they shifted into the work order line item. i think there are other examples like that. i think at one point, the proposed work order budget was something up around $80 million. there were reductions made to get it down to the old level it is today. the one exception to what i have been talking about is the one youris the portion that goes toe police department your eg. i cannot speak to the history and when it was funded by the police department, but that is a policy decision that it would be funded by the transportation department. git is a clear legitimate expene

that should be paid. the traffic enforcement has been a policy called. i do not think there is disputes that we need five service. it is a matter of who pays for it, and if it were up to our budget it would be an $9 million and addition of your your -- $9 million ad edition. that is not something we can unilaterally decide to pay. get it is the city's decision triggered >> -- it is a city decision. good >> we keep those in the department for the service, so we get a more clear discussion of how our work orders are gonedone, so when we are payingr motorcycles, i think about is a good idea to have separate for

the future. >> we would welcome to the general fund assumption of the responsibility but recognize its house of 100 plus million dollar gap. >> this work issue has come oup. there are opportunities to reduce the work order on two levels. you reduce your work order amount for the departments. on the other side, does the department really have the opportunity to reduce thrown expenses to correspond, and what that often means, are we willing to go forward with layoffs and ordered to do that, so that is a legitimate question about his work order.

it is not like saying, i am not going to buy tape or gas. it is something that is harder to reduce, the question about the city attorney work order is very appealing. that does not have a negative impact in terms of people. xbox we would like to bring back down. -- >> that is something we would like to bring down. if we could reduce those that would be a good thing.

>> the city attorney is to do a lot of work. the hourly rates the city attorney in charge thoses is lor than we would need to do, so if we cut the work order, you needed start confessing judgment on everything, or it would have to hire an outside law firm at a higher hourly rate. >> which we are prohibited from doing. i think it would end up being more expensive, so i do appreciate the explanation. i do agree the work order is

unique, and i appreciate the discussion, but a lot of these are straightforward services. >> that is what we have to look out on the expenditure side, so the other side is looking out revenues. there is a long thing the city has considered in the past. i lead a panel to try to identify, to a police shorten list -- to at least shorten the

list, so here are some things that have come in. i will highlight a few. with regard to parking citations, the state has imposed a couple of fees on top, so to the extent we do not pass those through, and we are basically paying themselves -- paying them ourselves. we would pass those through, which would add money to the cost of any parking citation. another idea has been to extend the hours during which we enforce parking meters into the evening or on sundays. both have a fair amount of courage -- no amount of commercial activity.

-- both have a fair amount of commercial activity. from getting folks off the street parking, we think these have policy and operational merit. they also generate revenue. there are some areas of the city where there is commercial activity where we do not have managed parkading. we think there is an opportunity where an additional readers would bring parking benefit along with a little revenue. the board of supervisors adopted resolutions supporting free muni for youth. the revenue impact of doing so would be roughly $8 million a year.

if we were to limit 5 someway such as for low income newsyout it would be $4 million of impact. it is a relatively small percentage of the budget, about 1%, and those advocating for this have identified some revenue sources said could help offset our revenue loss. we have some reduce funding. supervisor campos has been working on funds that could find to enable us to reduce or eliminate fair for youth.

state funding for yellow school buses have been declining and is projected to continue to decline. this happens at a time when discount passes went from $10 to $20 during just the course of a few years, so putting those together has created this drives, but it does have some potential impact that may be offset by regional funds. >> the proposal, what you think the chances are of it actually going away after two years? >> if it is rhetorical, does that mean i do not have to answer it? if we were to make muni very

cheap or free for the whole population, for us to jump it stack up from zero or five, it would be 25 iva-- i think it wod be very difficult. the conversation we were having with supervisor campos and grass-roots advocate sen is to advocate for and seek sustainable funding that would enable us to continue, so the two-year pilot helps us to evaluate whether the program is meeting its goals, including increasing writer ship, but it also gives us time to identify an ongoing funding source. what it also does is provide an opportunity to look at overall fare structure, which provides a very deep discount for people based on their age, independent

of income or need, whereas our adult lifeline pass, which is meant for low income adults, is less of a discount. low-income adults pay $31 a month. youth and seniors pay $21 a month. we need to rethink our structure. we should target our discounts to those who need it. >> that is important in terms of revaluating the structure, and i think it is a very strong argument your your -- id is a

very strong argument. i am all about helping low- income people access to public transportation, whether through discounts or what ever is, but my concern is i think we all know this will not go away after two years, because once you have something like this, it is extremely hard to take it away from people once they have come to rely on its, and i do not see any plan to fund this. perhaps we will be able to cobble together the funding. but will not be there in the long run, and i am concerned it will put additional annual obligation on muni going forward, and that means two things. first, we have to cut $7.9 million from something, and that means it will come out of the maintenance budget and that we will have switch failures and

store failures and all the things said make it not work for poor kids and rich people and everyone in between, and the second thing is even if we are able to find sustainable funding source, that is $7.9 million going to this program so wealthy kids can have free muni. it could be going to address the structural deficit. we have to keep in mind the deficits we see for the annual operating is an operating deficit, but we are so deep under water in terms of finding what we need to find, so i have a significant concern this puts me in another $7.9 million in a hole every year to make sure

middle-class and rich kids in public school or private school are able to take new the for free, so i know i am not saying anything new. i just really wanted to convey that sentiment. supervisor avalos: i also would like to express another sentiment, and i think we make choices all the time about what is the best way we provide access to people in our community system, and we have gone back to those choices in the past, and we are making new choices all the time. as the city we make choices about how we finance things we want to do. we just made a big choice about the america's cup yesterday, and we are moving forward a big chunk of money to support the of event. a lot of that is going to be

going to parts of san francisco many parts of the rest of the city will not see, and that is a choice. i think it is a choice we can still make. we have decisions if we are able to implemente it. i believe it should be universal for all people. given that we have lost the yellow school bus thoses, it crs a writer should as well as making sure we have mobility.

i know the directors are grappling with this, and there is a great deal of support, and i know we can make it happen for years to come. >> i understand we have budget choices in terms of priorities, and i think it is important we express our commitment to young people, and i think this is an important statement, and often we do that through our budget document, and that is something i would like to see.

i am open to discussing something. my understanding is it would be expensive to monitor income levels. i know we talked about an honor system, but i do not know if we had a vendett -- have data for youth passes. i think the vast majority of youth are low income. i wonder where it comes from, if it is an estimate or based on data. >> it is based on the eligible population, which is about half the kids. we are estimating 30% to 40%. it is a rough estimate. it could be the most of the cave are providing them for

free, and the impact could be more than $4 million. gardnewe have talked to the schl district and could be something similar that would be very minimal. we would not do any verification. we do not have the means to do something like that. >> i know there is going to be more conversation, but we do make a lot of choices. we have a difference of opinion.

we have similar goals. i think there are smart ways to do if that are conducive to making sure the system is going to be run properly, and i really do share some of the comments laid out. it is a significant problem to see we have a 120 plus gap to make sure we have service. many of us here about how we do not want to see turnarounds. why does the does not come on time? the five we may be switching it with other programs. whether there is a deep subsidy

to help low income individuals, but i think that is much more palatable for me. gooi know we are going to grappe with this. >> thank you. supervisor wiener: can you made the comment on how the implementation for the bargaining agreement is going in terms of reducing overtime. there is a concern over time and maybe maintenance-related. can you comment on that? >> it is the ability to hire part-time operators, which we

started doing, and as fast as we can employ those, we are doing so. i think we are up to 80. we have the capacity of quite a bit more, but by putting a part- time operators in place of schedules but had still to in overtime, -- that had built-in overtime, so that is a big benefit. we are spending a lot above overtime to do some of the maintenance campaigns. some of it we are funding on overtime, because in the past we have hiring freezes, so a lot of

the civil services had expired, so we do not have additional staffing, even if we can find space in the budget, so we staff some of that with overtime. we also have 12 furlough days in the budget. some of those need to have a physical presence, so when we have someone missing on a furlough day, we are back with overtime, so there are a number of things driving our overtime up. it generated a lot of cost for us as well, so there are a number of different drivers, and we are actively working to address in this budget, and generally by controlling overtime costs, so it is a

significant reduction in with $37 million. those are pretty steep drops we are proposing. >> in the spirit of feedback, i know you have one more page of revenues, but in taking a look of the first stages, it would be my strong hope muni would continue to look at other opportunities, but to relatally try to see where we might find concessions. i would hope that budget and negotiations are reflective of what we are doing. >> i met early on before this

budget season started, and we agreed to work together. we have the same challenges, so we are negotiating together, so we will be working in sepp so we are all on the same page. >> in terms of additional revenues, i think it is not bad. i would not agree to taking it up to 22.50 khatami. -- net 22.50 at all. i would be open to got one. regent -- to that one. the other areas i want to speak to in terms of parking and charging for sunday parking, those are areas i have been concerned with in the past, particularly because of what the impact might be on business, so

while i am concerned, i would like to see what new nea would be proposing -- to see what muni might be proposing because they make sense a. >> it is pretty straightforward. goobut we will likely propose starting later here again we see that it would help spaces. goopeople wanting to access thoe businesses have very little ability to do so. i think it is generally the

residents who do not have to move their car from saturday night through sunday morning. that would be adversely impacted. in terms of evenings when we had our public hearing, the sentiment of the board was maybe that is something we should pilot in select commercial herriot'areas, where parking isd up, so that might have been more, and if so, we want to work with respect of neighborhood commercial districts to feel where there might be stronger support.

just a few other things we looked at a. there is currently part of the planning code says downtown for raw shows -- downtown garages have certain restrictions on the type of the rates they can charge, so one would be to modify not to apply to all or citywide. i think there may be some legal challenges or other concerns, but it would be potentially guerdon parking management policy. it would also potentially generate some revenue. the budget does resume the policy will continue, so there are indexing of regular adults

in the proposed budget, but beyond that we look at a couple of things such as charging 25 cents for a cash transfer puree good -- a cash transfer, or charging 50 cents more as we tried to move he ohm -- move people from paying cash. finally, the bottom shows a little bit of good news from the joint report, and where would we get comes through on a formula, so where the general fund does better, we do better, so from the original estimates, they are improved, so this isn a possible

revenue. this is one we will certainly take. as i mentioned in the beginning, we have a larger structural deficit to address commoso thisl is also looking at longer-term reductions. this shows what some of those are. the one folks think is the best fit for the mta is a vehicle licensing fee. in order to bring those to the voters, we would need authorization from the state, which has not been forthcoming. >> a signature from the governor? >> the legislature has approved >> the legislature has approved this three times, and all th