i had proposed a very significant assessment and maintenance of the system. that is the core theme of this budget and it remained so regardless of the outcome today. $30 million of annual funding to enhance the level of maintenance we need to provide to our system to make reliable and safe. because that was something that was added to the budget, and is not part of the base, and because i have taken all the steps i could take responsibly to cut the base, including reductions in management, reductions in overtime and workers' comp and equipment costs, i did not feel like there was any more base to cut without cutting service. what i am proposing is $3.8 million production in planned

increase expenditures for bus maintenance. the reason i selected bus maintenance, and this is after discussions with staff, while we certainly have needs that far outstretched the generous budget that we are trying to propose, in the area of bus maintenance, we have our best and new opportunity for advancement of fleet purchases to try to address the underlying bus costs. of all the areas i was proposing for increased investment with regard to maintenance, this was probably the lowest priority. that has a lot of assumptions built into it. in proposing a reduction in what i thought was an important expenditure is not something i

take lightly. i certainly do not mean to be putting one important versus another. in order for us to find the additional $6.6 million, there are trade-offs that we have to make. i know some folks may be do not like that or do not like what i have chosen, but there are real trade-offs that we have to make. that is $3.8 million of the $6.6 million. the other is to reduce from the capital budget. these are from the lifeline funds. $2.1 million would be a reduction of state prop 1-b funds that are intended for use of capital improvements in low- income neighborhoods. as many of those advocating for free muni for all youth have

suggested, we have more lifeline funds now that we have that in the past. if we were to be prioritized the use of funds, which is not what i initially recommended, this would be a way to do it. that $2.1 million, up where we not to every prioritize it to expand the free muni for all youth pilots would be otherwise funds that we would seek authorization to use for transit improvements in low-income neighborhoods, such as mission mobility project. we have gone some funding for the mission mobility project, but it is not for the fund did. that is a project that would speed up muni through the mission corridor. again, in my proposed budget, i prioritized that over expanded free muni for all youth. it is a reasonable path.

the other portion of the capital budget was the $700,000 reduction in state funds that we would otherwise have used to attach bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects to paving projects. often, but we were about to repave the road, we would come to the mta. are there any improvements in your queue? and do with less disruption and less cost than doing them separately. the answer that came back, we have those needs, but we do not have the funding. we would otherwise, were the

sons not we prioritize, to expand this pilot, we would use these funds for that purpose. that is the sum of the $6.6 million. i know i have read some comments to the extent that this proposal is creating a false choices. i would respectfully disagree with that. i have endeavored in very good faith to present what i believed our real options that the board can consider and that our real policy decisions. there are trade-offs. once we expand beyond the $5 million that the advocates, to their great credit, have identified as being available from the empty seats, and -- mtc, to go beyond that, there are budget impacts. we could disagree over whether

these are the right trade-offs to make. these are the most responsible. the most responsible ones. i do not know -- to what extent i need to address other comments at this point. it may be helpful for me to clarify things at the end of public comment. >> we hear from the members of the public. the public comment period is closed except on what he is just saying at this point. i would ask that you keep strictly to that. we will hear from the public and then we will come back and have the conversation and make the decision. i see we are joined by supervisor campos. >> for people who are standing, the fire codes require us to ask that you moved your room 417 is a seat is not available. you will be able to fully hear

the proceedings. people standing, if you could please move to 417. 416. >> good afternoon, mr. president. it is good to see you. i hope you are doing better. as i understand, it had nothing to do with muni. whatever happens, we have a safe system. i do want to thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. i also want to thank the staff and the director of transportation. you have a great opportunity today to take the mta in a very different direction in terms of how it deals with children and families and youth. we have articulated as to why we believe the right approach is to make muni free for all children and youth in the city and county of san francisco.

that is the right policy approach for a lot of different reasons but the message we got from that end of the aisle, if we -- if you find the money, we will do it. to the extent, though, that this board decides to go in a somewhat more measured direction about limiting it to low income youth, i do hope the goal of making it free and available to all remains and that we take the time to monitor how this works so that we do get to a point where it is free for all children. san francisco has the lowest rate of children compared to any other major metropolitan area. i think we have to do better than what we are doing in terms of keeping families. it is not just low income families, it is all families. one thing that i would say in terms of some of the numbers and the issue of maintenance, which

was added to the equation, if we go down the road, when we began this process, we had a very comprehensive analysis done by the budget and legislative analyst. it was an analysis that we requested in conjunction with the mta. we asked the mta to provide the budget every single piece of information so they could take into account all the possible costs of this project. what is frustrating is that the issue of how much this would cost and what is implicated seems to be shifting target. the issue of maintenance was not an issue that was identified by the mta. it is not an issue that was identified to my office until a couple of days before this vote. i do take the mta at their word in terms of the importance of the issue. i think we really need to

analyze what exactly is meant by the trade-off of being -- a trade-off. this is not something that has been identified before. that said, i want to send a clear message to this board and to the people involved in this issue. i think we should be very proud of where we are. some of us believe that we should go farther and make it free for all. but the fact that the city and county of san francisco is talking about, at minimum, making it free for low income youth, is something that we should be very proud of. i especially want to address the families and youth involved. it is important for them to have a victory. there should be proud of the fact that we are where we are. they have changed the conversation. i hope they change the conversation, not only so that we take the step right now, so that we continue to move forward

on this issue of how we make the system accessible. to the extent that you are implementing a program that allows free public transit to low income youth, i hope that two things remain a priority. one is acceptability. making sure that in implementing the program, you are not excluding the very families that you want to help. the thing about the low-income families that we are concerned about is that they are the ones that will have the toughest time accessing any type of bureaucracy or process. make sure that that accessibility is fair. make sure also that you make the process as simple as you possibly can. simplicity is important, especially for these families. i'm excited about where we are. we have some differences of opinion as to how far we should

go, but i am very proud of where we are. i want to thank the director of transportation and the staff. i think it is important for us to speak with one voice. even though this is an important part of the process, the bulk of the work remains to be done at the regional level. we need to make the case, and to make it successful, we need to be united. fully committed to making sure that we are successful in this effort and that we continue to monitor this effort. you have that pledge, and i look forward to working with the staff, with your staff, with the commissioners in making sure that we do this project right. to make sure we have the funding needed to make it successful. and that the implementation works and there is an operational plan in place to make sure that it is implemented in a way that minimizes the

impact on the ridership. that is doable. the last thing, to the extent that these other issues that are identified are important. the issue of maintenance been one of them. i also think beyond this program, you have an opportunity today, when you approve this budget, to make sure that you do right by this system can do right by the ridership of the mta. i do hope that you are able to address issues that remain issues. one of the issues that i think needs to be a focus is the issue of -- we have an audit that is ongoing right now looking at whether or not every one of those dollars that is being spent, $63 million, is truly connected to transportation. let me identify one area where i think you can do something

today. that is something you have for a lot about. $9 million of muni budget, money that the writers of this system are putting into. $9 million of that is going to pay for the entirety of the motorcycle unit. i believe the motorcycle unit plays a very important role. i believe there should be properly funded. i do not think it is fair for the ridership of public transit to pay for the entirety of that program. i think it is appropriate for some of that money to be paid by other people who drive other people in the city. you have the opportunity to reduce that amount by half. that is $4.5 million. so that you address issues like maintenance, on-time performance, staffing. i hope those issues are

addressed because i think you owe it to the agency and ultimately to the ridership to make sure that we do right by them. i look forward to working with you. i know the budget will come to us at the board of supervisors. thank you very much for this opportunity. [applause] chair nolan: i want to thank you for your leadership and your office leadership. i did then on this body for six years. i have never seen an effort as well organized and respectful as this one. some people think it is a good idea to come in and threaten us. it does not work for me. it has been incredibly compelling cases they have made. a year ago, this was not even a thought. i hope that regardless of what the board does, and my suspicion

is that we will certainly do it for the low income, and introduce an amendment that would have the board go on record in favor of what you are talking about. i hope the people who work so hard atally understand, this is a tremendous victory for their efforts. and for all the people of san francisco. it is a great dane. we will let you know a little later today. >> -- it is a great thing. we will let you a little bit later. >> thank you. [applause] >> i have a few and i will ask if there are other people love not yet turned in speaker cards. -- people have not turned and speaker cards. please do so. [reading names] >> we are asking you to focus on the proposals in order to do

free muni for all. >> i been involved in the transit industry for 45 years. this issue caught my attention because i am afraid it will bring a lot of unintended consequences. i will stick to those that deal with the budget. others have tried this in the past, about 30 years ago denver looked at systemwide free fares. different than what you are expecting -- suggesting. basically, ridership increased tremendously, but it was unproductive. three short trips, two blocks. that entails a lot of expense and the budget in order to handle it. vandalism went up much more than they thought. what happens when youths turn 18?

there is no transition from a free to full. chair nolan: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am the candidate organizer. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. we have some disagreement and do not believe the trade-offs are accurate. i will speak directly to lifeline. 72% increase in lifeline funds in this third cycle. part of it comes from the s m -- sfmta. $17 million for this third cycle. what we have to figure out is that $10 million of this would go to free muni. i want to speak.

briefly to the fact that the free muni for all youth is an appropriate for the funds. they have consistently identified the high cost of fares as a primary concern of low income communities. chair nolan: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i want to talk about one of the other trade-offs, mission mobility project. we believe from our conversations with the county transit authority that there is enough lifeline funds to cover the cost of the 29. the mission mobility project has received $7 million in regional transit initiative funds. it would also be eligible for a

grant. you all know that we think that free muni for all youth is the right choice. i welcome your amendment to reopen this in the future if there is more money that comes available. thank you very much. chair nolan: next speaker, please. >> welcome back, chairman nolan. it is no longer spring break at city college. i want to stick to the policy points wheat expressed. -- we expressed. the funds our climate initialed

-- initiative dollars. the first two line items in the funding sources charget, they ae listed as operating dollars. those are impacts as youth lifeline funds. we are grateful for the board supports, consideration, and hard work on this. we are hopeful that you will let to go for free for all. we are excited about the possibility. thank you. chair nolan: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am organizer. i want to address the staff report that you presented. one of the big arguments. making is that making bus maintenance of a trade-off is a

random attempt a last-minute attempt to limit the board's choice on free muni for all youth only. sfmta has presented budget increases for maintenance and other high priority areas. this is the first time we have ever heard about this. given the size of the additional increases, we feel that there should be other options. if the staff is concerned about the state of the impact on many services, you guys should look into the $65 million in other departments. [applause] >> [reading names] >> we opposed free muni for all

youth. we would support for the muni for low-income students during school hours. this would address the problem of fewer school buses, while preserving funds for maintenance and safety. thank you. chair nolan: next speaker, please. >> it is a great idea, but the maintenance is a serious issue. this city has one of the oldest fleets in the country. $3.8 million, breaking down every single day on the streets. to take away the maintenance cost is a huge mistake. we do not know when the new fleet is going to come end.

-- come in. my other problem with this is we are already in a budget deficit. how much is this deficit gone to roll over into 2013? that is going to roll into 2013 and 2014. when is the real issue going to be addressed on how much this deficit is gone to be by the end of -- chair nolan: director heinicke has a question for you. thank you for coming -- director heinicke: thank you for coming down. did you have a position on the various proposals?

have you not taken a formal position? >> i do not have a comment. >> [reading names] >> good afternoon, directors. i did get a chance to review the budget. i am impressed with the way you've dealt with such a challenging budget this year. i could not hold my tongue with the medallion a sales program raising more than $20 million. in new york, i never had to pay as a student to take surface transportation to go to school. new york city has agreed and has approved selling 2000 taxi medallions and there will raise $1 billion. this is something i think you

really need to take a look at. you do not have to do not like new york, but we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars. we are looking to find things like this, this has to be a top priority. chair nolan: next speaker, please. >> [reading names] those are the last speaker cards. >> great idea, appreciate you guys putting in all the time for this particular issue. to take the money for maintenance is unacceptable. right now, as we speak, you can go over, 45 buses sitting in the barn. while our position is neutral on this -- first of all, can i ask

for a request to expand -- extend my time? chair nolan: we cannot really do that. >> this is a tradeoff would service. ubalde agency is going to give out free rides to the youth, you are taking away service. do not blame the operator. do not blame the operator for this. good luck. chair nolan: thank you, sir. >> good afternoon. welcome back. tt this is the city of san francisco. named after a st. that has compassion. i would like to commend the director of the mta, the supervisors, especially

supervisor campos, the various organizations, and our youth for speaking to the truth. i am the director of environmental justice advocacy. our money must go to serve our constituents. the most wonderful among our constituents are our students. you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand this. i commend those entities who voted their conscience to help our youth. chair nolan: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i want to say a couple of things. you cannot fix a structural deficit by voting no for the free for all program.

i am disappointed that mr. williams left. do not blame the kids who are trying to get to school with maintenance issues. we asked not to take it out of the workers and not to make a fault set of choices. i am disappointed that the labor folks would come up here and buy into that rhetoric. it is disappointing. the choice is not between fixing this state of good repair. we cannot address those needs by coming up with some diligence that if we do not vote for this program, there will be longstanding it of structural issues that will be addressed. thank you. [applause]