and simple for our residents. >> i hear you and i appreciate the sentiment. for the most part, we have a good amount of consistency on the stop and start time frames. i think based on a history of the department to accommodate very localized, specific needs, we have a lot of different start and stop times. i think that is where we get feedback and there is confusion. when does this spot become a tollways own which can have a very high cost if they come back and their car is gone. that area, i totally agree. i would say that one measure of

indication of how confusing is the amount of citations we are in issuing and we don't want to do that just because someone doesn't understand. but overall, the number of citations is not going down. maybe people take more care not to get one, which is good. but i hear you on the consistency and making sure the information is clear. it is a point well taken and if you mention that to me previously and we are striving to wherever we can make things as consistent as possible. the reason for a delayed start on sunday is looking at the parking availability and understanding the nature of commercial activity on sunday verses saturday, that activity does start later and there is currently availability in the morning. it is the afternoon where spaces are completely locked up.

supervisor chu: thank you. i have tried to peer through many meters and there is a condensation and if there is any way to improve that, that would be helpful. i'm sure you have received a ton of feedback on the new meters. some of them are quite complicated. it's hard to understand how much money you are putting in at how much time you are getting. if there is any way to improve on that as you embark on implementation for upgrades to meters, that would be helpful. even for someone like me you can read english, it is still confusing. >> improving the readability and usability is only an element we will be striving for us. the technology is getting better and the initial digital ones definitely had some

shortcomings. supervisor wiener: thank you. i apologize again for having stepped out but i did see the presentation. i think i know you said. first, want to compliment you and the staff at mta. i think the vast majority of the budget is incredibly positive and the fact that mta is finally making significant investments is in and of itself, if that is the only new thing you are doing in the budget, that would be incredibly positive and i think it's a testament to your leadership and the leadership of senior staff. the agency is really moving in the right direction and in finally implementing the tep and

the fact that we are finally going to be seeing some of those improvements in the next year caw i think it is an exciting thing and i'm thrilled about the progress around tax season. if that is a big issue for me and i think there is finally momentum within the agencies to be the taxi system as an essential part of the transportation system and not just something to extract revenue from more what ever the attitude may have been in the past. i have been public and spoken to you all about on not a fan of the sunday meters. i completely understand the policy rationale for it in theory. i also know that even though the

patterns have changed in the last 50 years in terms of activity on sunday, i also know patterns have developed taking into account that there are no meters on sunday. i think that is why we have seen the reaction we have seen and it is sort of frustrating for us as elected officials because the voters took a lot of the power away from the board and gave it to the semi- autonomous mta 13 years ago, that there were a lot of positives about that because of the board can't monkey with muni in the way it has done in the past. when you have these very specific things like a sunday leader that people have very strong views about, i have met very few people who support it.

it is frustrating to have to respond. my only remedy is to veto a $1.6 billion two-year budget, which is a huge sledgehammer and all sorts of ramifications. thought i am hoping that mta will work with the board as we go through our full budget process. is something that has a lot of impact for a lot of people throughout the city. i just wanted to put that out there. >> we have certainly heard some of that the back and you raise an important point. i certainly respect that we have

not been managing parking sunday and people have been developing patterns on that. there is certainly developed habits concerning that, so i don't want to underestimate that changing that and beginning to manage something, beginning to charge something that had been free before is going to feel very disruptive and is not going to be something a lot of people welcome. i fully acknowledge that. any kind of change is difficult. this kind of changes perhaps more difficult. i do believe it is supported by good policy and i think part of the thinking behind this in 1999 was to take the board of supervisors out of this policy

decision for this reason, whether we all agree with it or not. i understand your constituents are coming to you and the mayor's constituents are coming to him, voicing concerns with this and other aspects of the mta. i would be happy to work with the board. we are putting together an implementation working group where the various affected stakeholders will have an opportunity to highlight where there are pension points work things that might be unworkable and we will try to deal with those as we can. much of what we heard in the public commentary is arguably addressed and i recognize there are so many people who are not satisfied with the plan as it is and we would be happy to work

with you on it. i do want to note that we had both are citizens advisory council as well as a stakeholder group i had put together to look at different aspects of our budget. both will be all of what i had an april in terms of revenue and expenditure items. those groups supported for the most part what is in this budget, including the parking management elements. it wasn't just me sitting in a room. we did get support from those bodies and we did do five town hall meetings and had two or three budget hearings. to the extent that is relevant, it did get some support. >>supervisor wiener: i do

recognize that and other supervisors may have raised this but the importance of modernizing and meters -- i know you are all working very hard on this. i don't know what percentage, but it is pretty high. they're not credit-card compatible. in terms of the other issues, i seek is so critical. i know there are proposals to put more meters in parts of the city and to extend meters in various ways. if any or all of that happens, i don't know if any of that should happen unless we are actually making a really easy for people to pay.

i know that there is a timetable for that and i hope i can be accelerated as much as possible. finally, my last question is about several other parking management issues that i think our constant fear it since for a lot of people. i have spoken with both of you about the residential parking permit program, which in my personal view is problematic and arbitrary and have people who live on a block -- it doesn't have to our parking surrounded by a bunch of blocks that do, so they can't park anywhere if they can happen to find a parking spot on their block. i think it's something that requires re-examination. the whole commercial yellows of

and white zone is one that requires re-examination. in the castro recently, of the yellows sones were extended to a really late hour in the afternoon. all it does is 40% of the spots are yellow and it causes a lot of disruption and there are quite a few businesses that have a lot of white sones. i'm hoping the agency will globally reevaluate all of those because that would free up parking for the neighborhood. >> i touched briefly on both of those points. we are putting out a rfp soon. we are testing a bunch of them in the field now to try to get

the usability issues, but that is coming, which is good news. we are reviewing and revising all of our parking management guidelines and policies. so in terms of the process for and criteria for yellow's funds and white stones, i spoke in response to a similar concern about the variability of these hours and why they going until 4:00 i castro street when they are not needed. we are looking at that globally in terms of policy and we will go back to areas where we have either got incomplete sort of things are out of whack and we will potentially readjust. with the residential permit parking, we are looking at the process by which we designate the residential parking and we will based on your comments,

incorporate the whole petition orientation of the program which is how many other programs of the city have done though it's probably not the most logical way to do it. supervisor chu: thank you for your questions about the yellow's ounce. i have heard that about a number of communities. i would suggest you check in with david chiu about chinatown. supervisor cohen: you have accomplished a lot in a short time and i wasn't here for the presentation because i was working on another matter in gao, but we went over the proposal. you have done a good job

repairing the relationship between the department and the transportation workers union. very important we have a high morale of those operating our buses. a good job in trying to change that culture of a sour disposition and taking a more positive. i also want to acknowledge the bike lanes you put down, especially along the cesar chavez. and the changes you made to the strollers, it has been quite remarkable. you made changes to the taxis and the change in the road is very painful. it's no secret that last year i was pretty vocal in terms of writing a letter with my concerns about the rolling out of the meter program into north

mission and other parts. i found your office was responsive than thoughtful not only in responding to the e-mail but in taking time to attend public meetings. i am confident the mta is moving in a positive, thoughtful direction not just to the users of the public transportation system, but to the entire direction the city needs to be going. that said, i am still uncomfortable and i am not there with you when it comes to parking meters. i am a little uncomfortable with parking meters on sunday. i want to continue to have that conversation as we go through the budget process. i have to echo the concerns commissioner leader is concerned about. this is a thumbs-up or thumbs

down vote. in some ways it does take pressure off of us because there are more things in the budget i do like that those i am uncomfortable with but it doesn't allow that flexibility to make some changes and i hope we can make some more changes as it relates to the overall plan. one thing i want to give a voice to is the churches. most churches begin service at 8:00 or 10:00 or some even as late as 11. there are other instances where a smaller church will rent out a larger church and generally their church services start after the host church and. these communities are generally

english as a second language. my home church is a career in church that rents it out. after our churches that, there are services began and it's oftentimes around 11:30 or 12:00 and they're going later into the afternoon. i can think of a spanish speaking church on industrial with a similar situation. i want to be open and honest when talking about our concerns, but that is how i am approaching this discussion about public leaders. -- public meters. >> thank you. i have only gotten halfway through slide 5 on my presentation, so you didn't miss much. thank you for the kind remarks. i want to take credit. there is a great team that mta and there are a lot of good things movie before word --

moving full word. with regard to sundays, i hear you on that. one thing i would say is for any activity on sunday that happens before noon, there is no change. for activities afternoon, i would argue by managing parking for those churches in metered areas, and many are not, but for those who are, parking availability will increase as a result of managing parking. it arguably may be easier for people to find parking close to their churches. they will have to pay for it. we are, not creating no parking zone, just metered parking.

people crossing the bridge have to pay the bridge tolls and people would have to pay for parking just like any other day of their week. i look for to working with you throughout the process. supervisor chu: i want to request from the audience, but i would ask that you be respectful of the speakers when they tried to explain the rationale for some of these items we are considering. i know we are probably going to move on to the other components of your budget, but i have never been a fan of meter changes. i don'ti hope we can work with . you will be coming back to us in june with some amendments given labor negotiations among other things. i do want to speak further about that. i question the logic of implemented meters without yet having the upgrades. it seems more reasonable to have

the upgraded meters, which you are in the process of doing, before implementation. i would like to talk about that component. another thing quickly. you went through this quickly. with regards to the back door boarding proposal, this is something, i am wondering, in terms of your budget, how does that policy impact your budget? did you assume a lower rate of revenue or assume higher enforcement? can you speak to that quickly, unless there is a slide later on? >> i am happy to speak to it now. the direct cost -- well, let me put it this way, we are proposing to add more fare inspectors as part of the budget. that is about $900,000 cost to the that is something that probably would have proposed even without that. but we do need better fare inspection to the commander a

sign from the police department who oversees that unit, among many others, has done an outstanding job of restructuring that units, which is the approach we will bring over to the parking enforcement as well. we have much more productivity, much more visibility of that unit, but we felt that we needed more resources there. but we do also anticipate higher fare revenues as a result and high your citation revenues. we have budgeted sum increases on both of those line items. in the case of parking, we're seeking higher fare revenues. we do not want to be citing people for not paying. we want people to pay the way they're supposed to. based on the existing changes and the existing increase visibility and adding on 10 more fare inspectors, we think we will have a better fare

compliance moving forward. some of the transit fare increase in the adopted budget reflects that. supervisor chu: you are anticipating potentially higher citations, but in terms of revenues on fares, there is an increase in ridership and also a cti increase as well, so that helps to drive your revenue numbers up. but in terms of the back door reported proposal, your expectation is you not see a drop in revenues because you have additional fare inspectors to increase compliance and get more positives? >> yes, ridership and compliance all contribute to the assumptions within the revenues for increased fares. we did not want to this and that was going to adversely affect revenues as we go to all door boarding. there are other benefits from speeding up the system that might not be directly financial, but improves the reliability of this service.

there could be snowballing benefits of that in terms of increased ridership that, frankly, are difficult to calculate at this point. when we presented all door boarding at the land use committee, the legislative change that the board approved, we included the various ways that we are going to measure this. because of the we have not already legally, on the train system and illegally on the bus system, we really do not fully know what all the impacts will be. so we are going to be watching that very closely, compliance and fare revenues, but we did assume a slight positive in terms of fare compliance as a result of the change and the redeployment and additional numbers of fare inspectors. supervisor chu: thank you. >> to round out the revenue part, i mentioned the general fund increases that come through by formula. with the indexing and parking

management, those were kind of to the plus side. on the minus side, something that was kind of the other exciting part of our budget deliberations, that that surrounded the youth fare pilot. with the board ultimately approved was a 22-month pilot that is targeted at low income youth, and if it is contingent on securing funds from both local funds from county transportation authority, which believe you approved two days ago, as well as from the regional transportation planning organization. so we have constructed this. $9.4 million is including additional costs. so this is kind of the net impact assuming we have no major operating impacts as a result of this. we have designed it to fit

within our budget in terms of baseline amounts already in the budget. in the budget this year and last year. supportive of a youth fare program. about $1.4 million per year. we instructed the financing plan for this pilot, to use those funds and the other funds that would not be coming to muni, so that we can do this with no really increased adverse impact to our operating budget. deliberations with regard to the county sheriff funds well happened next month. i think on june 13. then we will be at the full commission at the end of june. i want to commend supervisor campos for his leadership on this and the various community groups working on this. it was very much a grass-roots effort. many hours of public testimony

at mta board meetings. i think we arrived at something that is sensible and workable, and it raised to us the issue that our general policy of offering discounts based on age or disability versus based on ability to pay, it may not make the most sense. right now, for example, in low income adult pays $31 for a fast past a high income youth pays $21. so that is a system that does not really make sense. what we will be doing during this pilot, if it does get the funding from the region, is taking a step back and reviewing our overall structure and seeing if we can make it better aligned to need as opposed to the current definitions that we have. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener, do you have a question on this? supervisor wiener: i actually do.

related to the last item, free muni for youth. i will not repeat. i have talked about this a lot and have been public in my views about it. but one thing i wanted to clarify and i had been hearing from you that there were no muni operating funds going into this, but then i saw, when it came to the transportation authority this past tuesday, in the packet, itemizing how it was being funded, and there was a pretty significant line-item from operating funds. can you clarify that? because i think the proponents have talked about how this is not going to impact muni operational capacity, which has always been a concern of mine. >> yeah, i would be happy to. and i apologize if anything that i or anyone from the mta said has led to a misunderstanding of that. it has been clear, i think, every document and letter and report we have put out on this,

but our principal in moving forward, and this is something that the mta board or ultimately supported, was no additional adverse or fiscal impact to the operating budget. as i mentioned, there already is about a $1.4 million amount in the baseline mta budget, so we assumed that that was available for this purpose. it was put into place i think for this current two-year budget, and there was an attempt last fiscal year to work with the school district to do sums of the reduced fare that had some system starts for the current -- starts. for the current fiscal year, we agreed with the folks advocating for free muni with the school district that we would put the program on hold and not expend from this year's budget until we resolve how we were going to move forward on free muni for youth. those funds for this