directors meeting from january to now. when we bring up no fair increase oh, no payment option we get the service will suffer if we don't raise the fare. we already are suffering with unreliable unsafe services. every 10% increase in transit fares decrease ridership by 2%. according to the january 2018 university of california institute of transportation studies, mobility research study on falling transit ridership in california, stop the fare increase on all payment options and free muni for all is just inequitable. >> thank you. mr. weaner. >> i don't think this issue should have been presented today. we need face-to-face contact

with the board. this is the worst time to discuss this. you could withhold this for april. when you increase the bus fares, you are going to have a decrease in ridership. there has been a problem with decrease in ridership. now, as far as the sources of revenue goes, bicycle lists should have to pay for licenses. they get the benefit of bike lanes. so should scooter users pay a fee. actually, if you want real options for saving, maybe you should freeze muni ford projects. don't spend on those. apply it to other expenditures that are necessary. here is the ultimate option. the management should have their salaries frozen until there is some release for other

expenditures and balancing the budget. if you really wanted it to be fair for everybody, it should apply to management. now, these are some of the ideas i have. i think that basically this is an agency of perpetual deficits since i have been testifying here and it is going to continue. i think the real question is not balancing the budget as balancing m.t.a. as an agency. >> good afternoon board of directors. first off, we believe our definition of equity is not the same as s.f.m.t.a. it means fair to everyone across the board.

what is proposed to you right now is, yes, there is no increase on the cash fare but what we saw there is still massive increase on the monthly passes. monthly passes are used by the working class and students. you are shifting costs to another grouping of people at the expense of another group. that is not equity. we understand s.f.m.t.a. needs to make hard decisions. should we cut services or cut down fares? this is nothing new from city departments. similar lines were told to us a few years ago that we need to make decisions between funding for housing or funding for transportation. our answer is the same. stop putting different needs against each other. we need both. this increasing fare to provide service is false. since 2005 the city of san francisco has experienced 100%

inflation in muni fares and steadily increasing approximately 7% each year. transit riders have already done their share of helping muni be safe and reliable. the price on 2005 to now has doubled. we still have not seen improvements in services. please stop this practice continuing to hurt the working class and city college students economically. we need the department to hear us louder and clearer. no cuts on services, no cuts on jobs, no fare increase on cross the board to any payment options. thank you. >> thank you very much. any further public comment on item 14? seeing none, jonathan, as i understand it, there are two main issues which you want guidance. the one i sum rised halfway

through, if we accept cash fares flat, the all youth riding for free and the homeless benefit we talked about, then if we accept that premise whether we fund it by increasing the monthly pass fee more than we would otherwise or close the gap between the clipper card and the cash fare, which will remain flat but maintain differential. that is number one. i think i understand it but for efficiency would you summarize the towing option on which you would like our guidance? >> the towing option is simply whether to reduce the first time. >> yes or no? >> yes. >> very good. okay. directors, we have heard public comment before we have individual directors provide

guidance if they wish to do so to jonathan and leo. let me ask if there are questions first. director bordon. >> i have a question. we talked about this with people being able to use clipper card for a certain number of trips. when they get to the pass price they wouldn't de charged any more. is that the policy? what i was interested in the correlation between most of the cash fare riders or low income are the cash fare riders that is why we are not increasing single fare ride. with the other part that people can't afford sometimes that pass at the beginning of the month. is there a way to in that population again if they are paying $3 each time. that is more what they can afford as opposed to going to $44, would that be possible in that population to isolate it so

they would hit that at the $44 as opposed to keep paying? >> we did discuss essentially what you are talking about an accumulatetor pass if that is possible and perhaps including it. that technology and leo or julie can correct me if i an am wrong. that is something that could be integrated into clipper two. it is something that might be possible in the future with muni mobile. we are looking at it. to implement the fare policy of that type we want the technology in place. that will take time. that is why it is not included in the budget. >> we have been told the technology to do the pass will not be available within this budget. one other item is that i think if we were able to pilot it, we would remember piloting it first

on the lifeline customers really. we believe for the full paying customers we want more analysis. >> i wonder is there any way -- i mean do we happen to know any research to know the reason people don't buy the lifeline pass is because they can't afford the full pass? is there away around? we want more people to go to clip person and the passes in general but at the same time can we allow a payment plan? do we have capabilities to break up the price for a low income customer to buy a pass but maybe not pay it all at the same time? i am not trying to make your life more difficult. >> i have not scenery search or analysis -- seen the research or analysis. that is a good question. >> we are looking through it

department at long-term options to allow more flexible payment options. some is in the open loop payment as part of clipper 2.0 but not in time for this budget, unfortunately. >> letted me just address because in both fare policy options we have given you, and in recognizing that the number of people that could participate in a lifeline pass at that price might be an issue. we propose to reduce the monthly price. if you approve any of the items before you, the monthly cost gets reduced. we know that we might be hitting elasticity with that. as director tomlin noted, we look at the actual person using the fare media. to your point if we hit the point of the dropoff because lifeline is too expensive, we want to collect a certain amount

of fare. that is the proposal before you today. >> who gets the reduced fare monthly pass? >> that is a good. question. the people who qualify for life line meet an income requirement. there are people who like persons with disabilities or seniors who would never meet the income requirement and could pay the full cost and this will provide a discount. those are the people who wouldn't meet the income requirement for lifeline but are in special groups where we provide a discount. >> that includes youth presently but that is going to go away. >> yes. >> it is a differential fare. >> earlier in the presentation you underscored there are certain reliability improvements we are not able to make because

of the balanced budget. could you speak what that means and when the budget might be online to implement those improvements. >> i would direct julie to talk about what we are giving up in terms of muni reliability improvements and when and how we might be able to fund those planned improvements so many worked so hard on. >> start with first one and we will be interested in the answer to the second one. >> i will answer first one. there are a number of things that we are able to achieve in the current budget proposal, including some of the staffing shifts that we have already made in 2020, taking advantage of our vacancy float to hire trainers and to fill vacancies and

increase our supervision. this budget allows us to put a little more management structure in place to support that. we talked a lot with this group about one day you are an operator, next day you are a supervisor. as we hire up we want training programs in place not just for operators but for supervisors and entry level managers to be able to be successful and support the work. there is also some key positions to make sure that as we roll out central subway we are not diverting resources from the muni metro subway. that includes supervisors and some overhead lines, inspectors that will prepare us to be part

of operating two tunnels rather than one, and there is also some staffing for some of our seed programs. like the attraction power needs to support the electric bus program. it is sort of a sprinkling of resourcers that i think will allow us to keep momentum and to build the case as we go out to the larger public and community and ask for resources, addressing the operator shortage, providing some service, supervision enhanc enhancements and maximizing the investments we have already made. it is about a tenth of what we talked about in the overall muni working group. it is going to take a concerted really all hands on deck constituent effort to identify

the funds. you will hear a little bit when i talk about the muni service equity strategy that is one place we can start with coalition building. there is definitely a set of service increased recommendations built around equity we are not able to implement. i don't have the perfect answer. if i did we would have money in hand. it will take all of us to talk about where we have successes, where we will continue to have successes and what we could really do if we were appropriately funded. >> one of the key risk questions you will have to help us address on the board is to what degree do we use our reserve fund in order to maintain what we have through an uncertain financial future versus take some risk to invest in what we are capable of

doing in order to build trust with the electorate to go after new revenue to finally close our gap? >> i can tell you right now what i want. >> the irony is if we are in a trouble budget time, more people will depend on takes it i transt around. less people using other modes. we will be the most affordable mode. it is important if we are gaining people back to transit who are transitioning from other options the service is strong and reliable and it will grow and help us fund the future enhancements that we need. >> i will say i agree. for 10 years of my 14 years here, i have been beating the drum how important it is to keep the reserve. the rainy day will

come again. my first two years it was a rainy day when the reserve was important. you and i had discussions and i had concerns what we were doing with the reserve. it is clear the rainy day is upon us. for exactly the reasons vice chair borden said now is the time. this is not extreme reserve usage. we are right where we need to be by the guidelines. that is important to keep in mind how important that is for the bond rating and how the financial markets look at us. my view we should be above the reserve in good times so we can use that excess reserve and still maintain our bond ratings and financial status in bad times. that recipe proved fairly well the last time around. now we are better situated. i realize this isn't the budget everybody wants. the fact we have the ability to

tap reserves without going below guidelines is testament to past folks and you all and the board forgetting us there. when someone takes thing to, people are looking to me to say the reserve. the reason it is there before is for a time like this. i am line myself with vice chair borden's comments. i am sorry to take over. i am to speak last. directors who are on the phone, i suspect some if not all of you would like to weigh in here. may we hear from you. since i believe she is the longest serving i will call on directodrink director brinkman . >> thank you. i agree with what you have proposed. this is the perfect example of the rainy day fund.

i want to congratulate staff. i really appreciate hearing the budget update. they listened to the public and i am very, very supportive of the changes that have been proposed. i like vice chair borden's ideas for the payment options for the lifeline pass. looking into away where people could not have to pay the full amount upfront on the first of the month before we get a fare aggregatetor option to allow them to pay weekly towards the lifeline pass. that brings up, again, i know the hearing from the people whose homes were towed hit me so hard last month. it was suggested to me by somebody who knows about that. we could look into a system

where we enroll somebody in the payment method to pay off parking tickets. it seems that a lot of the time people who are vehiclely housed may not be engaged with the social services system, and this could accomplish two things, which would be to engage them with the social services system. even if they are paying a small regular amount towards the parking tickets, it is a way to scoot them into the whole world of opportunity that the city can offer them in terms of help. those are my two cents worth from my living room. i will now go back on mute. >> very good. director, do you have anything to add? >> sure.

a few bigger picture comments and a couple specific feedbacks based on the requests. first, thanks to staff. ditto what director brinkman said. i appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into the budget. i wonder if -- i support what we are doing and i like the proposals of holding the cash fare at this time. looking forward to the future, from a transparency standpoint, what is the plan for the next budget? will we increase the fares in line with the fare policy? i wonder what our plan is. it is important for the public to have expectations around that even