that is not something that has

been incorporated in the expenditure budget. we received a grant from the federal government that has paid for a sergeant and eight police officers and have been working undercover as the new task force. from my understanding, they have been very effective in addressing some of the issues we have had on unique. we recently had some pickpocketing reported. this team was successful in achieving an arrest. the grant expires at the end of the year. we do not have an additional $2.50 million to backfill from our funds to keep that task force in place. if between us, the police department, and the city, we do not identify those funds, we are going to lose that unit. those are some things on the revenue and expenditure side

that could change, the $90.60 million and $34 million gap we talked about. today's hearing is one major way we are seeking public feedback. there was reference to the town hall meetings we are having. i also, with your consent, had convened a panel of stakeholders from business, from labor, from neighborhood groups, from advocacy organizations to come together and understand our budget and make recommendations. while the work of that panel is not complete, we did, in anticipation of today's meeting, ask that panel to make recommendations for the short term, for this coming budget. while i do not think i can officially report out -- it is

something of an informal process, and i do not want to get ahead of myself and speak for the panel. i will just let you know what some of the thinking is. there are some board members who might want to join in on this. among the options we had previously proposed, the panel was generally supportive of passing through the state fees on the parking tickets, the court house fee i mentioned, as well as an additional $3 fee. generally supportive of sunday parking meter enforcement. supportive of perhaps piloting expanded parking meter hours in a few select neighborhoods. these would be a few select sf park neighborhoods where there would be an excess of demand for doing so.

generally supportive of free youth fast passes, at least for low-income youth. generally supportive of enforcing the existing parking barack ordinance, planning code section 155g, which applies to buildings built with parking after the passage of the downtown plan, and finally, generally supportive of recommending that the city general fund as opposed to the mta pay for the police department traffic company, which represents a $9 million part of our work order budget. those are at least preliminary thinking from this revenue panel. the ideas they were considering were in the staff report. what is in the baseline budget assumed are the indexing, the

fare indexing, and indexing of cost recovery fees that are shown in exhibits one and two. and in the staff report. on page 5 and 6 of the staff report, there are additional revenue sources that we discussed the previous meetings, and that i have just identified. and exhibits one, too, and three in the packet are included in the budget. those are inflation indexing. appendix a identifies other potential fee and fine increases, all of which are open for consideration today. there will be considered in the final budget we will propose on april 3. chairperson nolan: there are

possible additional revenue sources. is there anything that is on here now that has changed since then went on here, as a result of the town hall revenue panel or anything? executive director reiskin: the town hall, we are really just had -- i cannot say there is consensus out of that. for the revenue panel, the participation penalty increase, and this is just to pass through the state cost, there was support for. there was support for a possible pilot of extending parking meter enforcement hours. chairperson nolan: is there anything that came off -- executive director reiskin: the parking meter bagging fee was not recorded. i will have to ask one of the directors to speak on the new metred spaces. i frankly do not recall. director brinkman: the new

metred spaces was generally supported. but i think people would like more information on where those readers would be. and also keeping in mind that the public process needs to be followed -- some communication to communities. executive director reiskin: and the items on page 6 -- there was not consensus support. chairperson nolan: the parking meter bagging feet -- there is some consensus around that because that might be part of something later on? executive director reiskin: one of the -- in the transit sustainability fee that the board was briefed on recently, there is going to be a much more comprehensive nexus study-driven approach to incorporating the impacts of residential development into the impact fee

system. frankly, this was my recommendation, the fact that this was coming and the fact that the residential building market and the economy generally are still soft. this would not be a good time to consider putting the parking meter bagging feet up. chairperson nolan: all of the rest of these on page 5, except for that, are consensus, right? and on page 6, there is not any consensus around those at all? executive director reiskin: correct. >> i know we want to hear from the public before we have our discussion, but are the inflation indexes such that -- obviously, we have had a relatively low. of inflation. -- low period of inflation. if we index, will it actually increase revenue? meaning are the indexes such

that we could raise fares and fines consistent with the index? executive director reiskin: page eight shows what would happen when the transit fares -- the single fare is not shown here. that would not increase. but the adult fast pass would go from 62 to 64 to 66. the discount house would go to -- pass would go to 23. there are assumptions already built into the budget. some of them go up only a little. >> but the $2 cash fare under the indexing proposal would not go up absent further board action? executive director reiskin: that is correct. there is a rounding requirement. it continues to round down. director heinicke: thank you very much. chairperson nolan: let us hear from the public. >> public comment.

vera hale followed by makr gr -- mark frueberg. chairperson nolan: why don't you read the third or fourth. >> cathy hale, revernd lang, jane martin. >> good afternoon. i am vera hale. i am going to encourage you not to increase the senior fair with your indexing. there are several reasons for this. one is that 45,000 elderly and disabled in san francisco have had their ssi checks cut. ssi is only for very low income people that have no more than $2,000 in the bank.

the governor has reduced the state share so much that someone who was receiving $907 a month in 2009 lost $76, and now receives $830 a month. they did not get any cost of living. i assume you think of their cost of living, but think of there's also. this is the first year you may split discounts of seniors and children. they have been together in discounts for years. i do not think it is a good idea to raise the senior fair at a time when you are talking about free fare for youth. while i understand there is good justification for it, i would like to see you leave the senior fare alone for your next two years budget. we appreciate the director

reiskin coming to the department of aging to talk about these concerns. however, you of already had the -- have already had the senior meetings at noon, and the others are at 6:00. this is not a senior-friendly time to have a public hearing. i hope you will consider in future years having more in the daytime. seniors read the bus an awful lot to doctors, to meals, to shopping, and to many different things. it is very difficult when you start wanting them to go out at night, when they have trouble getting home. >> kathy lipscomb and reverend

james the line -- delang. >> i want to address the tax portion of your budget. i note there is going to be an across-the-board 9% increase in all sorts of tax the fees -- taxi fees in the first year of your budget, and a cumulative 14% increase in two years. there was an increase in the the drivers paid last year. a small fraction is going toward regulation of illegal cabs and limousines. far from enough to make a real dent in the problem.

in the meantime, you have collected over $16 million to date in taxing, none of which is going to solve this terrible epidemic we have in the taxi industry of illegal providers of service. i do not think it is right to be raising these fees while at the same time you are taking all of this money for your own purposes. i also want to point out -- this is on behalf of green cab. i want to point out a particular fee which think is highly unfair. the color scheme renewal fee -- we have 16 medallions and pay 4000. yellow cab has 500 medallions and pays $8,000. green cabbage is paying about $250 per cab. yellow cab is paying about $16

per tab -- cab. this seems highly unfair. [laughter] -- [applause] chairperson nolan: good afternoon, ms. lipscomb. >> thank you. i am here to speak in favor of free muni passes for youth. i am a member of the executive board of senior action network. yesterday in preparing for these hearings, i spoke with our public safety staff person. he said he hoped the years i was not true regarding mta's alleged statement that if fares for use were free, then senior fares would have to be increased. the mta officials are scheduled for the membership meeting this coming thursday, and we will raise this issue with them. this is called a divide and conquer strategy. senior support free fares for

youth, who can wake up and not worry about how they can get the fair to go to school. family should not have to choose between buying food and paying for muni. we all know about the increase in poverty across the nation. especially in families of color. generally the money is not conducive to study, learning, or happiness. the problems of the transit police harassing you and demanding proof of payment must end. imagine the humiliation and embarrassment of this. i am sure that it has led to more than one young person quitting school. the san francisco unified school district will be cutting school services by 23%. we would like to give a special thanks in shout out to supervisor compost for identifying federal funds that can be used for free passes for the youth.

this speaks to the importance of the mta, board of supervisors, and youth working together to make free passes happened. >> the next speaker is [reads names] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. welcome. in the chair of the san francisco interfaith council, here to speak on behalf of the many interfaith congregations in the city of san francisco. i want to speak to the issue of funding parking meter fees. i want you to understand the impact that this would have on our christian congregations throughout the city. most people do not have parking lots. some of them are historic churches that were built well before the use of the automobile. we can only imagine what would

happen, 15 minutes into the service, when there is an exit to feed the parking meter. some of these people have to walk long distances to find their cars. they would just give up, missing out on their worship experience and very important fellowship experience that happens afterwards. we understand the need for more revenue. one could understand this extension as a way for the law of unintended consequences that could have a serious impact on many communities of faith in our city. we respectfully ask you to reconsider your plan to extend parking meter fees during sunday's. thank you very much. >>