support this. if it goes forward and the funding does not materialize, we have a whole that we would need to plug. >> but under the current proposal -- would there be a place in the budget even if we get this money? this is getting confusing because my understanding was that one of the main reasons for going with the staff proposal is that if we went with the other proposal we would be counting on the unsecured funding, and the digging a hole in our own budget. >> we are counting on secured funding, and the balance of the funding plan would likely come from the lifeline funds that are currently identified for other purposes. >> and not new money. >> we would need to identify all the resources for the things that we would fund the lifelines

for, and cut elsewhere in the budget, or we cut those services, which we likely would not do. we have to fill in the gaps of the $4 million per year and this would be in the revised budget. the budget was built on a certain assumption. >> this is a pliot -- we have time to look for money. this is a dismal financial outlook. but we have to make -- the outcome is to do this. [applause] >> if the current proposal is

voted on, how will we address this in the budget document we have right now, and if we go forward with this, where will we address this in the budget? what will we not do? >> in two weeks i will bring back and revised operating and capital budget that will change the assumptions of where those lifeline dollars will go, to fully fund. the exact amount would be $6.70 million of lifeline funding, and those may be coming from the capital and operating budget. i do not know how i would close this whole, but with this budget -- there are the tradeoffs that were made, and i would propose a revised budget. and it will make those

adjustments. i did not come up with a backup plan. this is the two-year number. >> so we cannot just make -- we cannot read-program the funding in the lifeline, so that we don't have to bring this back? is there anything that we can do to move the funding around just in case there is the fall back plan? >> if i can confer with the experts. i would love to have a budget adopted today.

>> the answer -- [inaudible]

>> i think that the most responsible thing for me to do, again -- a two-year, $1.60 billion budget -- i don't want to be cavalier with throwing together some balancing plan. as much as i know people would like to have the budget resolved, ahead of that list, i think it would be most responsible if i came back. the capital and the operating budget revenue will be affected by this, and i need to figure out a responsible way to balance the 6.7 million. we have committed to try to get the resolution passed and approved today, so if you do

something other than we had recommended we would just need to come back with a revised budget. i would like to give this the time that it result -- time that it deserves. >> just so we know the options on the table, if the second motion also fails, things stay as they are, they will stay status quo. and then -- >> the board could reconsider, if there are other options, but if there are no actions with changing this, it would be the status quo. >> and we would move on to the budget item. or would it be prudent to continue the budget item? >> this would also change the budget. >> we will probably -- unless this second motion passes, we will end up continuing the

budget, which is not a huge problem. >> and we have failed in the time for this. >> i am concerned about the idea of status quo. status quo for now, until we vote on this again. as an item within the budget. next time? >> would this come back to us? >> if we cannot agree on anything tonight, does this item come back to us, do we send this down the road? >> this is really up to the board. we have been working with everyone out here to try to get something through today, so that supervisor campos can bring it to the m.t.c. there are time lines that we were trying to me to make this happen.

it is in the hands of the board in terms of timing. >> just so i am clear with what happened here, it sounds like the budget that we have was uniquely created it for just the use of the low income pass. and there was not even an attempt to offer up -- >> the budget was built based on a number of assumptions in terms of sunday parking. i made the proposal to balance the budget, i did not propose a balanced budget, with extra encase the board did not want to go with sunday parking. i made assumptions based on what i thought -- but the group of revenue and expenditure items were. this is the decision of the

board. if the board wants to change this -- we can go back on the 17th and call a special meeting and come back before the end of the month. so if the board wants to make adjustments this is within your ability. >> can i ask the chair -- do we know if we delay this or continue this until another special meeting, would it give enough time for the supervisors to get what they need to hear from us? because they are working on a time line. >> exactly. i have as a proposal that we -- we bring 14 -- we vote on 14 but we also ask that this item be brought back to was to extend this to free to all use.

and if we pass 14 the way that this is written, and also have this come back to us, next meeting, to extend it to free for all youth -- i think in that case we would continue the budget. >> and you can also -- you can also continue the whole item, given that you have taken public comment and close to public comment, you will not have to do it at that time. and you could also choose to risk and all of the votes, continue the matter and continue the matter and the budget, the operating and the capital budget on april 17, and ask your director to come back with

variations on this theme so that you could adopt a budget at that time. this is another option that you have. and i don't know what this does to the mass transit authority funding, or the efforts of supervisor campos. >> what would that do to your efforts wit thh the mtc funding request, if they come back with two scenarios? supervisor campos: the one thing that we have heard from mtc, is that the sooner the mta board acts, the better, because the hope was that an action would have been taken by now. my fear with waiting is that you will face the possibility of losing funding and that this could go somewhere else.

my hope would be that there was a motion on the floor -- i hope that this is acted on. thank you. [applause] >> we have a motion, with the second. do we want to vote on this? >> can we read-read this? -- reread this? >> i want to make sure this is accurate. option 2 for free transit service for youth using the clipper card, as director ramos. the mta board of directors has approved the option for free transit service of youth age 5- 17 for the pilot program beginning august 3, 2012, through may 1, 2013, at which time they will return to the

index value, absent explicit actions -- and should be resolved that the board of directors authorized this the director of transportation to provide free transit service for all youth, ages 5-17 using the clipper card, through may 21, 2014, after which date this will return to the same index value, as explicit. and be it further resolved that the implementation of the free transit service -- for those using this card for the 22- month program, is contingent on the mtc and the transportation authority, approving the allocation of necessary funding.

>> can we take a vote on this? was there more discussion? >> i would just add -- i would just add that to me, it feels it would be -- it is clear there is a direction the community wants to go. it feels if we go back to the community with a ballot measure were future revenue streams, it is important that we indicate that we want to see this idea for every youth. i think that this vote would be the indication that we really walk the walk in terms of wanting have free transportation for everyone, and i think that obviously this will have to come back, and handle the budget.

this is unfortunate but i am happy to do this. as i have said earlier, where there is a will, there is away and i am confident that we can make this work. [applause] >> i will say something that i know will be unpopular, but there is a will, and we have talked on this personally. but we haven't been shown the way. that is why i was ready to vote for the staff proposal, and to vote for a full package later if it doesn't put a hole in lifeline services. so. that is my view. we should take a vote on the proposal. but my view is that this is not a referendum on if this board wants to have free muni, it is about how we fund it.

>> thank you. >> the director -- the proposal is contentiant on funding. so -- [applause] [inaudible] >> if the funding doesn't go through -- >> this is the debate we just had. dois this contingent on funding. >> they have a one-world answer, why don't you? the lifeline funds are coming to san francisco. these are coming. they could be used for this purpose. some of these are capital funds, but this can be done. up to $5 million, are these

funds that would not otherwise be coming to us, and so those are the ones that are in play, at this contingency. >> and what would you do with the lifeline money if you did not use this for director ramos. >> this is for the other services that we have spoken of, and does not mean that we would not find those services, but we would have to look elsewhere in the budget. i think, again, i stand by my recommendation and i think that this is the right policy. this is $6.70 million in two years, in a $1.60 billion budget. this is why we have multiple passes that the budget. this is why we have the language

prepared for the board, if they wanted to go in a different direction. there are some trade-offs and i want to be clear to everyone, there are trade-offs as we go to this larger population. but those are the tradeoffs that we can make. >> do you have your best guess of, in terms of the operational impact and the service impact that this will have, and what will this cost in terms of the budget impact? >> all that we have, and this is something that we provided back to the budget analyst, we have the rough numbers based on the writer ship models, that this many more would generate this many more service hours, and if we provided additional service hours, to work within the existing capacity, we know about these costs and they are very

high. they are the absolute worst-case scenario. there are a lot of people who say that these kids are already riding muni, just not legally. it would make legal what we do have, and would make a difference with how many people jump on this, and a lot of people are not riding muni for other reasons other than the 35 cent cost. it is reasonable to think that in some areas, after school there will be impacts regardless of how we do this. it is likely that a larger majority than the rest of the kids are low-income youth. we may have an impact in the

service to the extent that we do under these proposals. we will have to address these during the course of the year. >> i feel that i am remembering back to the first time we have this discussion. we said we did not want offer something that we would eventually have to take away. i am 08 afraid of this as we go down this path. the public commented that we heard today was incredibly -- get reaffirmed to me that for the low-income families, this is a problem, paying for muni. i feel that there is a certain segment of the population, and i know this from reading the documents that came with this, muni is not the transportation

of last resort. the income levels show that this is not the transportation of last resort. we need to make this safe and reliable and make certain we do not have meighen's issues, and make certain that we're putting all of the buttons on the air. i think that this will do more to have -- to help all of these muni riders. if we go down the two-year pilot, it will end in a couple of years where i think offering this -- this is so much more sustainable. i am worried that this is just not sustainable for free muni for all youth. this proposal fell like a good compromise. maybe this is something that people were not happy with but something this big, this is a huge step, offering free muni. we can't ignore that.

i feel that extending this to all youth will not be sustainable. we will create problems that we were not anticipating. i thought offering this was sustainable and then we would put this in the next budget. i am afraid of what we would have to give up to make that stretch and i am not willing to do this. we hear about the wheelchair lifts that are not working, and we hear about the overcrowding. i am trying to get on at rush hour, this takes four or five buses. to use this money to make it better for everyone, or people in other brackets. people with disabilities -- and seniors who are low-income. i don't think extending this

tall youth is the best use of funding. is there anyone else on that? we will have to take another vote. >> may i make one more? i know that there are other funds that have been identified, and i know that supervisor campos and his folks are putting themselves out there. they are elected and have to win confidence. if they put themselves out there, we have to work with that. granted, i know we are responsible, overall for the system and i will hold myself accountable. as a regular muni buss rider, i feel this shortfall in terms of operation. i think that we can tighten up

in a few places, with some of the capital problems -- that we may need to train back a little bit. i am confident that we can find this -- and most importantly, in terms of the two years and having to pull the plug on this. we're asking for people to pay for parking meters on sunday. in the future we will need to ask for people to vote for another revenue measure on the november ballot. it seems we would get more support from everyone if the system was viewed as something for more people and not just for the low-income people. that is why i am putting forward that resolution.

thank you for everyone. >> we need a voice vote. >> bridges? >> aye. >> brinkman? >> nay. lee? >> nay. >> oka? aye. ramos? aye. 3-3 vote, the motion fails. >> all right, in light of that, we need to continue the budget discussion to the next meeting. >> and continue this item. we should not revoke -- referred to the status quo. we only had one staff proposal, and i don't think that this -- you had six of six board members vote for some kind of program. let's not just stop and have no

program when you have 100% for some program. the direction needs to be for the staff to go back and work, with the supervisor's office and find what the alternative staff proposal would be. >> with the board consent, we will ask for item 14 to come back to us at a future meeting, hopefully the next meeting. >> it has to be the next meeting to go into the budget. >> i would agree, we owe the public some resolution. i think that we should vote on this again. >> this is what we will ask for. >> an item 15 and 16 would be continued?

>> it sounds like we have to continue. so we have some direction? >> i want to make certain that i understand, is the direction to return with something that funds free muni for all youth? >> what we -- >> i guess what i would say, if this is the direction, i don't see why you wouldn't vote on something now. [applause] >> if i'm going to come back, either way. as the director said, everyone supports something. i am not sure why you would not want to vote on anything. if your directing me to come back with a budget that is based on muni for all use, it will be the same budget with an

adjustment. >> i would rather -- finish this today. >> amen. understanding the direction, otherwise, maybe i misunderstand. >> there has to be an impact. >> if you approve something other than the staff recommendation, i will have to come back with a revised budget. i just want to know what my direction would be, leaving here. if you vote, i know exactly what this says. >> i think -- we have the direction on something, this is

for the people of san francisco. >> i am at a loss here as to what the direction as we are giving the executive director. >> my question remains the same. if you find the free youth, where does the money come from? he will have to make the budget adjustments. you said that the responsible thing to do would be to go back and tell you where this will come from. i don't want to vote on a program with significant budgetary impact until you tell me what the impact is going to be. if there is money coming out of the existing lifeline funding, to subsidize the phares for the low-income adults, and this proposal would require us to take that money, and some other existing amount of money, we need to know