only for use for education and outreach which would largely be getting clipper cards in the hands of students. so we would have to work through that. we will have to work through that issue regardless. and i guess two more points. one is i neglected to mention that the mayor has been supportive in principle of this concept just as i think the board has. i think he shares the concerns about not wanting to engage in a program that adversely impacts muni. i don't want to presume to speak for him but i did want to communicate that he has been working with private sector entities to try to see if he could augment the revenues for this program from private sector funds that wouldn't otherwise be coming to the government or to the m.t.a. so that's another factor that is -- i'm about there. finally, i'll just second the notion of public transportation is cool.

i wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. >> thank you very much, mr. reiskin. in order to get this on the table for discussion, can i have a motion and second on this item and then we can discuss any -- >> i would move with the staff representation. >> ok. do i have a second? i don't have a second? you can second it if you choose? >> i'll second it and go ahead and discuss this item now. who would like to start? who wants to be the -- " >> i would rather have spoken to a recommendation that we go with the free-for-all that we create a resolution that would have -- that would send them back to m.t.c., getting the funding they need, the reassurance and commitment from this board that we would make something -- make it work out,

contingent upon finding the funding. i don't know if this would be the appropriate time to talk -- [applause] >> i don't know if this would be the most appropriate time to talk about that but that's what i was hoping we could talk about. >> all right. so we have on the table for discussion the staff recommendation. now, we can absolutely talk about adding a whereas to that recommendation. i'd like to hear from some of the other directors. director oka, would you like to start? commissioner oka: everything that everybody has said has -- for me, made a big difference because those of you who know where i stood from the beginning of my term on this board knows that the first thing that i said was i wanted to lower lifeline. lifeline right now is too high.

it is uncomfortable to me. for lifeline, low income, transit dependent individuals have to pay $30 a month, and yet i tried and tried and have tried to get down into the 20's. the mayor's office at that time wouldn't support that. i think we have no choice but to do something for youth in this city, and i've always been a proponent of free muni for all youth. [applause] commissioner oka: if we can't do that, somebody has to tell me why we can't do it. beyond what i've already heard

because there are people telling me the funding is there and i believe the funding is there. i think we can make this work. and i'd like to propose an amendment to the motion that puts free muni for all youth. [applause] >> can i say something? >> yes, please, director lee. commissioner lee: i have to say that this group has been very well organized, very professional in their presentation, very passionate in what they're saying. and if i were to just base a vote on the passion, you'd get it 100%. and there are some things that i totally agree that free muni for youth is admirable. the question is, we have to ask ourself, where does muni stand

right now in terms of operational scheduling, overcrowding the buses right now. i kind of see even if we did do the low income first, that it's mostly a two-stage process where we can capture the information, know where the operational shortfalls are and maybe come back again two years after we run this test to say ok, we understand, we know where the cracks are, this is where we can fix it, this is where we can go with free muni if that's what we want to do. right now we open up the floodgates and if the buses are crowded now, can you imagine if by tomorrow we said it's free? so i support what you're saying. i understand what you're saying but from an operational standpoint, nobody has convinced me that, you know, the money that we have is going to cover all the runs we've got to make and if we can't make it, do we put more drivers back on overtime to try to make the runs? that's what i'm not convinced on, that we have that feasibility to do that. i agree with everything you're

saying. and i wish i could totally support it 100% but there's this one little voice that says operation, what's going to happen to the rest of the riding public? i'm willing to say -- to still add a second clause that says ok, we'll run the test and if we can identify where we need to strengthen and can we do it, then we do the free youth for muni as the next phase. i'm recommending like a two-stage phase. >> thank you, director lee. i just have a couple thoughts. again, thank you all so much. your passion really is amazing and this was an amazing program and an amazing outreach and you've done such a good job. i think you've put something on the table for all of us to think about, that as you heard, the very first time you came before the board, a lot of us had never really considered the fact that when we were growing up those yellow school buses just showed up and we didn't have to worry about it so we really do appreciate the fact that you kids have to worry about it, you have to think about it, you have to think how you're going to pay for the

muni bus getting you to school. so i want to just mention a couple things that director reiskin mentioned, which is the commitment to work with the m.t.c. about the clipper card documentation. i do understand that level of documentation can be daunting, providing paperwork and providing documentation for anything can be a daunting prospect. there's no guarantee we can change that in any way, but you definitely have our commitment, because as you mentioned, anything that we implement will be clipper card based and doesn't mean whoever gets this, whether low income or all, you don't just get on the bus, you still have a clipper card and tag on the bus. we still have a commitment to work with the m.t.c. to make that process to getting the youth clipper card more accessible and making it easier. i think that one of the big things that came up was the idea of a stigma around a low

income clipper pass. again, i think with the clipper card, that stigma is removed to a great -- in a huge way. i don't think the clipper card is going to look any different. the clipper card will look like a clipper card. i think one of the commissioner's held up his, one of the youth commissioners held up the clipper card. that's what it will look like no matter who is using it, whether you paid full fare, reduced fare or paying cash and riding ride by ride off the clipper card. so what i'd like to propose is that we have a motion and we have a second on the measure as it's written. i would like to propose a whereas. we heard concern from supervisor campos' office and from the organizers that if we don't have some type of commitment on this board to providing free muni for all youth, that it makes it difficult to go after some of the funds. so i thought about this a lot today and we've come up with a

whereas clause that i'm hoping everyone will be able to agree on and perhaps this will alleviate some of the concern around the ability to go out and get the funding. whereas, the sfmta board of directors recognizes the difficulties many face given the current economic situation, as well as recognizing the public interest in encouraging muni ridership among young people, the board wishes to endorse the idea of providing free transit for all youth in the future as long as it can be done in a fiscally responsible manner. do i have any feedback? i'm sorry, i would need a motion and a second on that whereas. >> you made the motion. you need a second. >> i need a second. >> i'm wondering if that kind of language would work. >> no. >> it wouldn't work. >> you need a second in order

for that -- >> i'll stecked. >> for purposes of discussion. >> we've got a motion and a second on the whereas. now may we have a discussion among the board with the whereas. >> so i just want to be clear, you're amending the motion to give free muni for all, whereas the fiscal funding is available to fund the entire program? >> correct. it will take the staff recommendation, add a whereas that says we endorse the idea of providing free transit for all youth in the future as long as it can be done in a fiscally responsible manner. >> but my question is, the first part of the staff recommendation says low-income, so does that -- will that remove that part? >> no, this is in addition, this is it the additional money can become a available, then it would be extended to all youth. but the staff recommendation stands. and then if by the board

signaling that we find free muni for all youth to be a laudable goal that is not within our budgetary means at this time, shoot money become available and should our making that statement help that money become available? then we would do free muni for all youth. >> i guess my concern with that is, will that affect the funding that they secured? because i guess my undergo is the funding they secured is based on the fact -- maybe i'm misunderstanding it but i want to make sure i understand that. >> that's a good question. because i understood the m.t.c. had talked about, the new money, the $5 million is essentially there to fund the staff proposal. so i guess maybe i'm asking the same question but this whereas clause wouldn't jeopardize that money, would it? >> if i could clarify, first of all, there has been no money secured. there has been money identified

that following resolution by the m.t.a. board that would have language saying whatever is adopted would be contingent on m.t.c. funding, then i believe supervisor campos would introduce language at the m.t.c. to try to secure m.t.c. support to get that funding, so that's point one. this is contingent on action the m.t.c. would have to take. this hasn't been introduced at the m.t.c. yet. it could be after our vote today. supervisor campos would want to know, have the commitment before the m.t.a. before bringing something to the m.t.c. and the right approach

>> with refard to the funds, as i understand it, and i did speak to the head of the m.t.c. is this, there would be i think the higher percentage of the overall program that we would be seeking the region to fund, the more difficult it might be to secure that funding. if you look in our staff report on page 11. we are identifying a $9.4 million revenue loss. so that's $9.4 million and assumes a $4 million revenue loss which many of the public speakers think is low. it also doesn't include any additional service or related costs that we might incur. so the .4 is at the low end of what the program would cost

under this scenario. and what we proposed, $.7 would be half and of this i would say a relatively low estimate. so i think the concern people have been expressing is by seeking more than half of the program to be funded by regional funds might be a tough sell but i would argue that $9.4 million is quite a low estimate and we've heard much public testimony in support of that, such that i think there is still a case to be made that we're not really asking the region to pay for more than half of our program. so that's the issue. there has not been any money secured. the money i'd find -- the money identified, from a pragmatic standpoint, at the regional

level can't fund more than half of whatever it is we propose and i think that's the point that the folks have been trying to make.>> i just wanted to make certain, that the other half would come from the lifeline funds, and not the mass transit authority. >> the balance is the operating budget, and they said we needed to use -- they said that we needed to use the lifeline funds for the other sources. >> can we take comments from supervisor kim? >> we can't ask questions at this point. we can ask the staff but not the supervisors. >> you know -- it is your discretion. >> you can.

>> yes, please come up. [applause] >> unless we had amended the sunshine and public records, i don't think there is a problem with you asking the question. i just want to clarify, the reason we wanted the board of directors taking action -- is that the point is that they want to see what it is that the board of directors are willing to do before they talk about the funding that would be available. i would tell the body that this is what the board of directors has to approve, so that the language from the chair, will

recognize the intent? this does not accomplish the objective because this talks about what may happen in the future. and what this is is very difficult to find. and what they need to know when i asked for the finding is, what is it that the mta has agreed to right now? >> thank you, supervisor. >> it sounds like it would make sense to either take a vote on this motion or withdraw this motion. on the amendment of the motion. i think that i would withdraw this and there is no point in taking the up and down vote on this. and we then, if there is any more discussion around item 14, or if there is another motion -- >> is there no reason for the

amendment? >> i have had a few things i would like to say. >> i apologize for botching all of this. this is my first real chance to do anything here. it has been a year since i have been here and this feels like the first real tension that i have had to deal with here. and i hope we can get to a solution to make as many people happy here as possible. i think that we are all on the same page with respect to the community. i want to express my gratitude to everyone who came out and who has come out for over one year now, and i especially want to thank the mothers that have been here, coming out and bearing your soul, encouraging the children to come out here. we would not be here without you.

when these organizations made the call, you came. we need you here today and we will need you here in the future. if we have this kind of investment of your time and energy in this issue before, we would not have this conversation right now. we need you engaged in transit issues. i appreciate the comment from a woman wanting to be on the c.a.c. we make this a priority for off in advance to do what we need to do. my issue were my concern for a free muni for all use, is an attempt to create a world-class transit system, that everyone can be weldcomcome on and want o take. when i am not doing this, i am working for transit in the east

bay. transit has a stigma of being called, "rolling ghettos," "mugger movers." i know -- lawyers and bankers who drive from diamond heights because they are too good for muni. the clipper car would look the same but it would still have the stigma of, why should i be finding these low-income people. we get around that by going to a free system for everyone. i want everyone to think about the free systems that exist that we value so much. when you get off of the train at the airport -- this is free transit for people getting to the airport.

in emery -- this is a system that everyone loves. this is treasured by the community. the broadway show in oakland is free. they have figured out ways to do this. they have a ballot measure that will go to the voters in november that makes transit free not just for young people -- not just the low-income people but all of the youths. it is important that we start to keep up with this, because where there is a well, this is away. we have the central subway, america's cup -- this is a chance to empower the supervisors that are leading this fight to do something that would be in the direction of the world-class transportation system. 60% of the trips are taken by car, and if we had a system where people were encouraged to

take this we would have more people say, this is not more money to take a transit -- so i will just put my family in a car and drive. i hope that whatever is done today, will at least afford the idea of free muni for low-income folks. what would like to accomplish is empower the supervisors with what they need to fight the good fight and bring us back whenever they can, and if you can get this for everyone -- we go with the low-income passes for now, knowing that we are committed for the long-term fight for free muni for all. >> so you are in favor? >> the amendment does not sound like it would cover what we

needed. i hope staff is preparing an amendment. i have something to propose. >> it might be available. is there language available. >> the only language is in this proposal. and right now there is a motion on the floor. this is the motion before you for discussion, to the extent that an alternative motion -- if the motion fails to be adopted and there is another motion for another option, we have language to support the old emotions that the board should approve. the current motion on the floor is to approve the implementation of free transit service for the

low-income use, and to use the card for the pilot program in 2014. this is the motion that is before the board. you need to deal with that motion, up or down. can we have a little bit less audience participation. i know that you are very excited but this is a very confusing item and we all mean well. if we could just have a little bit less audience participation, we would appreciate this. >> you feel it would be proper to deal with that motion, or if there are amendments to that motion, to deal with that motion. at that time, if it is not approved, another motion, another option could be moved. and then we have the language to

support other options, all of these options presented. >> do you feel that you should take an up or down voice vote authorizing the board of transportation? i think that we need a voice vote on this. director bridges? no. heinke? aye. bringkman? aye. oka, no. director ramaos, no. the motion fails. [applause] >> it would be appropriate at this time, perhaps we should discuss, if this motion fails, it means that we would need to provide the budget document. so, do i have another motion on

the table instead of this one? >> i am having to make a motion to amend the resolution to include language that has been prepared in anticipation of this predicament. >> if you'll just tell me which of these options you are going for. >> this is free muni for all youth. [applause] >> so, the language related to that, the last three paragraphs in the resolution would be deleted, and the new clause would be on april 2012 -- we have decided to approve the option to provide free transit ãclipper card for the pilot

program through may 31, 2014, then the fares will return on june 1, 2014, abscent explicit action. the mta board of directors asks the board of transportation to authorize all youth who use the card for the pilot program, through may 31, 2014, at which time they will return to an index value, abscent explicit board action. and the implementation of transportation service for all youth during the pilot program -- through may 31, 2014 is contingent on the mass transit authority and the transportation

authority approving the allocation of necessary funding. mtc. >> mtc. >> director? >> based on the vote, what happens if this is approved and we do not get funding? >> adel language of the resolution and the understanding all along -- has been if we do not get the funding, and then things stay the status quo. >> and it goes back to the way that this is right now. >> this is within the index, just like the senior phares. >> why would there need to be a change to the budget document? >> we assumed that the finding in the budget -- we assume the revenue of said base. we're talking about a $4 million

difference. based on the assumption of certain revenue level, with a $4 million of said -- we had programmed the lifeline funds in a certain way and they would have to change those. >> is this current resolution contingent on the pilot program being funded by new money? >> whichever resolution -- the resolutions would have the same contingency language. what was assumed in the budget, just like i assume certain labor concessions in the budget, this was that the revenue loss associated with free muni for the low-income youth, this is