>> i want to make sure. can everybody see the slides? >> it is just black.

it looks like web ex just crashed. i will rejoin the meeting again. >> do you want to send it to somebody else to share? do you want to continue on with agenda item a? >> yes, that is fine.

we can do that. that is fine. commissioner, agenda item a. review and approval of fiscal year 21-22 and fiscal year 22-23 disability and aging services budget. do we have director mcpad den and dan kaplan ready to present this item? >> commissioners, we are bringing back to you today the description of the budget that we will need to propose by february 22. we will be asking you for your approval to do that. bridgett or alex, do you have the powerpoint ready?

>> this presentation describes differences in the coming year as we go forward. ir will speak to my financial parts of this. shireen will speak to the short presentation. when we get to the presentation our senior budget analysts can answer questions. >> the bottom line here before we get started is there is a big deficit. we talked about this a couple weeks ago. the city forecasts $411 million

deficit. that comes down in the second year. it is substantial. that is part of the human services agency and at this moment in time allocations for human services programs in general have gone up pretty substantially in california in recognition of what a hard time this is in the face of covid-19 and the associated recession. the human services agency as a whole has enough money to handle the reduction target that hsa has been given as part of the budget balancing process on a city-wide level. the agency reduction target was $7.3 million, and our growth in allocations has gone up more

substantially than that. that is the good news. in this tough time we basically will not face cuts. the bad news is that we don't have too much room to move beyond that. i think the city has a big deficit. of course, covid-19 response is huge part of that. we will talk in this presentation about the part of the covid-19 response that is associated with the das budget. the feeding programs. as you can see on this slide, we numrated down to the dollar what our target is. $7.3 million in both years of the biennium. from the state budget substantial increases in

allocations this year some increases in the medical eligibility on top of large increases. from these sources basically we have enough money to cover the reduction. as i said, this is where we are in a good position to maintain benefits to clients, programs, contracts and maintain staff. so if we look at the budget from one year to the next, what you will see is a significant drop in the total amount from $435 million to $407 million. if you look more closely at the two piecharts you will see one significant slice of the 2021

piechart that doesn't appear in 21-22 piechart. that is covid 19 seeding budget we are still working with the mayor's office on what appropriate amount will be to put into the budget for 21-22 for the feeding program. feeding program was large and very -- it was changing a lot during the course of the fiscal year. as we go into next fiscal year, the expectation of more and more people being vaccinated we are assuming we will continue to need to run the special feeding

programs next fiscal year. we assume the need will ramp down over the course of the fiscal year. we anticipate that it will be a smaller amount next fiscal year than this fiscal year, but it will be there. the other thing that is a big change, as you can see is the aid programs that go from $255 million to $270 million. this is really an artifact of two things. no real change in the structure of the program. the change has to do with the ihss amount going up and the cost of insurance for ihss workers. that explains the difference. the drop in the budget that you

are seeing on this slide is the drop in the costs of the feeding program offset by increases in the ih ss program. we will alternatively at this point add in covid-19 feeding for next year as well. probably not at the same level. we are basically telling the same story over and over again. there is a substantial general fund decline and if we go from one year to the next year and that is really associated with the fact that the feeding budget does not appear in the budget year at this point. there is also something else that i would like to call your attention to. if you look at the slice of the

pie that is labeled dignity fund in the two years, dignity fund goes from $50.1 million to $50.1 million. if you remember under the law the dignity fund grows by $3 million each year. we have split out that $3 million in this piechart for the budget year. the reason we have done that is we think there is a high probability given the situation we are in with regard to the deficit that dignity fund growth will be suspended, that is allowed under the dignity fund law. that is why it is marked separate item. that decision is not made yet.

again, telling the same story the same way on this slide where we describe expenditures by budget category, what you will see is a drop in the cbo grant amount from $104 million to $74 million. the drop in the materials and supply amount from $15.5 million to $5 million. both of those are the difference of the feeding program. we spent money in the feeding program, about $30 million through cbos and $15 million

budgettarily in the great plates program. that appeared in the materials and supplies budget. the rest of the feeding program appeared in the cbo grants budget. as we always do, we include a slide on the ihss program and what we call out here are two things in particular. one is the growth in the ihss moe. that is the local share of the costs of the i hss program. it grows from year to year because it grows by inflation under the state law and it grows as wages go up. the budget staff computed the impact of those two things, and

it is $9.6 million in the budget year. in the lower half of the slide we line out the wages for ihss workers as described in the minimum compensation ordinance and as described in the collective bargaining agreement between the i hss public authority independent providers. that is really the financial piece of this picture. as i said, we have a budget that for the agency where we will be able to continue to deliver services. we have very little room to add, and we are really working with

the mayor's budget office on what the description of the covid feeding program will be next fiscal year. at this point i will turn this over to shireen to talk about covid feeding and we can take questions when we get to the end. >> thank you very much. director mcspadden.

>> her audio is intermittent. if she disconnects and reconnects that might bring it back. maybe the host could try to unmute her. sometimes unplugging the headset. she had a headset. if she unplugs and plugs back in sometimes the computer will

reset. she could leave and come back in. >> do we have another speaker to call on for now and then she can speak when she comes back. >> she is the last speaker. did we have questions for

mr. kaplan that can be answered at this point? >> i had one regarding the dignity fund. thank you very much for the presentation. it looks like we are not anticipating the $3 million. would we still be able to cover the budget? how will we cover the $3 million? assuming that it is unlikely we will be -- given the budget of the city? >> thanks for the question, commissioner. obviously, the $3 million is money to fund new growth. in the dig any fund program.

i gave them time if we don't grow in the year. adding this program. we will still be able to fund this district program, and the issue and this is the onena our budget team and the mayor's office will handle inflationary growth and existing contracts which represents about $1 million. in the scheme of things it is not gigantic but it is something we have to work out. >> thank you. that is very helpful. >> the executive director is back if you want to move on to the presentation. >> thank you.

just to go back to the covid-19 food coordination work, we are continuing to serve a high number of older people and people with disabilities through the newtrician network. we are continuing to operate what we call the iq line, isolation quarantine help line that serves people who have been told by their health professional or contract kaiser they need to quarantine due to exposure or illness. we will continue to deliver meals and groceries. then we have the community focus food support, san francisco food bank is the biggest. two major programs for covid. one is called pop-up pantries which they do throughout the city to support people during this time. people can get groceries. they also have a program called

pantry at home for older adults and people with health conditions who really shouldn't be going out to access food. they deliver it to them. then we have targeted programs in thenition. chinatown particularly we have made the biggest investments. that is in collaboration with the mayor and her administration and those communities. both communities came to the mayor to said we have people at risk. in the case of the mission, it was not just the mission but the latin x community. the equity coalition was concerned that we see such high level of covid in our community, and we are seeing really high numbers of unemployment, and can the city, can you support in a

stronger way? we identified dollars to move into that community so food security work in that community is happening in the mission. it is happening in bayview-hunters point. a couple of organizations we are partnering with. more recently chinatown merchants came do the mayor to say they were concerned. they have best chinatown in the country, a key component is the restaurants, small businesses that keep it alive. is there a way to support those restaurants because they are at risk of closing and we have food insecurity issues in chinatown in the sros so we worked closely to provide support

there. then there are other communities that we are supporting directly, somewhat through dollar in the covid food budget and also in concert with philanthropy. examples would be the people who need food and are food insecure. black african communities in san francisco to give examples. we have been really developing partnerships and having situational awareness where our food insecurity exists. as things happen as they come up because this is a changing situation, we want to bereresponsive to the needs of the communities that are in san francisco. because hsa is responsible for

shelter and das took a lead in this work, the food coordination budget fit with das. that gives you overview of the work and we will continue as long as covid is an issue. one thing danny mentioned is we are planning to ramp this down. we are also planning on and i mentioned earlier in the report that we are planning on the ramp down for great plates and moving people back to the traditional das program as covid allows us to.

did somebody have a question? >> not that i am seeing. go ahead. >> dan talked about the $3 million dignity fund growth. one of the things we do because we didn't get the dignity fund growth. we continue to prioritize needs. while we have allocated the dollars that we have and we do that annually, sometimes it takes a little time for people to spend the dollars or for us to get them out the door. that does allow flexibility to handle some of the issues that come along and the needs the contractors bring to us. we have been able to patch some things together. we are not planning on anything new and dan is right that we will use the dollars that we have to maintain the current

services we have, sometimes we allow for a little growth in need if we have unspent dollars in the current year. we just monitor that and we are fortunate that alex monitors it carefully for us. that is how we manage it when we know we are not getting the growth. if we get it, we would be looking at the cost of doing business increase. contractors are asking about that already as they do every year. that continues to be a reality for them. i mentioned this earlier, in 21-22 we will do the new community needs assessment for the next cycle. 22-23 we will develop the services and al location plan. i want to mention some things we

will do that were on our plate before but not rolled out yet. disability cultural center. we have a work group identifying gaps in needs and what the communities want for successful launch. one of the things we were doing before covid was looking for a physical site for the disability cultural center, and when covid happened we put plans on hold. we can't do this. then revealized there is a role for a virtual center and community groups have come to us and said we would like to see a virtual center. right now we are partnering with surviving in place because we have dollars that das received right before covid.

we were going to do a different process altogether. we have city dollars from city bank. we are using those dollars to do assessment of needs from various disability communities to get an idea what they would need for a virtual community cultural center. we expect to have that needs assessment back later this spring. we will think about how we plan for disability cultural center starting out virtually. in addition, we are working with nonprofit organization that is developing -- planning for and developing property at corner of grove and van ness. we hope that we will be able to put a physical disability cultural center in there in a few years. that is just beginning.

it is hopeful that that will materialize. the online resource directory we have been talking about for a number of years. we are looking -- there are a lot of people interesting in ensuring a number of providers, individual caregivers have access to really comprehensive resource directory that would be a one stop tool for services for older people and people with disabilities. we are continuing to work on that. we have a funder working with us and they are willing to pay for the first few years. then we will figure it out. we hope there will be others in the system to benefit the number

of organizations and individuals. that continues to be work that we are focused on. then the third thing is the aging work. we want to build on the previous campaign, but the focus is to address internal ages. we want to give tools and resources to our community partners to do their own work with their specific communities with specific languages or populations that they serve, and we want to help them develop a coordinating set up so it is not every organization doing their own thing but it goes upon what is there already and builds upon us being a very broad organization. that we will do.

just the position changes with five sub institutions. increasing operational efficiency and effectiveness of services we want rereassigning positions. we are not allowed new positions in the budget. our teams always think we need new positions because we are continuing, the population is growing and we continue to serve more people, but this is one way we are able to really make things work within the staffing that we have. we can change positions around, substitute things. they can see that we have and that is what we are doing. one of the big focus areas this year is to really support the

legal unit and just regarding the public administrator programs as a whole. that is one area we neglected and we are trying to provide infrastructure there. i want to quickly respond. president knutzen and i talked about how she was really impressed by the call volume that has come into integrated intake. we talked in the last meeting about the numbers. i wanted to give you some more context for that. in 2020 they received 45,600 calls. that was 34% increase over the prior year. president knutzen that is what you asked for. it was driven by food requests.

in may we received almost 7,000 calls. in comparison the monthly call volume prior to covid was closer to 3,000. we completed 200 intakes -- 2300 intakes for great plates in that month alone and growth for general information during the early pandemic months. over the last six months it is back to normal level but still elevated. we have averaged close to 3400 calls per month. prior to the pandemic it was 2800. food remains pretty much the most pressing need. calls for general information referral assistance is slightly higher post pandemic. about 100 to 200 per month. we hope that answers your question about that. >> thank you very much.

dan, back to you. >> these are the milestone dates. we are at the finance committee meeting today. your approval we will take this budget along with the department of family support budget and the office of early care and education budget and the hsa administration budget, and we will we getting in the final to submit to the mayor's office on

or before february 22nd. the mayor's office will have budget submissions from the city agencies and it will be working through those over march, april and may and getting the mayor's budget for submission to the board for june 1st. between just first and middle of july we will work in the legislative portion of the process which will involve budget and legislative analyst evaluation of the submission and a lot of discussion and hearings before the board and then a vote by the board on the budget by the middle of july. that is the process this point for ward.

we are asking for your approval to move forward at submitting the budget along the lines what we described today. >> thank you very much, mr. kaplan. i know you worked very hard to put this together. i want to thank you and on behalf of the commission for all of the work that goes into this. thank you director mcspadden for all of the work you have done. i asked you to talk about the increase in call center because it is a simple way of describing all of what happened this year and what the staff had to absorb and expand. i think it is maybe a little bit settled to understand the fact that it is not obvious that we are tasked with doing more for

beyond our i believe consit wenes during this time and any extra -- constituencies any extra will be to the other people that were in need because of the particular aspects of the pandemic which maid us all stay at home. many, many people becoming food insecure. that was a good way to explain what happened. it is a bigger number than i had realized. i am glad you were able to dig that out. that is a very large increase. once people learn about das, what you are saying will be reflected. more people will be calling the help center as we expand. that is a way to illustrate that. thank you for all of that that went into it. any other questions from

commissioners? we did hear from vice president spears. anybody else? questions about the budget? commissioner jung. >> i don't have questions but i do have some comments. i just want to really acknowledge and commend the hard work that both the budget director and director have done to get through the past year that is a tremendously challenging and difficult year for everyone, especially for seniors and people with disabilities. what i always look at is what we have done in terms of accomplishments and be able to move forward.

i want to point out some things that basically i was very impressed with. it may not be all of the work that staff has been doing so well. what impressed me is just overall the response to pandemic and all of the different adjustments that have been made within responsibilities and initiatives to make sure that we are responding to our seniors and people with disability. especially in terms of support of food. i recognize this is a very different year, unique. we have staff working remotely, we have c.e.o.s to adjust to work virtually with their clients. i am impressed the work continues. there we are as much as we can,

as well as we can in meeting the needs of our population. couple areas that jumped out at me in terms of accomplishments in looking at the programming highlights, document that was review. in home support services, very impressed. no negative impact. services have been adjusted and enhanced to meet needs of in home support clients. the project to get everyone on electronic time sheet is not minor task at all. in terms of adult protective services, i was impressed with the collaborations that das is doing with homeless in support of housing as well as the working with the discharges.

these are very difficult times for people with medical needs as well as a home safe program where we were able to manage with the funds. in terms that we are talking about the benefits to increase volumes and how well that has been managed. i am very, very impressed. the fact that also we are working to make that online directory possible with the funding from the state department of aging. i just want to say it is really pleased and when i look at the budget documents, i was very pleased to see that with those piecharts. we have been able to manage.

we are able to continue the services that we are providing even with the need to address the deficit that has been imposed on us. we are not compromising core functions, we are able to minimize service impacts and we are finding creative ways to leverage new funds. in terms of the initiatives that the director has gone over, i am pleased we can continue. we don't need basically compromise or not move forward. these are very impressive in these difficult times where we have less funds to work with and figure out a way to do it. thank you for your hard work.

>> thank you, commissioner. >> thank you, commissioner very much for a thorough look at the budget. rest assured we do look at. all of the hard work needs a great deal to us. thank you for the articulation. commissioner lum, go ahead. >> my only comment is that since we are trying to help the communities especially the restaurants, obviously, they are in trouble. anytime you walk to chinatown you know they are in trouble. it is almost completely empty. are we making sure that the food program that we are responsible for.

we have funding. are we making sure different restaurants are receiving the benefits of the das? whatever funding that we allocate to help with chinatown, are we also making sure that different restaurants by being included rather than just a particular few that were chosen? >> yes, there is a growing list of restaurants that are being used right now. this is like a reup of a program launched in chinatown in april called feed and fuel. it is about getting as many restaurants involved as possible and also like i said earlier addressing food insecurity. the model that is used in

chinatown right now is we are working with an organization called san francisco new deal. they in-turn work with a number of restaurants. they are working closely with dcdc and merchants to identify the restaurants and bring on as many restaurants as possible. the goal is 80 restaurants. yes, they are working through that with the community and listening to the community to work through the barriers that restaurants face when like trying to get business with the city and all of that. there are a lot of restaurants involved at this pint. >> thank you. >> any other comments or questions about the budget, commissioners? okay. do we have anybody from the

public wishing to comment on this item? >> we have a caller in the queue. i am transferring now. >> thank you very much. i am victor and i am the president of the veterans affairs commission in san francisco. thank you for your presentation on the budget. i am particularly interested in learning more about the cvso funding $1.1 million devoted to the office. the commission is interested in knowing how much is state and

federal, how much city or other sources? how that budget is broken down for salaries, outreach and line items. we look forward to collaborating with das with the office of the cvso and commissioner nelson as representing veterans on there. we would love to know more how our veterans office in the county is supported with legislation or outreach through the board of supervisors or mayor. thank you very much. >> of course, this can be an agenda item on the next commission meeting. >> okay. do i go ahead and put that on there for an agenda item?

i will request that. >> yes, when we create the agenda i will make sure it is added on the agenda. >> thank you very much. do we have anybody else from the public who wishes to speak? >> there are no more calls in the queue. >> okay. thank you. hearing no further requests to speak is there a motion to approve the fiscal year 21-22 and 22-23 disability and aging services budget. do we have a motion? >> so moved. >> vice president spears and second from commissioner carrington. madam secretary please take a roll call for agenda item a.

>> president nut sen-- knutzen. >> yes. >> spears. >> yes. >> bittner. >> yes. >> carrington. >> yes. >> jung. >> yes. >> lum. >> yes. >> sklar. >> yes. >> president knutzen the vote is unanimous. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> let's try again with the screen share one more time.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, i am from the agency office of contract management patrick garcia. with me is reanna albert. we are here to present the four year fund cycle with the schedule for fiscal year 20-21 request for proposals and contract renewals. we develop the schedule every year. this gives an overview what we are working on and what programs we will bring to the das commission for approval. we will give an overview of the four year dig any -- dignity

fund schedule. >> i am reanna albert. on the chart here one of the components of the fund is to establish a planning and funding process. das follows the cycle to ensure dignity fund money is spent appropriately and addresses community needs. as you can see in the slide, the dignity fund contract schedule has a four year cycle. that ensures transparency and consistency. the cycle also allows flexibility by bringing services for new contract terms every four years after the community needs assessment happens. this structure also allows service providers to have a sense of sent in contract terms

and ability to develop new proposals over the four years. as you can see here contract schedules are based on service areas so that similar services are procured in the same year. right now we are currently in cycle b which means we are releasing r.f.p.s for cycle c beginning next fiscal year. to the next slide, i will pass it over to patrick. >> in front of you is request for proposals for fiscal year 2021. these are the r.f.p.s released. these are new programs or existing programs expiring and require new procurement. r.f.p.s begin in fiscal year 21-22 contract start day july 1, 2021. entries here listed include

program name, month in which contracts plan to release r.f.p. to the public and month in which they plan to bring items for approval. dates are tentative and can change. the department will stick with the schedule as much as possible. our process takes three months from the time the department issues the r.f.p. to the time rebring to the commission for approval. the last set of r.f.p.s will be issued in april with tentative commission date in june. now in total the department has 17 r.f.p.s this fiscal year. compared to last year there is a total of 25. although there is a slight dip in afps released, we have a bigger program released this fiscal year. when we leased the newtrician program r.f.p. -- nutrition would result in 50 grant

agreements. vendors can find on the sf city partner website and local paper. we do a direct mailing to das service providers as well. up next rhianna dives into detail about two of the afps highlighted here. >> i wanted to highlight a cup emof these long-term -- couple of these. long-term care this is scheduled for release in february to improve quality of life and care of people living in nursing homes, residential care homes and assisted living. the role of the long-term care ombudsman is to investigate and resolve complaints by resident of the long-term care facilities. related in actions, inactions of providers. ombudsman provides consultation

on good care pratics and provides witnessing services for advance healthcare. the emergency home care services in release in february. these consist of congregate meals, home delivered meals and groceries for adults with disabilities in san francisco. these programs include provisions for nutritious meal. they can be an access hint for home and community based services. in fiscal year 1920 over 3.5 million feels were served congregate and home delivered meals. here i wanted to present the contracts up for renewal this year.

these are the contracts we have in place and that will expire at the end of the fiscal year. we have an option to extend the term. we plan to bring these to commission in the month of april and may. on the slide i want to highlight the intergenerational program to bring together two different generations with one of those being comprised of older adults and add difficulties with disabilities in san francisco. organizing activities, these activities support engagement. the case management renewal here is one of the programs that helps older adults and add difficulties with disabilities access services to live in the community. a case manager collaborates to provide assessment of the needs

and they identify appropriate services and facilitate consumer access to services. case managers work with other agencies and organizations for a service plan and monitor the progress of the plan. on the very last slide, here we have five more new newals. they have a tentative commission date of may. one of the larger ones is community living fund. this concludes our presentation. we are happy to answer any questions. >> great. thank you so much. it was perfect as we finally got to see it. any questions from commissioners? our work is ahead of us. >> this is informational only.

we don't vote or anything like that or comments from the public. we are completed. thank you very much. i will move on to announcements. i just wanted to use this opportunity to announce the appointments to committees to make that a matter of public record. our commissioners thank you for being on committees. we are fully staffed at this point. i will run through it for the record. i am on the dig any fund and finance. spears chairing the finance committee. carrington joint legislation committee.

jung on the dignity fund oversight and advisory committee and nominating committee. commissioner lum joint legislation finance, nominating and by-laws. commissioner bittner san francisco ihss governing body and joint legislation committee. commissioner sklar on the nominating committee and by-laws committee. i think we are staffed and have made bridgett happy. we always have people ready and willing to serve when we need these functions filled. thank you to everyone for input and for volunteering. with that i don't think we have anything else. am i correct? we are through the agenda. >> i lost my grid. go ahead.

thank you. >> madam secretary a quick question. what is the name of the gentleman from the veterans affairs commission who commented? commissioner i didn't catch his name. i will go over the recording. when i get his name the executive director will help me with that, too. i will let you know. >> thank you. >> with that, thank you everyone who made the technology possible. thank you for making that happen. i will adjourn the february 3, 2021 meeting of the disability and aging services commission today at 12:04 p.m. good-bye.

>> welcome to the workshop. please call the roll. director borden. >> here. >> brinkman. >> present. >> eaken. >> here. >> heminger. >> here. >> hinze. >> present. >> lai. >> present. >> yekutiel. >> here. >> you have a quorum.

the next item is communications. >> we are on sfgovtv. >> we will be on at 2:00. an online video is available at sfgovtv/watch. i will give my covid-19 announcement. due to covid-19 health emergency this meeting is held virtually. everyone is participating remotely. in our notice for the meeting and on the web page we ask you to leave a voicemail message. all comments received prior to today we have received them and appreciate those comments. thank you for honoring our request. we continue to urge the public to write the board at any time.

m.t.a. board add s.f.m.t.a. com. if you have attended the meetings you know the technology is not seamless. we have challenges. you may get cut off, phone line might go dead, audio problem. be patient and bear with us. when somebody happens in public comment is cut off we will restart public comment and allow people to call in. thank you for your patience and understanding. i want to thank everybody on the team who works hard to make these calls happen. there is a large group of people behind the scenes with the phone line, sfgovtv, microsoft teams and more to make this happen. thank you.

>> for the public information i would like to remind them of the instructions for making public comment. the phone number is (888)808-6929 code 996-1164. we ask that you please make sure in a quiet location, turn on of your tv or radio or mute the sound if you are live streaming so the board can hear you. when prompted dial 10 to be added to the speaker line. the auto prompt will indicate question and answer time. this is the public comment period. when prompted callers have the standard two minutes to provide comments. i will repeat the instructions for how to make public comment again. some members may join late and may not have heard the

information. item 9 is presentation and discussion regarding the s.f.m.t.a.'s operating and capital fiscal and structural deficits and possible options to address. >> this is the jeff has an introductory statement. if not, i will go into it. >> i will frame it up for you. this is a reminder. this is a two day intensive budget exercise to help us frame priorities for the coming 18 months or so. yesterday we described the economic issues that are faced by the city as a whole. we spoke about the specific economic challenges at s.f.m.t.a. julie and tom talked about extraordinary success over

the last year during the covid period and some of the dire challenges that we will face over the next 178 months. we -- 18 months. we summarize some of the specific challenges and high level questions we have for you. i think we have been able to demonstrate that we know how to address every one of the challenges we pays. we know how to deliver the san francisco transportation system. we do not have the funding or staffing level needed to do so. we need to make some really hard choices. we ended the conversation yesterday talking about values and the need to make hard choices rooted in the values. we know that the next 18 months are a period of unprecedented uncertainty. we are entirely dependent upon

outside federal funding to dig ourselves out of the covid financial hole. we have no idea what level of funding we will get. if we don't get the funding we hope for, we will need to use our values in order to make dramatic cuts to the agency in a way to create the least amount of harm. if we get substantial funding and are able to restore services, we will still need to make hard choices about what services do we restore first and do we bring the system back exactly as it was in 2019 or do we bring it back different, better, more in alignment with our values? today we are going to have more discussion than we did yesterday. i know we promised a lot that we would cover a lot of material today. today, staff are going to go over more detail about the fiscal reality we are facing as

an agency, including how we have to deal with risk. this uncertainty about how much federal funding we might get is forcing us to think in different ways about risk. our first priority as we said yesterday being to avoid laying off the worke forcer. we also, of course, assigned homework last night to take a very complicated messy budget spreadsheet to help frame up how we might make those hard choices. i want to emphasize and we will come back to this later. that was not about making decisions about cutting this program over here and investing in that program over there. it wasn't about establishing the budget but rather helping us to understand what your priorities are and how we should be framing the hard choices as we move forward in the coming months with those budget

decisions we need to make. i would like to turn it back over to jonathan, our acting director of finance and information technology who can talk to you all in some detail about our budget reality. thank you. >> good afternoon, board members. jonathan here. senior budget manager and acting cfo. i am going through two quick presentations today. i am happy to take questions in between them. the manager of budget analysis will join me and our manager of asset management will be joining here and there. first presentation is short term in nature. how do we get through the next 18 months. the presentation after that is what do we do in the long-term? how do we start the process and planning for tackling the long-term deficit?

just going through this again. we are going to try to be as transparent as possible about the deficit and the future we are looking towards. there is no perfect answer. we do not have a crystal ball. we use a number of data sources to help us make decisions. one is looking at mobility. considering how people make transportation decisions. you will see here this is why we have shown the board numerous times. we update each time we come to you. the second wave has caused a new peak decline and loss in transit. that path we talked about revenues growing, slowlier than projected. month over month we did start seeing decline consistent with this behavioral change. this is due, one, to the holidays and the impact of the

virus and the closures and changes in behavior. you will see this in comparison to other cities. you will see when you look at the partners across the united states and the local cities. new zealand and see a little and london. the service we want to take this into account. next slide. here is the choice. you will see that pattern. interesting to see driving and walking and those choices. this is different with the apple mobility data. google automatically pings your phone based on destination. we get a chance to see where people are going. across san francisco this is

based on what people choose in the form of direction. you will see a curve and things changing. the noticeable drop in driving is something that was aligned with our parking revenue. that is the specific impact. >> now, i want to talk about the deficit specifically and the messaging since the beginning of the fiscal year. this is a very graphical version of the data we look at with regard to the financials every month. the gold and blue line is revenue and expenditures based on the budget. purple is the cares funds, green is parking and traffic. red is transit fares. on the right in that chart you will see the peak months that we were hoping to hit in this fiscal year based on our

projections. growth hitting the peak at the end of the fiscal year. when looking at that we hit the deficit, unclosable deficit when we began the fiscal year. we needed to wait to see what was happening with federal relief. when we entered to the model this is what it showed by april or expenditures would out pace revenues. that is when we started the budget. you will see here if you want to go back and forth between month one and two. you will see the trend that we began to see. our expenditures were down. you will see in august, september that line dropped. that was the budget plan you had approved. controlling hiring, looking at expenditures, mission critical activities and reducing over time. we did see reduction in

expenditures and you will see the result was that stretch out of cares fund from october to november. at the right it went down. we were starting to see the pattern we hoped to see the expense dip turreductions and the austerity measures we would see the decline in deficit and the revenues catch up. the plan all along. by fiscal month three the pattern continues. what we started to see the revenues were not growing fast enough. while that deficit went down it is picking up again and hitting the period of time that you will see separation. in april not as steep as before. use of care funds through november. we were looking month by month to see if our revenues were tracking on the pace to hit the peaks we talked about before.

by november -- by the october board meeting we changed parking revenue assumption. we were hoping to hit a month of $23 million. you will recall we came to you and said it is likely but the pattern of growth the month over month it was probably not possible for us to hit that. you will see looking at our expenditures considering the path of revenues. if that line starts to decline, deficits start to catch up really quick. you saw the deficit grow again. you will see by november we continue to see the decline in parking revenues. we lowered to $20 million. we also lowered the fare revenue expectations. updated the board during that month. you will see the impending impact on the deficit. you will see at this point that we were going to go over in

march. revenues were never going to catch up with expenditures and cares money gone. fiscal month 12. that is growing now to $18 million. we corrected the revenues. you can see that this is when we made the decision to come to the board and say we are at a point where we do not see any possibility of not having the worke forcer reduction. that deficit grew so much based on revenue trends and expenditures. in december we updated the board the trends and you will see the data monthly financials pointed us to making decisions that we have made up to this point in time. that said this is where we stand now. this is a little change in the way you have seen it before.

we want to be clear where we stand. revenue loss now column reflects total revenue loss. expenditure savings we project currently and we did realize in fiscal year 2020 you will see the federal relief column. this is what we assume to date. it doesn't mean there won't be more, but the best expectation on the what we are planning to ward are those amounts. you will see now that this leaves the final deficit we cannot close of $134 million. when you just add up those columns, you will see we have lost almost a billion dollars. there is still a possibility we will hit the billion dollars over the course of this pandemic. the agency 20% through

efficiencies and cuts. this is a conversation we will have whether or not we want to continue that level of austerity. to be clear, the adopted budget assumed a service reduction. this 20% reflects reduction on top of that largely. not completely because we did again plan we might have to cut back. that is on top of the original budget plan. you will see two-thirds covered through federal relief to the state to keep us going and keep us stable. we have 15% we are looking to close. i want be to be clear we still have the $129 million reserve that we have yet to use. we will have to take that deficit column and some of that is covered by federal relief or some through additional efficiency reductions which we can talk about, and we do not know that revenue loss amount

will not increase. what i will say is that after november and the month of december and january we saw revenue decline. to the levelings where it is almost like we are starting back with the summer. we went through six months. slowly climbed and then we just have gone back to where we started. that extends out the period of revenue recovery. therefore, it results in a loss of revenue against the planned expenditures. again, just quickly the board has senthis before. where we thought we are with revenue losses. federal relief from hr133. covering the $144 million to get us to net zero as we close the fiscal year. just guessing now about $230 million from that bill, but it could be more. we have to wait and see what happens with m.t.c.

that leaves $86 million with a deficit of $134 million to solve in the short term. again, this is the budget plan that the board adopted in the final budget june 2020. we have eliminated the board reserve. that was only if revenue was higher. we plugged those expenditures in. we assume off the table. we continue over time control. that is a huge part of the labor cost savings. we have implemented hiring freeze and focus omission critical positions. we will have a discussion about that toed. we are continuing expenditure controls. we hope through those measures to realize $118 million of savings. we set up and provided update on the capital program and capital revenue losses. appending approval of revenue bond at board of supervisors

that is delayed one week. we will wait to see if the board of supervisors will approve the final legislation to allow us to move forward. we think there will be room to exercise the ability with our federal grant to shift capital funds to operating one-time so that is now on the table as an option. we also have the rainy day reserves. if we stick with the 30%. that is $38.7 million. we changed some things on the worke forcer cost reduction. it is likely that there will be deferral of cost of living increase next year. we need to see if that shows up. there are discussions of furloughs. all energy to avoid layoffs in any which way. there will not be any in 2021 to our planning and work over the next couple months there should be none in fiscal year 2022

either. these are the options. as director tumlin notedded. we don't want to make decisions today. we are looking to put packages together for the board and talk with the public and our employees about the impact of the changes. we have assumed the $19 million of that board reserve which was expenditures that came in higher than anticipated. we are talking with caltrain. they made clear the deficit. we were under the assumption we would not have to make any operating contribution in fiscal year 22. we have that on the table, but we will have to work that through with caltrain. that is a possibility. we are waiting to see if the labor agreement cola is triggered by the march joint report of the controller and mayor's budget office.

that is $10 million in savings. we want to make sure the revenue bond refinancing is possible. we don't know. to save up to $35 million. estimated somewhere 20 to $35 million amount. the austerity measures will not be $118 million next year. we know that is not possible to save that amount two times. aggressive austerity measures we think we can save up to $71 million. we will have a discussion about the impact of that decision. you will see the capital revenues shift, rainy day reserves. we did do an estimate of furloughs. we have looked at labor agreements. not all of them have an outright ban on furloughs. usually when the city negotiates the arrangements it is

consistent across the unions. this would be based on the labor agreements that allow us to do it. that may beings it complicated. if we were to pursue that it is possible to achieve $8 million in savings. $198 million of options to close $134 million deficit. just really on top of that i want to cover the capital losses. we did report to the board we anticipate capital revenue loss $202 million over five year cip. it is roughly $500 million in the period of the capital budget fiscal year 21 and 22. with luck the revenue bond will help close part of the losses through financing to continue the projects funded to pay contracts against. next slide is almost the last one in the section. this is a response to the board on the state of good repair

costs. what we did was we had shown you in the previous average of state every pair investments across our capital programs. these numbers on slide 19 reflect actual. each row reflects how much the agency should spend based on the useful life of those assets in those fiscal years. this is not after age. this is actual. the blue row shows what we invest in the capital improvement program. that last number is a little wrong. $76 million gap that should be red. what that means we willed an additional $76 million to our back log which is why the backlog continues to grow. year-over-year we will not spend what we need to with regard to the assets.

you will see the assets that require investments here. last slide in this section. again, we have shown you mobility data. this is the monthly financials which we use for projections and why we messaged and have taken the actions in the first year of fiscal year 21. again, the deficit will be closed in fiscal year 21. there will be a deficit remaining in fiscal year 22 we are looking to solve. we provided options to close that deficit and we will have public discussions and internal discussions about those, but any feedback on those options would be appreciated. then we did have a plan. we had actions we prepared for. now what we want be to do is prepare deficit reduction plan for fiscal year 22. we are in the middle of two year budget. we do not have to submit

anything to the board of supervisors this year. what we do want to have in place is some sort of plan as to somehow we will close the deficit in the second year of our two year budget. with that you can stop sharing. i can go on unless there are questions on the short term. this just gets to the next 18 months. >> we have board member questions. we will start with director heminger. >> thank you, madam chair. jonathon i want to start with federal aid. i think it is confusing to track all of the bills. according to my tally, we have had two bills passed. cares act and the appropriations bill. there is a third bill that president biden is negotiating with the congress, correct? >> correct. there is a $1.9 trillion

proposed additional stimulus federal relief that is including $20 billion for transit. >> so to bring us back to our level, the numbers i have indicate that the m.t.a. received about $370 million from the cares act which was round numbers about 30% of what the bay area received. >> that's correct. >> your number for the appropriations act, i believe your assumption is $230 million, you said? >> correct. >> that number is about 23% of the bay area total so why are you being so bearish on how good a negotiator tumlin is. >> the formula is fluctuating and has been with m.t.c.

we don't want to take the risk we don't get the money and have no back up plan or no options on how to close the deficit if we don't receive what we anticipate. today if you asked me as a bet 70% chance we could get more than that. there are limits within the legislation itself about how much we can get. i believe transit agencies in urban areas were not to get more than 75% of total operating budget peak in 270s. there is a flexibility in rather that remains. >> it sounds like you are acknowledging upside potential there. getting to the biden package, which i think is the more important variable here, as you said that is $20 billion more for transit nationally, which is midpoint between the cares act

and the appropriations bill. by itself if everything flows according to flan from federal to region to the mt a, if anything close to what the president is recommending gets passed, that wipes out that $134 million deficit in a hurry, doesn't it? >> yes. >> so it seems to me, look, i know you are trying to get us focused on the structural deficit as well, but we are human beings to look at what is in front of our eyes. that is that deficit that could be substantially reduced, it seems to me eliminated if we do get a bill passed in washington. if i were a betting man, i would bet we will get something passed in washington one way or the

other. it strikes me that it might be better for us to focus on a biden path and non biden path because if the biden path takes care of near term deficits, then we turn to be the structural deficit which we can't expect federal aid to keep coming. does that may being sense to you? >> that the is exact feedback that i personally am looking for. we can definitely build packages and that. my technical advice to the board that every action we have taken has been to buy us a couple more months until we got the answers you just talked about. we can definitely prepare options that look like that for you. >> ultimately the strategy needs to be paying attention to the 2022 ballot.

the first opportunity to take a crack at the structural deficit. we want to be asking questions how much risk should we be taking now to build up the agency using federal funding that could put us at a cliff if we are not successful in 2022. >> a couple quick questions on slide 17, the chart with the deficit reduction options. one question maybe to jeff. under the federal aid that we have been receiving, i have been under the assumption that money comes with a string. you can't layoff employees. is that true? >> that is true. what we are hearing for agencies that are suffering worse than we are, if you don't have the

wherewithal to meet payroll, what choice will agencies have other than layoffs? it is one of the reasons why we have taken a very conservative approach at s.f.m.t.a. we are risk avers when it comes to layoffs. we are some ringing through at -- shrinking through attrition to minimize layoffs. >> is it yes, we are not allowed to layoff folks if we accept these funds? >> that is one of the provisions. we also do not understand what would happen to us if we simply could not meet payroll. if we are not able to meet payroll, is the federal government going to ask for money back to have us go out of business? we don't understand what that provision actually means and if it is enforceable.

>> it sounds like we have constraints in the federal law and city law in terms of how we deal with furloughs and layoffs. two last questions on this chart. one on the bond refinancing. you indicate reduction in debt service. does that include liquidating debt service reserve? >> those savings would include liquidating debt service reserve which is not necessary. there is no reason for us to it is on usable cash when we have an active deficit. we would release the reserves to cover the deficit. >> those funds would be available right away, right? >> they would be available right away, yes. >> finally, just please keep me informed on your discussions with caltrain since i am the representative on that board just to make sure we have a

glide path there. >> yes, we plan to keep you briefed and updated. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, director heminger. director hinze. >> i fully support director heminger's direction to game out long-term as well as short term sennary scenarios. assuming we will receive varying level of aid to close the short term deficit. i want to associate myself with that request. one question on the bond. you mentioned it was postponed a week at the board of supervisors. i just wanted to know any indications as to why that was?

>> i will give it a stab. yesterday at the board of supervisors was the appropriation ordinance and the authorization to sell the bonds which require approval of board of supervisors. it was last action. the board had questions very similar to this board. one they wanted to think about why the m.t.a. would engage in additional debt service when we might get federal aid. they wanted to consider that. they also really wanted to understand the impact of interest rates changing if there was an outright delay of the bond sale. i did make clear to the board of supervisors that our loss of capital revenues are absolute.

the bills we need to pay on those capital projects are there one way or the other, whether or not federal relief shows up. the needs of the agency and the market conditions that exist for us to take any debt now are the best the agency will ever get. they understood that. they wanted us to be back next week. >> it seems to me from your side with the charts and i just want to confirm. even if we wiped out the short term deficit we wouldn't be spending what we need to spend to main tape our state of good repair, is that correct, am i reading that correctly? >> you are reading that correctly. >> thank you, madam chair.

>> thank you, director hinze. director lai. >> what is the expected timing on the hr133 allocation decision? >> first allocation already occurred. we are going to get about $42 million. we are working with our transit agency partners m.t.c. on the formula of distrobution for the second one now. m.t.c. hoped that decision would be made by the end of march. that is what their plan was. that is how long we think it will take. >> there are two key remaining question on the allocation. one is what do we mean by true up? in the previous round of aid we had to make estimates of losses from various sources. the money jonathan referred to was given to us because we

underestimated losses. the question is for agencies that overestimated losses does true up mean only raising up people who underestimated or debiting those who profited overestimated losses? i have an opinion on this topic. the second question is we made a commitment in the last roundabout distributing subsequent rounds with consideration of equity. we struggled with defining equity. we put forward in these strange times equity really means number of people being served. here is the af m.t.a. and at transit is we have higher ridership rates in the region and turning essential workers behind as a result of crowding. we asked the ridership impacts

be considered in the funding rooted in how many people are being serve would not just what are our fiscal losses from running buses and trains? >> thank you. that is helpful context. how confident is staff that we will m.t.c. will be able to come to a conclusion on the second part around the spring? this will impact our various scenario planning to the next fiscal year and how we advocate for fiscal year 2022 budget. >> highly confident on timing, uncertainty on how it will workout. >> i want to maybe publicly make sure we understand the austerity measures a little bit. i didn't get a chance to ask about this yesterday. i think, jeff, you could handle

this question. relating to overtime, i understand that we have aggressively limited over time to just be fiscally responsible. i am behind that. can staff help me and the public confirm whether or not overtime is really just applying to operators labor force aris there expenditure on over time with our essentially our like technical staff or office staff? i think the way i understood is that and again thanking staff really your commitment to work over 60 hours or 80 hours a week sometimes. m.t.a. is not paying for over time in dollar amounts but perhaps occurring vacationer

time, right? >> i love that question. >> overtime is a cash payment. you can get compensatory relieve which is what you are talking about. it is still a financial liability. there are hours of work not achieved. compensatory retime costs more than paying over time because as somebody gets cost of living increase they earn 1 to 3% less. when we pay for the time off we pay more. we have all directors across the agency, division directors are managing compensatory retime and over time. it is technical staff and the customer in the field. they review over time case-by-case basis based on the operational need of the request. >> maybe pointing out that the

payout for compensatory retime is longer period versus cash that is immediate. this exercise is about the next 16 months. >> let me point outgoing back to director heminger's question. one problem is immediate crisis, second structural deficit. >> absolutely. second part of jonathan's presentation i am focusing on meediate now. could we talk about the shifting capital to operations the one-time opportunity? is the amount you had presented on slide 17 the $25 million is that some sort of natural cap? how did we come up with the $25 million? >> that is a fantastic question. i will invite you to add more

our budget manager. if you will recall at the beginning of january we gave the m.t.a. board a presentation and laid out. we are losing $202 million. we have in the last budget shifted $50 million of permanent capital funds to operations. you are just starting to place a risk on the system that from a technical standpoint starts becoming dangerous when you talk about state every pair investments, contract commitments the agency has. upon reviewing the project commitment, state every pair investment, the staff were funded by capital projects. considering layoffs, $25 million was the amount that did not trigger any of those other concerns. that also was based on us going out to the market and shifting

dollars around and considering project cash flows. do you want to add to that? that was the reason. >> good afternoon. i guess i have a document. the presentation to the board. we recommended to the board not to shift any capital dollars to operating budget. you will recall mostly because the capital improvement program had $202 million reduction that we are working to try to reprioritize things out. when you take that into account we didn't recommend shifting to the operating budget. $25 million was up to amount we felt comfortable with the least amount of impact to projects. >> thanks for asking that again.

is the $25 million tied to specific capital projects we are shifting away from? >> transportation fund programs is extremely complicated. we are managing cash flow. we look to sources funding partners expect us to spend immediately. no more moneyunless you spend what you have. we work to stretch out cash flows. i need $10 million right now and they said we are only going to pay $2 million of the bill. we will go through cip to identify projects in that situation to free up cash to move to operating budget. >> i do understand that. again, what are those projects? >> if the board chooses that option, we will absolutely tell

us where those moneys are coming from. >> you have a list in mind, you are approximating the $25 million. you will provide a list and we can make decisions on which ones? >> yes. >> what would be the plan on the back end to backfill the capital? >> we are hoping the revenue bond might help with some of that. it does help with our capacity constraints to be able to do that. again, board members do recall the revenue bond gives us flexibility on the movement of capital funds. tim presented a huge form of capital funds are restricted to their use. we have no ability to move to operating budget or spend on anything else. this is why the revenue bond is important to approve. it gives you flexibility to move money around. >> my last question is maybe --

maybe this is not the right time to talk about it let me know. we do have increasing requests to expand service even in the next 16 months. can staff provide any sort of numerical understanding around what that would cost? for example, if we were to bring back 50% service, 60% service, what would that actually amount to financially? >> we can, and i would suggest the staff will report back if you would like us to lay out those options we can do that with transit division. generally as rule of thumb referring to the muni reliability working group, we costed out generally a 5% service increase. 5% of service at about $33 million. right now that will give you a

rule of thumb. we can if the board would like those options we can price each of those for you. >> right. i also want to make sure you understand there are other things to do to expand service. most of them are related to whatever rate of vaccination dph decides to eliminate the social distancing requirement on buses, and have us no longer be forced to take buses back to the yard at the end of every shift for sterilization. those two changes are effectively free and will allow a significant expansion in service. the other factor which we will talk about later today is things to improve efficiency like rapid expansion of temporary transit only lanes to reduce delay that allows us to expand service. >> i do think that conversation

is necessary for us to really be able to quantify some of these options because it seems to me that it is something we are going to have to very seriously consider and respond to in the near term even. if staff could really think about that and bring it back soon, that would be great. thank you, chair. >> thank you, director lai. director eaken. >> i support director's plans. if we get half, nothing we do this. reflecting on slide 17. if you want guidance from the board i saw a couple pathways to get to $134 million. one is in light of the conversation about staff moral and everyone working over time.

i would like the furloughs at the very bottom of any list we would consider to help close the gap. >> director heminger's question. >> could you also break out the f line and cable cars to the extent they have a different cost structure than just meat and potatoes bus service? >> yes, we can do that. >> thank you. >> i agree with everything my colleagues have said at this point. we will ask. yesterday at the board the bond financing was approved? >> it got delayed one week. >> we won't be able to talk about that in what we anticipate there for a while. when do we think we would start

to anticipate what we could do with those fund? >> i am hoping that the board of supervisors will approve the ordinance and resolution next tuesday. what we will do as follow-up on this discussion. first i appreciate the feedback. that is what we were looking for. we will plan a series of reports back to the board on the various questions and issues you have over the coming weeks. we will plan it within your normal board schedule to come back and talk about it. >> to clarify, the board of supervisors deferred for a week but the new money was approved all right? >> yes. >> director heinz a question? >> to follow up on director lai's request. if we have to bring the cost of

various states of good repair as capital projects could you also break out how many positions you are talking about staff are associated with each of those projects when you make those decisions? >> we can give you a sense of the allocation of staff time to projects. it is complicated but if you ask i shall obey, you are the board. >> okay. >> at this time i think we are going to pause for public comment. i know that we have one item with distinct sections. i am trying to allow the public to weigh in before the end. moderator if you can open the line and people can comment on the first portion of the budget outlook and the decisions we have to make, that would be great.

maybe caroline can you renounce the number. the phone number to call in is (888)808-6929. access code is 996-1164. if you do wish to address the board at this time, dial 10 to be added to the speaker line. you will hear the calls are going to question and answer mode. this will be the public comment time. >> moderator. >> you have three questions remaining. >> first caller, please. >> thank you, board members. i am danny young. i am a principal administrative

analyst with s.f.m.t.a. local 21 chapter president of the professionals chapter representing many employees. during my decade i have seen how capable we are of finding creative solutions to cut challenges. as we shift from response to recovery you have choices in front of you for the budget process. choices before you focus on all core service, long-term impacts and on street improvementses, reliability. i am asking you to choose to invest in staff. choose us. say no to layoffs. make a public commitment be not to include layoffs in future budget choices. as mentioned yesterday's meeting staff moral and burnout is real. i have personally in other words fellow employees and observed this threat of layoffs has been

debt mental. staff moral and mental health is important. s.f.m.t.a. employees are one essential ingredient to help recover from covid and deliver safe reliable transportation options. budget staff are working hard on additional revenue with finding visual savings and efficiencies. the relief package passed contained billons for public transit with hundreds of millions to s.f.m.t.a. minutes ago millions in federal said is expected soon. the significant reserves of s.f.m.t.a. i trust we can find solutions to the shortfalls without did you tells to services or staff -- without cuts to services or staff.

>> time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> thank you. she and her. good to be back for day two of these proceedings. we talk about projects operating versus capital. i will maintain to you the importance of preserving capital funds. for really this reason. i am concerned if we take funds from capital and put it towards operations it is going to compromise the ability to do americans disabilities act work. i continue to advocate for that inclusive unit. we have to continue our ada work. that needs to be a first priority.

along with state of good repair. as far as budgeting goes, we must not raise fares. as long as we are in the crisis and after that we should not consider raising fares even in the next biennial budget. the lingering after effects of this crisis. i am a reduced fare passenger. reduced fares for seniors, disabled and lifeline must remain the same because really muni is about the people and that should be our most important goal is the people who use muni like myself who want be to feel inconcluded in municipal neap. i bring this to you as i close.

reduced fare must never mean reduced service. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> hello, hayden miller. i wanted to comment briefly on this. one idea i had in terms of cost cutting, somebody mentioned this yesterday. i think it was more in terms of safety bringing back tokens. people love the toe kens, they will pay a premium for them and bring in revenue now and some people will not spend the toe kens. they keep as collector's item. that is a good idea. selling multi year passes, maybe

sell two, three, four, five year pass now for a little discount. also, another comment i wanted to make in terms of over time. some people front be line staff i talked to feel like they are not to file over time when they are pulling the bus in the yard 10 minutes late. it is clear they are entitled to overtime if they don't have enough time to pull in the yard on time they get paid if they are 10 minutes late. last thing to say is parking enforcement. there is a lot of opportunities for revenue. walk down the block and 15 cars on the sidewalk that is over $1,000 in revenue right there. there are a lot of ways to raise funds without laying off employees or raising fares. those are my comments for now. thank you. [please stand by]

with critical roles to keep it active for those who depend on transit service. i understand that cost savings is at the highest priority for the board, but the services that we provide to keep san francisco

operating should not be put on the chopping block. with that said, there has been $975 million dedicated to bay-area transit agencies to support the sfmta and to have the transit system that so many depend on each day. the agency has 540 full-time vacancies with $202 million over the next two years to add to the available funds. and so valuing and continuing to provide services for san francisco's residents means providing a budget that also supports city workers. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: hi, this is nicole christian with the local 1021.

i wanted to start by thanking director heminger for his spot on questions and comments. i wanted to highlight the fact that the narrative of the -- i'm sorry -- the narrative of the financial situation is very much doom and gloom, where we know that we are -- if we work together, we can rebuild this agency's revenues. we have relied on the labor side for rebuilding the revenue. we have not been in any kind of conversation that would be beneficial to the agency or beneficial to us. we have heard non-stop how the primary goal is no layoffs but just saying the word "layoffs" makes staff uneasy. we want to make sure that going

forward that we have the seat at the table because we as your frontline staff, can tell you where you can save money and where you can afford to enforce, whether it be with the p.c.o.s or the proof of payment officers, there are programs that we already have that we could utilize to build up that revenue. what is very disheartening to staff is the constant talk of no money. and we know that is simply not true. we also have the back-up revenue from the city and county. they have over a billion dollars they have not touched in a single year. so, please, utilize every aspect of the m.t.a. staff and your board yourself to use -- to generate more revenue and stop with the layoff talk. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

moderator, any additional callers on the line? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: with that we'll close public comment and that was public comment on the first item on our multi-items agenda. we'll move back to our session to continue on to the transportation 2050 portion of the presentation, unless directors have initial questions. great. >> thank you, chair borden. and i will have elements of this presentation. so just quickly to set the stage on the feedback and what we're trying to present to you here, so in considering the short term, and the decisions that we'll make with regard to service, we want to consider the agency's ability to sustain that service in the years to come and really to make sure that our transportation system is

resilient to various vulnerabilities as we talked about over the last year during the pandemic. and also that it's sustainable, meaning, that we have a reliable system and the public does not see fluctuations in the level of service. that they have some level of comfort and understanding that when we commit to a letter of service we have the ability to sustain and continue it. so this gets into our longer 30-year financial horizon and reporting back on the things and the issues that we are working to solve in the long term. as director tumlin noted, a lot of the work that we're doing is working towards the june 2022 ballot and likely a series of voter-approved initiatives over a period of time. so i love this quote, muni is in the midst of a financial crisis. for last five years, muni has been able to have a structural deficit with the combination of

one-time revenues and belt tightening and fee increases and service cuts. that is not a quote from today, it's a quote from a report in 2006. next slide. and there's a number of reports trying to solve the problem that we're talking about today -- how do we get to the system that people expect in san francisco and sets sfmta up for success and stability over time. next slide. some of the things that we have implemented over that period of time, going back to 2006, the reserve, the transit effectiveness project, and our advertising contract, and the sustainability fee and implementing s.f. parks. the muni forward program and the

building progress program, and the board did recently approve the ability to extend meter hours in the evening and into sunday. with regard to ballot measures, there was the reform proposition a in 2009 which did shift a component of the parking tax, that is a sales tax, on commercial spaces for the sfmta. so we get 80% of back revenue. proposition g allowed to us do more of our own collective bargaining. we did see a one-time general obligation bond in 2014 proposition a, and proposition b considered daytime populations. and those funds largely go to capital. for first time we did shift a component of that revenue to the operating budget and that began in this budget cycle. proposition j was a sales tax that, unfortunately, failed in

2016. that was about $100 million a year. and then most recently proposition d, the ride hail tax, and the m.t.a. gets about $15 million of that revenue and the other $15 million goes to our partners at the san francisco county transportation authority. so a lot has been done to try to solve this problem. next slide. but looking at it overall, here's a very simplistic version of looking at productivity. and it demonstrated the point that director tumlin had made about the agency's costs versus the agency's revenues. you will see back in 2002, the agency provided $3.3 million of revenue hours per year and this year it's 3.6 million in rev new service. so it's just a 9% increase, and those of you who have been on the board for a longer period of time, that know in the 2015

period we did a substantial 10% service increase. you will also see the cost of the revenue hour that is now $3.83. so the agency is actually putting out more service than it did in 2002, but you will see the cost of that service has outpaced the amount that we have the financial ability to put out on the streets. next slide. with regard to the state of our repair and the state of our infrastructure, as you will recall in the summer we did present a state of repair report. something that we have been doing since 2014. and uses the term for process from the transit administration to essentially to measure the condition of our infrastructure on a one to five scale. jerad, do you want to talk about what the specific slide is showing us? it's going to be on mute though.

>> so, yeah, what this is showing us is that it's really giving you a relative age of the agency's assets. so you can see in our major asset classes the areas where the trend has gone up or the scores have increased, we had focused investment. things like facilities, you know, are steadily decreasing and parking and traffic. you can see kind of a big jump there in 2017-2018. that's due to us really including our traffic signals into our capital asset inventory and getting a better understanding of the age of that. but, really, this is a way for to us look at areas for, you know, additional investment and also to look closer at the performance and the condition of the assets relative to their age. >> next slide.

so on the next slide here, you will see the backlog, which we talked about. so in the short term we talked about that we'll likely add about $70 million to our backlog. but we want to show here is the actual portion of that backlog. so the agency currently has about a $3.7 billion, almost $4 billion backlog. and one of the reasons specifically for the building progress program is that 40% of that backlog is our facilities. the places where our employees work, the places where we maintain our brand-new fleet. and, so the agency has made a concerted effort to work on trying to fund those projects and update that infrastructure. you'll see as jerad noted that our traffic signals are a large part of our deferrals. 5% of the total backlog. and you'll see that transit goes sideways, so that represents nearly 27% of those assets are in backlog. and our parking infrastructure, right. so even our replacing our

parking meters, we're going out for a revenue bond and we have to use our own operating budget dollars to pay for that parking infrastructure. so that continues to grow. so you can see the areas that we have identified here are the areas where we're starting to see concern. where we as jerad said we need to reconsider some of our priorities and the things that we need to invest in. i will say this much -- these areas are always the hardest for us to fund. very difficult for us to find funds from the federal or the state government. so when we talk about local measures or local generation bonds, we try to find funds in the agency that are very hard to find dollars from. next slide. we have shown you this slide before. what happens during the past 10 years was that when you look at constant dollars at the agency's core revenue sources, that being operating grants that we get from the federal and the state government, and the city's

general fund and our parking and traffic fines and our transit fares, those revenues were in decline. and they had been continuously declining. why that has not been generally noticed by the public is that it was compensated for by the general fund. what that does though when we talk about resiliency, is that it makes the agency more susceptible to disruption during periods of economic instability. which happens to be a result of the pandemic. and so you will see the projected -- and see the gaps that we're showing, but, again, those core elements that fund the m.t.a. over the period of time that we're taking about are in decline. next slide. so when we talk about the current period, the short-term period, we are filling that gap with federal relief. and those are one-time dollars. so when we think about funding service -- this was a question that we had for the board, we need to consider the level of

risk with we talk about payroll and when we talk about service, because we want to make sure that the agency has the continuing capacity to pay for those salaries when we make those choices. so you will see those gaps that you see, those declines, are made up largely by federal relief. next slide. so now tim will cover our scenarios on our five-year financial forecast. what i will tell you is that this is another area where we have changed the feedback. we have created multiple alternatives. again, for the purposes of planning, we have selected one. but we are open to feedback and can provide you any information that you want on the details regarding these scenarios. >> my name is timothy mmangliemot. and so yesterday you will recall that we showed the board a structural deficit slide, which

is what you see in the arrow on the left. we're trying something a little bit different this time. but we want to show you multiple scenarios, rather than the one that is the staff selected option for you to consider and also for the board to have guidance on which options we should be moving forward with. before i get into the actual slides, just to give the board some context, the sfmta is very conservative which is why there's an arrow on the first one. where we're very conservative with revenues on purpose, because should a downturn happen, like it's happening now, it's important that we have conservative estimates and we have a little bit of a cushion to back us with. you will also recall yesterday city controller ben rosenfield talked about the city's financial plan in the future. so a lot of what you see in our projections are guided from what we get from the controller's

office. on january 15th, the controller did issue an updated projection, going to the out years for the entire city. you will be happy to know that sfmta has that whole report, and we incorporate all of the guidance into our five-year financial plan. not every revenue source that sfmta receives is included in that report. sfmta is very diverse with rev new sources. i think probably the most diverse in the nation. and so there are a lot of revenue sources that we do our own self-estimating on with on our staff. and they are also very conservative. a lot of our revenue estimates are guided from long-term trends and data. and the last thing that i will mention too is that we're starting to distinguish between -- what we're calling one-time revenue and ongoing revenue. which is very important when you think of it from a structural

deficit perspective. with the idea of being that -- and i will use an example -- we don't want to hire a person who will be a long-term employees for sfmta using one-time revenue. that just creates too much instability. so we always try to push for ongoing revenue to use against ongoing expenditures. and so with that said, let's get into the first scenario which is a slide that we presented to the board yesterday. and you will see here that there's multiple rows at the bottom, but we're essentially showing what the five-year deficit looks like, and assuming conservative rev revenues. in this scenario and the conservative scenario, we're assuming that growth gets back up to about 80% of the peak levels, going out to the year 2024. this scenario also assumes no fare indexing. so similar to what we did with this year's budget cycle, this

cycle has no unfair indexing, and this scenario also assumes that we work towards full expenditures. working towards full service. and it assumes by fiscal year 2023, some of the service increases that we start building in before the pandemic happened, such as -- for example, hiring staff for essential subway, are starting to be built into the budget. starting in fy23. and so talking about the conversations that happened yesterday in terms of do we continue aggressive austerity measures or do we try to get back to full service -- this scenario is sfmta trying to get back to full service starting in fiscal year 23. and a couple notes that i will mention, you see at the bottom there's revenue one time. and so these are the one-time revenues that we use to budget our budget in fiscal year 21 and

22. without these one-time revenues i think that we'd be in dire straits. and with the trends and conversations, it's something that -- a trend that we hope to reverse. but that one-time revenue is made up of the federal relief money that we have received and we expect to receive, that's made up of the fund balance that we use in these two fiscal years. and it's made up of developer fees and then the city also -- the city also included -- gosh, you're going to kill me eras funding, and it's the educational rev new augmentation fund, i believe. which the city continues one-time revenue and we continue that one-time revenue. so those were all used to balance the budget. so we're projecting a deficit up to year fiscal year 25. and the thing they will mention that was commented on before is that none of these have use of

reserves. sfmta has $129 million that we keep on reserve by policy in the fiscal year 22. so none of these see a use of reserve and that's still in our back pocket should we choose to use it. and can you go to the next slide. so the next slide is a different scenario where, again, we're assuming the same kind of conservative revenue that i mentioned earlier. but in this scenario we assume that we continue the aggressive austerity measures. which means limited overtime, it means that we still continue a hiring freeze -- or some level of that. and it assumes that we still continue some of the aggressive austerity measures with limiting contracts. and if we go out with the scenario along with the conservative revenue, you will see what it does to the structural deficit. it does decline pretty significantly. but then the tradeoff is that

you get a lower level of service in the next few fiscal years. and going to the next scenario, scenario three. and there's another cut that we took at this where instead of taking a conservative revenue approach, and do more aggressive revenue approach. meaning that we are assuming in this scenario by fiscal year 2024, rather than up to 80% of the fare revenue, knock on wood, people start riding muni again and we get back up to 100%, and it assumes a aggressive assumption on parking fees. and then the scenario also considers us getting back to full service in fiscal year 2023. so this was a best-case scenario for revenues and it's possible and it might happen, but, again, part of the trouble that we have from the finance team is that our crystal ball is only so

clear. and we have many more scenarios than this. and these are just three that we're using, kind of to start the conversation with the board, and to get guidance on what the board -- the board direction on what we should be thinking in terms of how to plan our budget in the next few years. you can go to the next slide now. actually so with this slide i'll turn it back to jonathan rewers who can take us through it. >> so what we have been working on, when you look at the gaps, both on capital and operating, you see that those gaps start growing on themselves and start growing exponentially. and so we've identified a gap of nearly $36 billion over the next 30 years. this is an update to reports that were done for transportation 2030, and transportation 2045. we did a recast of that longer period of time to see where we would end up if we continue on

those paths. and this is where we end up. and this is what the gap is. next slide. so let's talk about what it takes to close that gap and to kind of solve the problem. so how do we turn the corner and look to the future? so what we tried to do here is to start packaging things. to give people kind of a sense of the scale. and one of the reasons that we ran through different scenarios on the structural deficit is that when we looked at, again, the patterns back to 2002, 2006, every revenue measure took the immediate into consideration and did not consider the long term. so when we consider a new sustainable source, we want to make sure that, again, we can provide resiliency to the system and a general sense of sustainability in the service that we continue to provide the public. so we took that into account when we considered costs. so while tim just showed you costs that, you know, in this year we need this and this year

we need that, these numbers reflect, if we really want to get out to fiscal year 2030 and know that we can provide a reasonable guarantee to the public that they will get a certain level of service, again, from a point of resiliency, this is generally what we've come up with to date. so service sustainability is getting to what tim talked about. so that 100 or close to peak service that we had provided in the past. so this would close our structural deficit and assure -- remember that director tumlin talked about the growth of our costs versus the growth of our revenues. and knowing that our regular revenue sources that the agency relied on are on decline and that requires $165 million annually. considering what was done with the muni reliability working group, the idea that with growth in san francisco that there will

be an expectation of more transit service, and not only operating costs, but the costs to expand the muni fleet. the cost for additional needs for that and the additional facilities that would go with that. so a 20% service increase would require an additional $105 million annually. so if we want to get to that system, and when we talk about tradeoffs, that is likely what is required. when we talk about infrastructure resiliency -- so what that means is that we talked about this with the board -- so the board will recall that we talked about that magic -- i want to say $468 million a year. but what does it take to keep our backlog from growing, that backlog that i showed you previously. so how do we keep that from going to $4 billion, $5 billion, $6 billion. and delta is about $225 million annually. so between what we invest today

with the resources that we have today, considering every year that we don't invest in that backlog that those costs increase, minimally with inflation, in order to keep up with our state of the repair and not have the backlog increase, we will still have the backlog, but it will not increase and it will require $225 million per year. and then, lastly, when we consider removing those infrastructure vulnerabilities, so how to we clear the backlog? one is making sure that the backlog doesn't increase. but what if we want to close the backlog over time, what will it take? to close the backlog, to get to that next level, it would require about $185 million annually. at a certain point in time you would have cleared that backlog and then you could continue to use those revenues for the enhancement and the expansion of the system. so to some extent even today when we invest in our state of the repair and our infrastructure, that we do work

to upgrade and to enhance that infrastructure to the latest technologies and maximize its use within the system. so this as of today is the best data that we have and what we think that it will take. so how do we fund such things? next slide. so as we have been working with the board, we're working on a number of different revenue measures and the first being a general obligation bond program. we do expect to be on the ballot in june 2022. i might have not told the board this, but the last report that i think that i gave the bond was $350 million. it is being recommended by the city's capital planning committee that bond be increased to $400 million. so that's roughly about $56 million for capital for a four-year period. it's one-time and not ongoing but it definitely helps. and the next that we talked about is a community facility, that is devoted to transportation. we have been working on the legal threshold, how the

district will work, and in a mello-roos district you have what is called a special tax. so it's called as a designer tax. so we have a lot of flexibility to work around issues of equity, and issues of impact, issues of benefit in the development of the tax. and in addition setting a baseline allows you to go to the voters in the future to add tax resources for major capital programs that would be devoted to the system and devoted to transportation. as of right now when we consider service, specifically our maintenance needs and critical infrastructure, we think that we can get to $180 million based on just kind of some cutting and slicing. it doesn't mean that it can't be more than that. and it doesn't mean that it won't end up less than that, but it's generally what we think that is possible today. and the next is parking tax

reform. so i did talk about the current sales tax on parking here within san francisco. you will see that there's a very wide range in that option. director tumlin, do you want to add any thoughts to that? i could talk through it, but i think that you expressed the concept better than anybody i know. >> i will talk through it so you can talk through it in a context of the other measures. >> sure. so, with regard to the parking tax specifically -- so currently, it is simply a sales tax on commercial parking spaces in san francisco. so it is a general tax. so that is dedicated in part to the m.t.a., so to some extent we might be able to go to the voters with a 50% threshold changing the nature of the tax but still having it distributed in the same way. we could look at expanding the type of parking spaces that are charged. and we could look at changing the nature of the tax itself. so perhaps maybe a sales tax

isn't the appropriate tax and you might want a graduated system. >> well, perhaps why don't we take this later in q. and a. because this is a very, very large policy question how we would arrange with parking tax. one example is right now, so we charge a 25% parking sales tax on commercial parking where there's a user charge. so for commercial parking that is given away for free to people who work in an office building there's no parking tax on those spaces. so we could eliminate the parking sales tax and instead impose a parking use fee that would be an annual fee on every commercial parking space. similarly, we have, you know, $275,000 parking spaces, and a small percentage that we make any money off of.

that is only metered spaces. we lose money on our p.p. spaces and the majority of the spaces are not regulated at all. if we were to say that, you know, it cost $5 a day to take muni and if we charges $5 for all on street parking spaces in san francisco that brings in hundreds of millions in net revenue. i am not sure that we're ready to go there as a city but it's worth having a conversation about. >> jeff, i don't mean to jump in, but i agree. i have been thinking about this idea, like a $1,000 fee that you could charge and it would include either parking or you didn't have to pay for muni, but you paid upfront package. i would love for staff to explore something like that. i know that director hinze had a question and i don't know if it's a good time to ask.

i know that there's more slides. >> so so executive director is here to talk about the authorization of the sales tax. of course we have another sales tax, the former prop k. and there's an ability to do a license fee. and back then it would have generated $70 million and people are not convinced that it would generate that much revenue. but there's a right to increase the vehicle license fee in san francisco county. next slide. so those are the voter options. and we have non-voter options as well, things that we could be doing and we are working on right now. so the first, there's been a lot of interest from the board on the development of our properties and there's actually been a lot of interest from our citizen advisory council as well. i can report that we are actively working on that now. so they are moving forward where

we expect a net zero in revenue. however, we have told the city family that we must work to raise revenues on our properties. and we do need to make clear to the public that when we raise revenue from development on our properties, that goes directly to transportation and service and transit service. so we do want to take advantage of those opportunities. so we are working on the presidio yard right now and we're actively working on the fifth and mission garage and moscone garage. and director heminger, you asked to us look at all of our parking facilities, so we're focusing on the immediate market opportunities at the locations that i have talked about and we're working on a longer range plan in parallel for all of our locations. based on just the initial raw numbers on the development potential on the sites, and working with the city, it is possible to generate up to $25 million a year from those properties. we're also looking at the

residential parking permit program. i know that we have given an update on that. and we're finding the cost recovery model to make sure that we're recovering all costs associated with that program. you may ask director a bit about the downtown that the t.a. is managing that plan right now. and we also, you know, every option is on the table. and so we are looking at the upcoming federal transportation bill and the city transportation funding, and kate greene and her team. and working with partners at nafto, and the transit association for san francisco, for opportunities to increase the amount of money that we do get from state and federal sources. so it's not impossible through active and aggressive lobbying that we can achieve formulas and/or sources from the state and federal government to increase the revenues to the m.t.a. so we are definitely going to

work on that, especially on the federal side, in the coming months. next slide. so just to sum it up, so this is the big picture. we are -- our revenues are outpacing growth and it's noted that we are using one-time funds to cover. that there are plenty of policy discussions for us to have and there's tons of things that the m.t.a. has done since 2006, but we just have not cracked this problem yet. we have evaluated the needs of the system and how much those would cost, and now we want to look to our long-term programs and to our structural deficit and consider the projects and the programs that we want to fund and to some extent to pitch to the voters. so that is the last slide in this section. and all of us are happy to take any questions. >> chair borden: thank you, thank you so much for that presentation. i will take other directors' questions and i see director

hinze has a question. >> director hinze: yes, i have a couple on this slide. i assume, jonathan, that you could correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm assuming that the scenarios that you walked us through do not assume the revenues from any of the ballot measures? >> yes, the structural deficits that kim showed you do not assume any of those revenue coming in. but we put these data sets together so we can model things for you and show you the potential impact. >> director hinze: so that would be -- that -- if we wanted that that would be easily be done? >> yeah, we could do that for you. >> director hinze: perfect. and i heard a few times in the scenarios also about restoration of muni service, and what impacts that would have on the

various scenarios and such. in drawing those scenarios did you take into account at all funding or anything -- funding for anything else, like vision zero or capital projects? >> so the operating costs reflect the overall operating costs of the agency, so that includes all of our street functions and so kim can correct me if i'm wrong, but when we showed you the expenditures of whole service, we meant restoring full service and expenditures across all divisions in the m.t.a. so at least getting it to what was pre-pandemic level of service across all of our business lines. >> director hinze: okay, thank you. that's all my questions. >> chair borden: thank you, director hinze. director yekutiel. >> director yekutiel: good, thank you, chair borden. hi, jonathan. so i guess that i have been

listening in and listening in, and i see $4 billion of capital projects in the hopper. i see $500 million of capital expenditures needed. and i am also -- i'm a little nervous about the economic outlook over the next -- i saw the 80% projected, you know, to fy24 as the baseline for revenue. and, listen, we don't know if a lot of these companies coming back and we don't know if work from home is going to be our future, and pinterest sold their whole building. there's a lot of big "ifs" if people will move around the city and how much they'll spend to do it. and in all of the things that you just mentioned i have to say that i'm not a mathematician, it doesn't feel that it gets to

what our financial needs will be over the next eight to nine years realistically if we want to check off all of the boxes of what we need to fund. so i'm wondering, like, if we could marshall all of our political and administrative resources to a large idea that could bring in potentially, you know, a sufficient amount of funding to actually cover our financial needs over the next eight to nine years, what would that be? i than there's not a silver bullet, but it feels that a lot of measures that get between $3 million and $60 million and i'm looking at the math, like how the hell will we get to the money that we need to get for the work that needs to be done? >> part of the answer is why we're doing the prioritization discussion and the exercise at the end of today. a lot of people have had a lot of expectations for muni, the former department of park asking

traffic, and sustainable streets and now our streets division for two decades. and what we haven't always focused on is the financial instruct eush of the agency. so what i'm telling you and what i have told many people is that the financial theory of the m.t.a. in 1999 that you would use parking revenues to get muni where you wanted it to be, that worked for a good five to six years. and then it stopped working. and you saw that, again, that service instability, the impacts on the state of repairs. so what we're really hoping to have the conversation with the board about is how do you line things up, what is your priority now in the short term, for the long term, how do you make tradeoffs that we can invest in services now and hope to sustain them in the future. how do we set the agency up for success, i think is where we really need the feedback from the board, because, yes, the

expectations of the agency exceed our ability to pay for everything. and then what we end up doing is disappointing the public. and so this is really where the board can give us some feedback. >> and even more than that. so we as your staff, can do the nerdy staff work to describe what it takes to build out whatever our vision is as a city. we cannot do the work necessary to understand where funding that vision fits in the city's larger priorities nor decide what goes on the ballot. but one of the reasons why all of you have been chosen to be our policymakers is because you can do that work. you can help us in the -- on the larger stage of the city to figure out how should we be prioritizing the investment. do we want to go down the path that cities like los angeles or seattle have done to make a massive new investment in

mobility. and in particular, do we want to do that in a way where we have demonstrated our ability to deliver and to deliver quickly. >> director yekutiel: so let me see if i'm hearing that 100%. i am hearing over the last x number of years, more and more is expected and asked of this agency with fewer and fewer realistic avenues to pay for those things. and on top of that we have had both the recession and now a pandemic, you know, that caused a recession. what you're trying to do is to figure out how to piece together from a variety of reforms funding to kind of get us to doing most of the things that people expect of us. but i guess what i'm trying to understand is, like, i want to try to get a sense, jeff and jonathan, that there needs to be

a dual reduction of expectation of things and an increase in the amount of money that we're going to try to get to do those? or do you feel that maybe this is an opportunity to go really big and to ask for a massive amount of funding from the federal government, the state government, changing the way that we generate funding locally, to try to do everything that people really expect of us at m.t.a. and exceed expectations. which of them is it from your perspective? >> yes, yes and yes. right. so the challenge is that we're in a period of the most intense uncertainty that this agency has ever faced. so we can't bank on a massive amount of new funding to achieve our awesome addition. we don't know if we can even bank on a medium amount of funding. so we are having to trench to a place of resiliency to avoid laying off workforce. because we do not want to fall off a fiscal cliff, which means laying off our workforce. so we need to plan for that.

and we need to plan for, you know, a kind of ambitious amount of federal funding that will allow us to do restoration and maybe some new stuff. and, at the same time, because this is san francisco, we need to be crafting a compelling enough vision about what we could be in order to get the board of supervisors and the mayor's office and most importantly the electorate excited about taxing themselves while businesses and people are hurting, in order to really deliver. i mean, this is a pattern that this country has seen. we made extraordinary investments as a country in the heart of great depression in part based upon federal money, but also raising local taxes. you know, the golden gate bridge was built largely through local taxation during the depression. so are we ready as a city to be bold again? or will we just continue struggling and stumbling in

order to piece together some semblance of what we had back in 2018? >> director yekutiel: thanks. >> chair borden: thank you. director heminger, please. >> director heminger: thank you, madam chair. i want to pursue director yekutiel's line of attack here. because it is daunting. you know, your slide 5, where you lay out your needs, it adds up to like $700 million bucks a year. that's one of the scarier slides that i've seen in a while. and most of the rev new measures that we see really don't line up with that at all. and i think that it's very iceful that you broke out voter required versus not voter required, but the bummer, of course, is that all of the ones that don't require voter approval don't generate much money. and the ones that do, do.

and, look, we're in a political environment in san francisco where there are so many other competing priorities that want to head to the ballot. so i'm back to where jonathan was with his history lesson. i'm not sure that the model is broken on using parking revenue to cross- subsidize transit service. it's not generating the kind of money that we need but i think that basic concept works. i guess that the question is to you, jeff, on this sort of nebulous parking tax reform idea way for that thing to generate at the upper bound of your estimate? you know, closer to $500 million versus 75. and is there a way for that to be impelemented without voter approval?

i mean, we don't ask the voters when we increased the rates on the parking garages or increase the meter rates. i wasn't aware of how the parking tax worked until today. so is there a model that would be -- what i would call user-based, and that wouldn't run afoul about our laws in california with the voters expressing their view of about everything that we do. >> here's what i hear from the city attorney office, and i invite the attorney who assists us here at sfmta to comment as well. and we can -- we have broad authority to tax parking, but those -- those fees are considered taxes and they're subject to voter approval. if we put something on the ballot, that generally requires a two-thirds approval. if a community organization puts something on the ballot through collecting signatures that only

requires a 50% approval if we say that there are 250,000 on-street parking spaces on public land that we currently give free rent for people to store their private property on, if we charge $5 a day, which is basically what we charge for muni on all of those spaces, that grosses $450 million per year. it would also probably get any policymaker who -- like, made that happened thrown out of office. or it would likely fail at the ballot because san francisco is a conservative city when it comes to managing the city. that said, you know, we're giving free rent for the storage of private property on public land on at least 250,000 spaces in san francisco. that is irrational and

inequitable, particularly when we're charging $5 a day for muni. and, you know, we could do that, we would need to put it on the ballot. we could do things like charge for -- we could put a tax on curb cuts, but, again, it requires going to the voters. theoretically, there are things within the purview of the district and the authority under their indirect source rule allowances that could impose a use fee on parking or curb cuts. it's as a means for mitigating air pollutants and so if it was clear that the districts had a responsibility for mitigating carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, the districts could theoretically by-pass the voters and put a use

fee on parking as a means for reducing rates of driving and, therefore, greenhouse gas emissions, and personal driving is the biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions here in the bay area. i don't know -- you know, we could meter spaces using our authority. that would be very expensive, given our current way in which we meter parking spaces. i don't know if you wanted to add a clarification to my statements? >> i don't want to at this time, thank you. and then we'll do further analysis on the direction that the board wants to go in. thank you. >> director heminger: well, susan, you don't get off that easy. on the subject of voter approval and verse isnon-voter approval, jeff just laid out an idea that

if we were to meter a lot more spaces in san francisco, does that require the voter support? >> no. it does not. >> director heminger: so it seems to me that there's some range of motion on this idea that it's worth discussing. now at the outset, look, i don't necessarily want to try to avoid a vote of the people because there are a lot of people who live in this town who don't own a car or don't use one very often. but i also think that it's fair as sort of a quasi enterprise, i guess is what i'd call us, for us to act as one and managing our assets so that they produce the policy outcomes that we want to see. >> so that is very good feedback and it's exactly the feedback that we're looking for. again, we know how to do the

nerdy technical staff work. we would need help from all of you in dealing with the challenging politics of how to fund mobility in san francisco and particularly how sacred people perceive free parking in front of their house on public land to be. >> chair borden: does that conclude your comments, director heminger? >> director heminger: yeah, i probably did enough damage there already. >> chair borden: i have other directors up but i have been personally about this concept of an annual pass that people pay for and maybe the pass is, like, $1,000 for unlimited muni and transportation lines, because there are tons of people -- and maybe this is again with new development and for every unit, something to think about. but i feel that if we had some sort of program like that, that we could even look at something that was a muni plus taxi bundle

and you got 10 tax rides or something like that. and those who are not regular riders of munn, and if you had bundles like that and you did something -- not so much to target taking away every single neighborhood space, but you have a pass where you have unlimited parking at meters and other -- you know, not in a neighborhood restricted parking, but other parts of the city for $1,000 a year. there are creative ideas. we look at the success of the computer technology and it's all about subscriptions, people subscribe. and most of us have a million subscriptions that we pay for, whether or not we use them, and it's much easier for the cost of doing business. i know tons of people who say, oh, i just budget that i'll spend a thousand dollars a year on street cleaning, and it's crazy they think that way, but

if people think that way, could we get them to proactively, maybe you pay for a pass that you only get -- like, you can get five street cleaning tickets and not have to pay for them, but, you know, in the beginning -- i'm trying to think creative. but we could look at these approaches and some of which might be less controversial but would also guarantee revenue and also increase our ridership, right, for people who would just hop on the bus because they'd already paid for a pass for the year and that was included. so i'm thinking of a way that we could actually -- for people who could afford to pay, to offer that service. and then to make it free. if we talk about this idea of making muni free and the only way to do that is an annual fee that residents would pay. of course, it's based on income, of course, and you'd have to figure that out. but something like that is where we have to get to because i tang we'll always have this challenge because we have -- we can't charge fares at the levels that we need to charge for most of

our riders. but you could easily do something and spread it among more people. because if you had 800,000 people, each paying $1,000 a year, you know, just hypothetically, and i didn't take in low income and all of that stuff but you have $800 million. and could we figure out something like that and be a little more creative and do something different than everyone else is doing. and even if it's an optional program and people buy in as a pilot, we could figure out if there's an opportunity to expand that. i'll stop and let director lai go next. >> director lai: thank you, chair. a lot of great questions and comments already. i guess that maybe i'll just -- i'm going to go back to asking questions before i try to provide a bit of my views and guidance for staff here. so going back to the initial scenarios that i believe that

tim had presented, i'm going to go back to that slide myself as well, just clarification first, when you referenced restoring labor/supply, does that include backfilling like currently identified vacancies or what does that mean? >> yeah, so i guess to try to explain it in a different way -- so the board back in april when we did the budget, april 7, i believe, that the board saw a budget back then that was almost prepandemic and so when you think of it from that perspective, when you look at this year 23, the fiscal year 23 number is essentially getting back to that pre-pandemic level. so what that means in terms -- it means that you get back to the normal routine of the same material and supply that you would buy, and the same amount of paint and the same amount of fuel, etc. and then it also means that we're not cutting the agency's

attrition and we get back to more normal hiring and more normal overtime, etc. >> director lai: so it would fill all of the hundreds of vacancies as identified back in april 2020? >> yeah, sorry, it's not exactly fund the vacancies because sfmta has a level of attrition. so we assume that there's some level of vacancy, but getting back to the classic normal attrition levels that we had. >> director lai: okay, got it. and then, sorry, going back to my notes. i have too many windows open here. and then i guess that in the next set of slides around the -- well, i guess that is jonathan's section, starting from slide 35, trying to understand the levers that we are hopefully going to provide to you with some comments on, can you help me to

understand where something like fare indexes would fall in? is that built into the service sustainability number? or is that not part -- >> so that -- that was actually built into the structural deficit scenario that tim showed you. so the board and the m.t.a. already have the policies to index fares. and it's an automatic index that is by c.p.i. and the cost of our labor. if those two triggers terror and the fares get indexed up. because the controversy around that, tim provided a scenario where we would not index fares and the impact of that would be. so it's based into the structural deficit and it's not a revenue source. we assume that it is there or not. >> director lai: yes, let me clarify. so i understood that we had paused or suspended indexing, is it two years or something? >> two years. >> director lai: right. what i'm trying to understand is

if the staff took into account the future, like, basically submitting fare indexing into the funding requirements and analysis? >> so for clarity, the fare indexes is amounting to about $20 million. annually. and then it grows with attrition. but the first scenario that we showed did not include fare indexing. so that is scenario one. and scenario three which had more aggressive revenue scenarios that assumed indexing. (please stand by) push

>> my recollection, the duration of tax measures and cfds do vary greatly. in my recollection it might last 25 years, i want to say. there might be policies limiting that timeframe, obviously, right

now the funding planning you are presents or deficit is up to 2050. that is not to say we won't have continued deficit, but trying to understand like are we matching revenue sources with the time period of that deficit we are looking at? so can you may be comment on that first? >> what we did, we always do a 20 year financial horizon. we have to do it for the transit plan. it is required. we always have that motel we are looking at. -- model we are looking at. what we did to prepare for the report, update what the system needs. we took the current structural deficit with the scenarios that tim laid in. you have to recalculate it. we just went through the process considering the options on the five year forecast and stick it

into the 20 year model by which we generated the need that you see. this is gets what to director tumlin said. cost increase with the cost of living but revenues only grow with inflation. you saw on that chart over time that just gets wider and wider. then you have no alternative but to consider reducing services. >> or put it a different way, we should plan to cutser have by 2 to 3% every year. >> we are not giving you that policy direction yet, in all due respects. i understand the point you are trying to demonstrate. my question is i am trying to understand the mechanics of the solutions. i do understand the structural deficit you have presented. it seems to me that part of the equation is that i feel like maybe i am missing the mark, jonathan. you are pointing out that historically we have come to the

voters on very temporary solutions. i am trying to confirm these solutions you presented to us will last at least the period of time we would need before we go back to the voters. >> excellent question. what we did do with the need so in the 155, 120, if you want to cost out revenue directly to the point, what we have done proposition b is good example. when that population baseline happened and the capital needs 50 to $60 million went to capital to operating, but again because of the revenues only grow with inflation and costs were exceeding it in two to three years we are right back to where we started. one labor negotiation and what the voters hear here comes muni

with the same problem. you just talked to us about five years ago. what we did in that slide was we said, you know what, if we are going to do this this time, you will see that 155 for the service sustainability is good example. that exceeds the structural deficit. it is like if we are going to say you are going to get sustainability with $155 million a year. we costed out to just 2030. at least you get a reasonable decade where we are not tell yog you the same problem exists. efficiencies, reforms and all things that go with it. in that slide we costed out the need, we did take that growth into account. >> i am going to try to provide feedback now. i will say that i do feel like

we need a lot more information through engagement with the community, polls or what not to provide accurate or usable guidance but at first glance, it is my personal belief and reaction that i agree with director heminger on the asset side we should attempt to perform as though we are an enterprise agency. on the service side, i view our service as social service. it is a basic need, a basic right. i feel that we can have different attitudes between the asset versus the service side. i would say that as a pre-pandemic daily user of muni, i feel that the service pre-pandemic was lacking, not at the level that as a resident i

would like to see. i see that in any kind of a bond measure request to the public in 2022 needs to incorporate centrally some element of improvement. i feel and you can proof me wrong. it would be a difficult ask to go to the public to say, hey, the hole we created with under funding we are not giving you anything in return. on slide 35 the second item seems pretty important there. i am not saying others are not important. they seem quite important to incorporate. i would definitely think number two on that list is necessary. then in terms of your point about the cfd. i like the concept. i think as you pointed out it gives us flexibility and responds to cpi adjustments

quite well so i think that [indiscernable] there might be prop k soon to try to understand where the cta feels that may be going. i would assume that, you know, continuing the same amount of taxes probably realistic. i don't know if there are opportunities to expands. hopefully she will comment on the timing on that piece. that would be helpful. then same with the congestion pricing. i don't know if she can comment on the timing of the expectation. that could be sizable repeat sort of revenue. i actually don't recall what the timeframe might be, when the earliest we would expect that money to come in.

i will pause there. really i encourage the public to engage on this topic about where we should be focusing efforts on attracting new sources. we need that. that has been very clearly demonstrated by staff. the open question where best to find those sources is still we have some -- we need to do more work around engagement. thanks, chair. >> thank you, director lai. director hinze do you want to go last or in order. >> in order. i am quick. i just wanted to talk generally about getting more context around what kind of -- more

detail once these measures are going to be. i fully agree with director lai before we should at least for the public have a good idea what these. [indiscernable] what the public would be getting out of essentially taxing themselves. i also want to second director themger's comments -- heminger's comments. i would like to see more work and and research around perhaps the residential parking permit program. we don't need to get into take conversation now, but i think coming back with more information around potentials

there could be an avenue for us to look at. >> thank you, director hinze. director eaken. >> i want to thank staff for clearly laying out the scope of the challenge. i came into this meeting anchoring on the $130 million or $150 million structural deficit. it is $670 million each year. it is helpful and i want to reflect what i heard from my colleagues and endorse. it is time to think about revenue solutions commensurate with the scope of the financial challenge we pays. a lot of these are piecemeal. $2 million it is not worth it to look at those things that barely move the needle on the big number. i am glad you are centering this

conversation. if we want to talk about prioritization, limited staff time, political will. we need to talk about the solutions that really move the needle on getting to that number. it is kind of like addressing this problem, solving the financial challenges once and for all. it is not easy. to that point, i agree with my colleagues, the parking tax reform holds a lot of problems. we see sales tax on here. i would love to ask you the same way that your financial team did such thoughtful analysis when we talked about raising fare and different fare media, and who would pay, i would love for you to bring back in accordance with the equity values, who would pay? we know sales tax is traditional successful funding source around

the country but not most progressive. of those kind of let's test out an equity analysis. who would pay under each scenario? i would love to have that information before giving guidance to this or this. a clear message is let's go big to think about solving once and for all. then just a final field back on tim's question on the scenarios. you lay out a couple. i tend to agree being conservative feels like the right path forward for the moment that we are living in. thanks so much. >> great feedback. >> director brinkman. >> thank you everyone. good comments. i think that we are all really appreciating the deep dive on this. i have a couple things to add. i think it is great to break

these into what we can do and what we have to go to the voters to do. i think we should take advantage of everything that we can do, everything we have the power to implement regardless if it seems kind of small. what sticks out is the metering. we don't need to ask permission. we need out rich thoughtfully and carefully unlike the last time we did the funding metering. the transit lanes. we bring down the cost of offering the service. i just want to reminds everybody that, yes, it looks like we continue to run into the funding problems. we do continue to run into funding problems. we do this hard work so that future boards and executive directors and citizens don't have such a big rock to roll. our rock is smaller because of the work done in the past bypassing the bond measure and

sales tax and changing some of the policies out there to help us operate more efficiently which safes a lot of money. don't be too discouraged. be realistic. as jonathan pointed out times change and what is expensive to do now in a couple years might not be as difficult and expensive. i like director yekutiel's idea of large mega measure. we had one we discussed in the region that didn't pan out, didn't go on the ballot but mega measure to focus on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions which scoops all issues into one bucket and lets the voters say yes we care or we don't. yes, we want to address greenhouse gassishes or no we don't.

having a large measure that gets us in money, gets us serious change, jeff, i like the idea of the use of the curb cut and curb space done by another authority. those are the things to look at, things that not only bring us money but also change people's behavior and cause fewer vehicle miles traveled so we don't have such a big problem. thank you, staff. this has been a good presentation. that is all. thank you, chair borden. >> thank you. any other questions. it is a good time to open up to the public. these topics are huge and hard to digest. it is great to pause and let them have time to weigh in. they come up with great solutions we hadn't thought about. can you open up the line for public comment.

caroline remind people to call in should they want to make a comment. >> yes. again, the phone number to call in is (888)808-6929. access code 996-1164. you will be prompted now if this is the time that you want to speak to dial 10 to be added to the speaker line. the answer time is the public comment period. when callers have the standard two minutes to comment. >> this is just on the most recent portion about transportation 2050. with that are there any callers on the line? >> you have three questions remaining. >> first caller, please. >> yes, this is sterling

haywood, parking and traffic. again, i have called in yesterday because i really want you guys to think about when you come up with these ideas to really talk to the ground people. that is the people that are writing the tickets, bus drivers, people painting the streets. right now i tell jeff all of the time he knows what i am about to say. you are hustling backwards. i mean you are saying we need parking and traffic, we need them to do this and that. you guys are getting rid of the parking meters, getting rid of the tollway zones. we are not able to do our job at 100%. it really is crazy that you guys are looking to make all of this revenue from parking and traffic, but nobody is talking to parking and traffic about

ideas. nobody is pulling pco to ask what is going on in the mission and the tl? you guys are just not talking to us. when you buy a house you don't talk to the realtor how the neighborhood is, you talk to the people in the neighborhood. it is sad, like i said, i am born and raised in san francisco and working for the city for 13 years and other places for years. you know, i just don't see it getting better. i don't see things improving. it is getting to where the people on ground is going to be the ones to suffer, the ones to commute from sacramento to these other places. again, i really, really hope you take time to talk to the ground people that are on the ground that are working and doing the work. thank you. >> thank you very much.

it is our goal to have jeff do an extensive outreach to staff specifically around solutions. i know that will be happening. we are definitely. we could schedule on this agenda to hear from staff about different thoughts about the solutions. next speaker, please. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> thank you, chair. she and her for the record. good presentation. it is important that we monetize our real estate. that is the city and county of san francisco. i think that any revenue raising parking should be based purely on the physical presence of automobiles. the problem you have with a tax on license plates is that people

could register their cars in other places. they could register them in oakland or in other states like new york or nevada or alabama. there are 49 of them to choose from. if we want to get money from parking in san francisco it needs to be based on the presence of the vehicle in san francisco. i do support the congestion pricing and setting up a automated cash less system to scan all vehicles coming in and out of san francisco. i would like to hear more about the bundling of fare and parking products. i am not keen on annual. that does not sustain itself because people's lives change over a year. monthly is a good program to do. our emphasis should be more on

fare capping so that people don't have to scratch their heads over what duration of fare product they need to buy. i want you to know that the daily cost to use muni was about $1.30. that is how much it costs me to use muni. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you have six questions remaining. >> hello, hayden miller. on this item, just a few comments. i like the idea of mega measure as director yekutiel mentioned. most of the voters do not

understand all of what m.t.a. does. they know they get street cleaning tickets and the buses run late. they don't understand all of the functions and backlog in capital and all of that. there has to be a service increase that they will be able to see when we got to the voters to ask for money. i think it is good to go big and look at everything we can do already without the voters' approval. that is how we will make the system better. there is a lot of politics in san francisco. it is going to be a hard battle. i think if we are bold, we can do it. i think looking at parking is a really big way to make revenue. it might not be popular but we have to do it. those are my comments. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you have eight questions

remaining. >> good afternoon. edward mason. equity for curb space has risen to the top. however, your corporate commuter buses had a free pass with $7 stop enforcement fee charged. they should be charged a franchise fee to operate in the city. the taxis paid $250,000 medallion fee to operate in the city. what is the difference between a taxi and a large taxi bus that provides transportation for employees? casino buses are unregulated in the city. as reported by the transportation authority in the washington square report, the casino buses are blocking the

area in that quadrant. they are all over the city. you have to go to the website for the casino to find out where the buses are actually occupying muni space and also parking spaces. the future is unknown, but one of the bus providers that provides big black buses is now advertising on the radio. we will take your employees to work. whatever the future will hold, we should be an tentative to charging a medallion fee or franchise fee to operate in the city for employees that leave the city. they should be on public transit. for that convenience they should be charged a fee. we have allowed flight zones and set aside curb space for private use and not charging them a

penny for the market rate value of that curb space. >> thank you, mr. mason. next speaker, please. >> you have six questions remaining. >> i am darrell with local 21. transportation planner for close to four years. i really appreciate the discussion on the structural deficit. earlier page 17 with seven deficit reduction options, three from the backs of workers $89 million. this is not the right approach. we have been expected to do more with less as vacant budgeted positions remain unfilled. i want to reminds you of the short term options and vacancies and city-wide reserve.

there are 540 full-time vacant budgeted positions unfilled. this represented $202 million which is more than enough to cover the short term. the city has $1 billion in reserve which should go to the s.f.m.t.a. not only do they provide essential service of the city departments as we saw earlier in the presentation, they rely on user funds and fees which have taken a large hit in the crisis. those are there to fill that deficit. i know you are in a difficult position because so much budget depends on things you don't directly control. long-range planner i know how important it is for the s.f.m.t.a. to think long-term. the budget crisis is temporary.

the value to the agency is permanent. we need a budget committed to the essential work we do. >> thank you for sharing your thoughts. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> good afternoon, directors. trevor adams chapter president of sciu. i am going to bring to your attention we are looking for new revenue sources. we have been suggesting for slide 28 that was presented to you that parking and traffic fines and fees and anything associated with that is the number one contributor to the agency. yet we continuously go without and go under appreciated. i want to bring a couple of

things to light. you will continuously see the decline. we constantly witness. [indiscernable] the agency not taking a proactive stance on that portion. also, allowing us to work in a tight quarters. during the pandemic to go ahead and have means of ourselves from exposure when we are working while a lot of details are suspended. they have our director undermine the staggering numbers we have seeing right now in our positive cases in our department is troubling amongst us. we will feel unappreciated and kill moral which leads to slow revenue from each and every one of us. restructuring of pco also to be

looked at in our deployment. when it comes to the focus on on the enforcements other detail is constantly issue. we cannot do our job that is efficient. when you think about rpp, it is not just the departments there, you are looking at the continued effort to bring enforcement and turnaround in those areas. >> i am sorry to cut you off. >> i want you to remember what i am saying. we are looking at other ways to make you realize how valuable we are under appreciated we are. >> your time is up. everyone gets equal time. i appreciate your comments. thank you so much.

this has been valuable and helpful. thank you. [please stand by] -- and urging the state to help solve the situations that they helped to create. such as at this point barring the city from making the t.n.c. more accountable on city

streets, because of the increase in the dollars. and i'm not sure at this time that i support congestive pricing because it impacts those people who can ill afford to pay it. but we need at times to drive certain parts of downtown for their jobs or for their errands and they -- but at the same time, the t.n.c.s, which are now publicly owned through their i.t. -- i.t.o.s, i think that it's necessary to make them more accountable for the wear and tear on the city streets and the use of the parking. and a lot of parking has been removed for the bike shares. and for the car shares. and i think that it's important that you re-look at the use of parking for the people going to small businesses and for pick-up

and dropoff. so i urge you to confront the state regarding the problems they've helped to create and to ask for dollars from the federal government. in addition, you did ask the taxi industry to help with your shortfalls -- >> that is time. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. toronto. next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hi, good afternoon. this is peter strauss, on the board of transit riders and with the regional voices for public transportation advocates coalition. i can't speak for the entire advocate community, but, you know, i think that while you may need to be cautious in the short term, please, be very aggressive in the long term both in your

vision and in your search for additional revenue sources. it's particularly important because, of course, we can't tell which revenue sources will pan out, so we need to be pretty aggressive in our pursuits. i want to comment on a couple of things in particular. one, is please avert -- avoid the sales tax and any other regressive measures and there are many measures that clearly generate much support. secondly, i'm glad to see the congestion pricing on your menu of options, but please make it clear to the transportation authority that it's important that a portion of those funds be available to sustain transportation service, not just to pay for new service. third, just wanted to comment on autonomous vehicles which are coming downstream and it's important that we think about

fee structures for autonomous vehicles now. they will turn much of our transportation system topsy-turvy and we need to get ahead of the curve on those. lastly, as some of you have commented, there's a lot of interest in the regional transportation measure. there's a lot of interest still in the advocate community in the regional transportation measure at the appropriate time, and there's strong consensus i believe that a significant portion of that needs to be made available and should be made available for operating sources, for operating needs. that was true both in seattle's s.t.-3 and los angeles' measure m, and it's a reason that l.a. is not hurting right now the way that the bay area is. thank you. you've got a tough task ahead of you. and i thank everyone in the advocate community, and we will be anxious, ready and willing to

work with you to support transit funding. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. strauss. next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hi, good afternoon, i'm p. wilson, the vice president-local 250a and i just wanted to mention the idea of flex pricing that people have been speaking about. i think that would be a great thing to institute on our motor coaches, our buses and our transportation. now i'm not talking about raising the funds, of course, because we do have some people with financial issues. but i'm talking, for instance, on when things settle down from covid -- i used to drive a bus from richmond district to downtown san francisco. and at 6:00 there were a lot of room but by the time that i went downtown that bus was overly filled. if you offered a dollar discount

at an earlier time to get more people to come into work earlier, that would be a big help. i want to support trevor and 10-1 that it is very important to have parking enforcement officers. i remember eight, 10 years ago with the financial issue that we had before, they talked about having less parking enforcement officers out there and it's like, no, these people are bringing in a lot of revenue. and looking out of my window sometimes in my neighborhood in the western edition -- and i have told mr. tumlin about this -- sometimes i see that there's no parking enforcement officers. so maybe we need more parking enforcements officers at 10 to 1. and with issues for operators driving our coaches, totally understand -- people don't want to pay overtime. the problem is that you can tell that a lot of people come back after eight hours, but the problem with a muni coach, trolley coach, i'm a trolley operator -- if i go out to

richmond and i hit eight hours i've got to get that coach back to where somebody can relieve me. unfortunately, because of geography and because of the way that the bus systems work, you're going to either -- people are often coming in at 7.5 hours and paying them 8 because they're required to pay 8. or you may pay them 8 and 815. i yield my time. bye. >> chair borden: thank you so much, mr. wilson. next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: hi, yes, good afternoon. this is evelyn. the members (indiscernible) and in kirkland and we have concerns. if you want to especially save money, maybe they should look to the people who would be acting as supervisors, because right now we have (indiscernible)

and they're making more money than us. and they needed more because our dollars (indiscernible) and because the parties all the time saying that they're doing it better, because you have to turn around (indiscernible) and in order for us to (indiscernible) we have to work (indiscernible) and it's not right. (indiscernible) and for us to have overtime ourselves. so i just wanted to help you guys out to make sure that if you're going to put a person (indiscernible) make sure that it's the right person. because right now we have a tremendous problem with this person. and (indiscernible) and to help us out among our division, but it's not. it's creating more problems than

there was. so i don't know what to do and hopefully you guys will look into it. >> 30 seconds. >> caller: i work for kirkland and this year we have it hard (indiscernible) and we need our own department. bye-bye. >> chair borden: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: okay, we will close public comment and go back to the next presentation that is upcoming here. on prop k from kelly, right? >> kelly king, executive director of the san francisco county transportation authority. >> can everyone hear me all right? very good. thank you, chair borden and

directors. i'm here with michelle, our lead staffer on the re-authorization. she i believe will present the slides and i'll speak to each. and i appreciate this time on your program and thank you for having me and your leadership and your thoughtful deliberations today and always, particularly at this extremely challenging time. i'll note that the work that you all do and dr. tumlin and the whole staff is really nationally recognized as excellent. and with the t.a. i've been proud to support the sfmta transportation recovery efforts in many ways -- both locally and regionally and now nationally. we look forward to continuing this partnership with the hopeful developments now in washington, d.c. but as hopeful as we are about that, and we are, we do need to continue to focus on the transit funding crisis here at home and position ourselves for those new opportunities so that means

in