tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 20, 2018 7:00am-8:01am PDT
factor. i know there were cost considerations. it was one project and then cut it into two trying to save costs and lack of funding available to complete the project all at once. i don't know if it was cost considerations that led to the split platforms. when we looked at the capacity needs moving people out of the arena, it was the driver to shift to the center platforms. >> i think it's confusing. and people get lost and -- >> it's preferable when it's possible. >> and also a bit of a funding shortfall, but you are identifying -- we have additional $17 million. do we have any ideas? >> yeah. so the portion of the costs that are attributable just to the warriors' project that are
greater than our original budget, will be covered by the same revenues that are covering the base project. so those are the revenues that essentially will be thrown off from the arena, which go into a fund, which will support both our operating costs and are paying us back for the costs we're incurring. so the overage will be paid back. there are cost increased that we've added, because we've added scope that we thought would help us independent of the warriors arena. and we'll be funding that from our capital budget. >> thank you. yes, dr. rubke. >> so this is in front of at&t park, where there are ramps on both sides, rather than ramp on one side and stairs on the other? >> correct. >> awesome. [laughter] >> excellent.
>> sorry? >> is there public comment? >> yes, i think so. thank you and i think we do have public comment. >> ready for that? >> yes. >> one member of the public has submitted a speaker card, david pelpel. >> mr. pelpel? >> thank you. a couple of points. first of all, i think it's confusing to call it the ucsf platform. i think if this title and name can be changed to ucsf-mission bay, i think that would better help everyone. in terms of transit impacts, i've not been able to connect with matt brill recently. he mentioned the impacts on the t and f access to metro east.
i assume that there are a lot more details about shifting e and f line cars and pull out and pull in from mme to green and vice versa during the shutout period. it sounds like there are 16 straight days of no access and additional weekends. i'm interested in all of those details. it goes back to the earlier point of the large construction projects to better understand how it affects the system. because i can assure directors on this side, heiniecke and hsu and ramos, it may be affected by that access. i also didn't hear any transit impacts to the 55 and the 91, which also travel through this
project area. so i guess i would like a better understanding either today or in the future about how this project affects transit and future writups should be incredibly clear about what they do to our transit riders during this necessary construction. thanks. >> thank you. mr. hennessy, has the stop been named yet? or did i just open a can of worms on that one and we could just say, it's not been formally named or is it named? >> the current name of the platform is the ucsf-mission bay. there are ongoing discussions right now. provisi provisionally, it's talked about ucsf arena, but discussions are ongoing. [inaudible] [laughter] >> can of worms. >> can of worms. >> the agreement that we
currently have right now is that it's the ucsf/chase center with 16th street also indicated. >> okay. excellent. clear. perfect. >> is chase providing funding for that? [laughter] >> it is. okay. do i have any more questions or do i have a motion to approve? >> i think this is very exciting and look forward to going to warriors' game, if i can get tickets, same way as i go to giants' games, where transit is the key to the experience. with that, i will move. >> second? >> all in favor? aye. any opposed? hearing none. approved. thank you very much, mr. hennessy and mr. pierce. good work on this and good presentation. thank you. >> i would like to wish everyone a happy st. patrick's day. >> and you as well. [laughter] >> item 13 presentation
discussion of fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 operating budget including possible modifications to fares, fees, fines, rates and charges possible know revenue and ex-pepped tour sources and reductions and f.y. 2019 and 2020 capital funding. adding single ride, low income fare. one-day pass. adding new fees. and cliffer card replacement, travel shows, -- all bunch of stuff. >> thank you. >> madam chair, this is another opportunity for us to share with you and the public and get feedback from you in the public, as we get closer to developing a proposed budget for the next two fiscal years. so we have a shorter version of
the presentation that we've provided in past meetings. not much in terms of new information. we'll highlight a few things and really just continuing to gather public comment. i think we have a slide toward the end that shows some of the other forums in which we're seeking public comment. we're getting close to being able to put together a proposal that will come and we'll be back at the next board meeting with further information. so just wanted to, spoiler alert. not a lot new here. >> okay. >> but want to just give you and the public an opportunity to see where we are. >> excellent. so you are not looking for any feedback from us today? >> always looking for feedback -- >> nothing that's a hanging question that -- >> no. i don't think so. but i will mention one other with record to the free muni
program, that i may have mentioned before, but i'm not sure. so -- she's ready to get through this. [laughter] any questions? just to recall, our starting point is that our projected baseline revenues are not growing as quickly as our baseline expenditures, so we start out about $20 million in the hole in each of the two fiscal years. and you can see here that is shown graphically and how it compares historically. and that's the gap we have to close at a minimum. so just wanted to make sure that we're clear on what's in and what's not. so when we talk about the baseline, it's essentially taking today's budget and policies and carrying them forward and not really changing anything else. what's included in the baseline
is a continuation of the free muni program as it exists today, which is for low and moderate income youth, seniors, and people with disabilities. and let me flag that point to communicate, if i haven't already, or even if i have, that we have been -- we've received a request from two members of the board of education that we consider in this budget expanding free muni for youth program to reach all year, not just those that are of low and moderate income. we've done preliminary analysis and we think it would be $3.3 to $3.4 million a year in additional impact. we currently have about 22,000 youth enrolled in the program. looking just at the school differestrict population, there
46,000 in the free and reduced lunch. so even within our current eligibility guidelines, there is more that could potentially enroll. but the proposed expansion would allow all 61,000 students as well as those in private and parochial schools to ride muni for free as well. so that's something that i imagine we might be hearing some advocacy on, so want to make you aware of that request from -- it's not that i don't believe in action that the board of education have taken, but two members of the board have reached out and met with us and made this request. continuing on in what is in the baseline, it says tow tee, but it's tow fee, for tows.
there are a number of reduced fees and waived fees for the taxi program. i think we'll hear some public comment about that. i believe what's in the baseline is there is no annual driver renewal fee. there is no medallion renew fee in those that are transferrable, but the fee is in the baseline for the rest of the medallion holders. we have all of the board's policies enacted for all fees, fines and fares, so there were tables attached to the calendar item that shows what those were. there's a lot of them. and we applied your indexing policy to those.
we do have sb 1 revenues that were amoved by the state in the budget. we do have the new revenues that will be coming in from the mission bay arena as well as the associated expenditures. right now, we have the population-based general fund baseline included, which was prop b from 2014. we have in past years put all of that money in the capital budget, 75% for transit. 25% for streets. there are anticipated development fees that are in the baseline budget. these are numbers we get from the planning department. we have current estimates from the controller's office on general fund baseline transfers, not just the population baseline, but the larger, overall baseline.
we do expect updated numbers soon, updated in a positive direction, we hope. and then we have current estimates from the m.t.c., the regional transportation planning and funding agency on a number of grant programs that flow through them. on the expediture side in the baseline, we have -- any positions that were added in the budget that you approved last night continue to this budget and are fully funded. driving the expenditures are the pension and healthcare costs that we get from the controller's office and other city agencies. and with regard to wages, which drives one of the larger portions of our expediture base, we have the wage increases that have been approved through the contracts that cover the first year of the two-yearly budget, which waps a 3% wage increase.
and we have c.p.i. estimate for the second year that was provided by the controller's office of 3.4%. so that's in the baseline. here's what's not in the baseline -- anything we have done with regard to fares, the fare proposals that we think are largely revenue-neutral or changes expanding free muni to all youth, which would have a $3.4 million negative impact. that's both revenue and expe expediture together, revenue loss and expediture together, roughly that amount. we don't include any other new proposals. the baseline doesn't include anticipated use of reserve funds or fund balance. and it doesn't -- i guess this
is redundant. it assumes that the population prop b are going to capital budget and not operating on the expediture side, there's a number of things that kind of are on the table, but that are not included in the baseline. that includes all of the new lightrail vehicle service. as you know, we'll have 24 new cars in service this summer. we'll have a total of 64 in regular service by the end of next year, plus the four that the warriors' project is funding and will support the warriors' arena service. we're opening up a new bus facility, which construction will be largely completed this month and expect to start operations there in june. there's the muni equity strategy, and other demands on the system, based on the growth that the city is seeing and starting up the central subway.
so that's just in terms of what we see on the horizon for transit. there's a number of technologies that could have ongoing operational costs that may not be fully in the baseline. we don't have new initiatives from the taxi program that have been floated in the baseline. caltrain operating contribution we have, i think, $6 million in the baseline. we're starting to hear from caltrain that they may seem a higher number than that for each of the next two fiscal years. we don't -- well, that's redundant. i have asked all the operating divisions of the agency to identify possible reductions. those are not captured in the
baseli baseline. there are other increases that we may be able to expect, but we don't have firm numbers at the moment. so the big one that we have to grapple with, which i would say is largely not optional, are, one, integrating any service strategy recommendations into the budget. it's been your policy there we do so, so that's why i say it's not optional. and we'll bring that to you at the next meeting, the recommendations from that process. the other ones, i mentioned, opening the central subway, putting new cars into service and opening our new bus maintenance facility, things that are all in motion and we'll need to fund. and then we'll -- some of the
other items that we discussed before. the costs of doing all that are between $36 million and $63 million. to the extent we want to fund that in addition to closing the $20 million gap we started with, there's a bit of revenue we would need to come up with or expenditures we would need to reduce. our options on the revenue side in terms of what we control are using some of the population-based funds for the operating budget. what's really driving demands on transit service are population growth. purpose of the funds was to increase the funding coming to muni based on population growth. so i think there's a strong nexus there. one way we could off set the impact of using some of the funds in the operating budget is
to use fund balance to essentially back fill holes that would create in the capital budget. so we would be aligning ongoing population growth needs or funds with ongoing population growth needs using one-time fund balance for one-time capital needs. also on the revenue side, we do expect revised projections from the city with regard to the general fund at some time this month. on the expediture side, i had asked all the divisions to find out ways they could tighten their own belt and reduce expenditures, which they've all come up with ideas for. and particularly within transit, as they're the biggest part of the budget, they have arguably the biggest opportunity to realize savings and they've done very good work to identify ways
that they might be able to shift baseline costs to cover the needs we covered. that's what we have on the table in terms of revenues and expe expeditur expeditures. in terms of the fund balance, we're nearly double -- this is based on where we ended up at the end of last fiscal year, we ended up double the amount that foreign policy requires we hold. and that's the programming over the last two years of $70 million of fund balance. so we have a fair bit there and that will, of course, grow, when this fiscal year ends, as revenues have come in higher, at least from the general fund than anticipat anticipated. there will be more funds added
to that. in terms of fares, i will not necessarily go through all of these again. i think we've heard generally positive support for these. at some point, we'll make a decision on options 2 and 5, assuming we're going forward with these, which i think we've heard general support for. on option 2, the idea is to bring the cost of the monthly pass down to the muni-only pass. the two options are to put it a flat $15 premium, so every dollar the muni pass would raise, the other would adjust on a percentage basis. so if we started out on a $15 gap, it would grow over time. and then the second is on the
day pass to do it two times the single-ride fare. two and a half times or some other number. if you can go back one. this one on the pass courts is a little bit different than showed you last time. the bottom part of the chart shows what we proposed last time, which is for folks using clipper or muni mobile to fairly significant break down the cost of the passports and this is based on the fact that we believe that we overpriced these and people were not buying them. so we think this pricing based on looking at how other agencies have done it in a logical construct in number of cable car and single-ride fares is probably closer to the right
level of pricing. what i'm suggesting here is that rather than reduce the costs across the board, that we do it only for folks using clipper and muni mobile, as it relates back to the direction from the board to continue to move people to clipper and muni mobile, particularly on cable car. so under these proposal, as shown here, we would leave passport prices as they are. or as they would have been under indexing for the next two years for folks using cash. that's different than what i suggested before. so it would be a very large differential to encourage use of clipper and muni mobile. speaking of that differential, there was discussion at the last board meeting about proposed increase of differential on single-ride fare, which is on the previous slide, going
quarter differential to 50 cents. it's not on that slide, but -- i don't think we have the slide. but trust me. i did convey the concern about the accessibility of clipper cards to folks making sure that if we're going to contemplate this that we have agreement from mtc to work with us to do what we can to get more clipper cards in people's hands and let folks know what opportunities they have to refill the cards. [please stand by]
one of -- i think that diana mentioned this when she presented last time. any fare proposals we're making, as well as any service changes we're making amounts to a title six analysis, so we've suggested some options here, and we can take direction here. anything we end up proposing, we will have to put through a full title six analysis to make sure there is no disproportionate impact or disproportionate burden placed on any low minority groups. we did, based upon what we're sharing with you so far, i ran it through a title six analysis and found there are not disparrate burdens on minority groups or impacts.
i just wanted to be clear that we need to make sure that we -- what we're proposing is consistent with fell lderal la before we bring you that final proposal. so on the capital budget side, again, we'll be bringing the five year cip, the first two years of which is the capital budget. i just made this presentation to the city's capital plan committee who will be considering final approval of this at their next meeting, as well. as you know, the main drivers of our capital program are both the policy goals of vision zero and transit first, as well as our continual drive to by the system into a state of good repair, as evidenced by some of the projects you heard about in my director's report. the equity strategy not only can have impacts on the operating budget, but can have impacts on the capital budget,
as well. as we look as those eight recommendations, that come from the quan at thistive analysis as well as the public outreach, and where there is the muni short i can't imagines. i think in the current year, there are capital changes along the 27-bryant that came out of last year's last round's equity service strategy. as i showed you before, the projected c.i.p. is expected to be about $2.8 billion, down from about $3.4 in the previous five year. more than half is the fact that central subway is getting close to completion. another big aspect of it is getting over the hump of some of the significant fleet purchases that we've made in the last five years.
this shows you that on a line by line basis. though it's about a 570 million delta between the last five year look and this five years. you can see well over half of that is the central subway, and the other category is fleet. these are generally driven by funding sources that are specific to these lines. the dollars that we have for fleet are generally available only for fleet. obviously, the money we have for central subway is only available for central subway. there's some areas we can move up and down by lines, but some of these are driven by availability of funding. this just shows a slice in terms of levels of government of where our funding comes from. historically, it's been a lot more federal and state funding for our cal tall program, but as prop b from the state ran down, as the federal government has become less of a predictable and reliable
funding partner, we've had to step up more here locally so the sales tax that we have dedicated to transportation, the 500 million geobond that the voters approved in 2014, the bonds that we send loorgely to our capital budget, the development fees are what's making us the majority now locally the funder of our capital program. did want to flag that there's a -- two significant assumptions within that $2.8 billion worth of revenue, which are the passage of two measures, one of which is on the ballot and one which may be. regional measure three has been approved to be on the ballot in june, and that would -- that's the bridge toll increase. that would -- that includes $140 million -- that's the -- in the expenditure plan for
muni fleet and facilities, as well as other funding categories for which we could compete. we have in this c.i.p. allocated that $140 million inform our facility programs, which has the biggest unmet funding needs, and additional competitive funds that we think we would be able to compete for in that transit opting forward. likewise, we have included in this five-year c.i.p., their recommended revenues coming from the transportation 2045 program, anticipating a november 2018 measure. you may recall there was a june 2018 measure that was proposed that ultimately did not move forward for transportation. there's actually two other uses vying for that same funding source, but we are still
including the 2045 recommendation of a 2018 funding measure that would, over the five years, we are estimating, would generate more than $170 million in these categories. these are assumed so that if one or both of these does not go forward, then we would either eliminate these line items or we would have to reshuffle our line items to the fact that those line items didn't materialize. so as i said, the -- we're bringing the five-year c.i.p. forward, the first two years of which are the capital budget. you'll notice that this -- this shows a significant front loading of funds in fiscal '19, three or four times the annual spend. when we come back next time, we will have some revised numbers
here. there was some general assumptions, which is all of rm-3 revenues, and all of another few sources of revenues were landing in fiscal year '19. but we're not anticipating receiving or spending $1.3 billion in one fiscal year, so we'll see some revised numbers when this comes back. one thing that i wanted to note that we have some more current information, which is good news, that you may recall a couple of years ago, the city -- the board of supervisors increased the transportation sustainablity fee, or actually, they created the fee to replace the only transit impact development fee. they raised the rates and also expanded it to residential. used to be commercial only. based on that increase, we had budgeted revenues on the order of $7 million in our capital program. as of a couple -- as of the end of last calendar year, we had only realized $1.6 million,
which left us with a pretty big gap. the good news, though, is just this past week, we got revised actuals that are more current that show that i think we're closer to 6 million so far this year. we had some concerns that the development fees were significantly lagging projections, but it looks like there's been some catch up in the future, so we will be -- these are the current projections we have from planning: 7 million in fiscal '19 and nearly 11 million in fiscal 20 that will be part of the budget, and those are the percentages of the fees that are allocated, capital budget. the rest goes to budget to support muni operations. so these slides give some examples of projects that are in the various categories. i wasn't going to go through these. i will note to earlier public comment something that i missed in my director's report that --
a very large project that's in our capital program, as well as the city's capital program is the better market street project, and there are a couple of public meetings for better market street that are upcoming. there's one this saturday from 10:00 a.m. to noon at uc hastings, and then there's one next saturday from 1:00 to 4:00, also at uc hastings. we wanted to make sure that the public knows that opportunities to come and get up to date and provide input on that project advancing o advancing are upcoming. so i did want to flag a couple of concerns that are in our current cal tall improvement
program. one, i mentioned on the if a ilt ises improvemea -- facilities improvement funding. the least amount of fund he we have in the c.i.f. are iffy, and we're counting on voter approved measures, that's the technical term. >> official term. >> right. so we're hopeful and confident that these revenue measures pass, but if they don't, that'll raise some challenges for us. we have, in our parking facilities, while we've made good progress and now have fully funded the revenue equipment for the garages and we're marching through those garages, getting upgrades done, they're going along very well and getting things received, there are issues that are seismic and more core issues that have capital needs that are largely unmet in this capital improvement program. and the exchange that you had
with mr. hennessy about the bids on the mission bay arena, as he said, are -- we're seeing reflec reflected through our entire capital program, the city's capital program, private sectors, accounting. that's something we try to account for here, but as long as the labor economy stays as hot as it is and the employment economy stays as flat as it is, it might not happen like it did five or six years ago. a couple of things that i wanted to flag, and this is largely for the capital planning committee, 'cause i didn't see the operating budget presentation, we might be contemplating using some of those prop b fund in the capital budget. another idea that we're floating is that we currently have in the capital plan, a
$500 million general obligation fund slotted for 2024. when we look at some of our facilities needs, and facilities that have significant seismic issues, that's a $500 million bond in 2024. there's currently an earthquake safety and general emergency response bond planned for 2020. given that we have facilities with seismic issues that have funding needs that are imminent, one thing that i floated to the capital planning to -- committee to consider as it develops the next ten year capital plan next year is to perhaps shift some of that 500 million from 2024 forward to 2020 to coincide with the proposed e-sure bond to coordinate with our timeline
needs with the facilities program. so whether we'll have success in getting that change in the capital plan is up in the air, but it's something i proposed. so this is where we are in the project. we did have a budget town hall last friday that was actually fairly well attended. we did it in part with senior disability action, and on a cold, rainy friday afternoon, got a pretty good turnout. we have our public hearing today. we've been to the citizens advisory committee council at least once. we are doing a digital town h 5 ll tomorrow night, so tune in live at 5:00? 6:00. doing -- trying a different format to make it more interesting, if you can imagine anything more interesting than the last 20 minutes you heard
listening to me. we will be back here in two weeks for really our final public hearing that same week going to the cac for their final recommendations. i think you saw they've already made some recommendations to you on the fare opportunities. and then, we'll be bringing you for your first opportunity to consider approval on april 3rd, the balanced budget. and as you know, we need to get this done by may 1st to meet our charter requirements. so i think that was the main things that i wanted to cover. so if there is any particular feedback on the fare items of the differential between the m-pass and the a-pass, the monthly pass, the a-pass, whether it should be two times, 2.5 times, some other multiplier, if you have any other thoughts on expanding
and not show emotions when you're using us as a cash cow, so i apologize for being nervous. but we are five years after late mayor lee embraced gypsy cabs as alternate forms of transportation, allowing those folks to operate without any of the medallions you sold to balance your budget, so our income has dropped 80%. that's quite a lot. the medallion income, so i think it is a fair request to ask you to consider the struggles our industry's faced with, and either waive this fee or lower it to $250 until a level playing field can be achieved in the for hire market. i think it's a fair request, and i hope you would
fee, which as the representative of a very small company, green cab, which has now shrunk down to six taxis, is having to pay almost $3,000 for renewing the medallion or renewing the color scheme fee. an aftverage of $450 for each our cabs, whereas a very large company such as yellow cab, i'm not even sure how many cabs they have, but i'm estimating it's about 400 now, they're paying something like $28 percab on a percab basis, whereas we're paying 450, and so we're paying 16 times as much as them on a percab basis for renewing the color scheme medallion. the other issue that i wanted to bring up has to do with taxi
stands, and taxi stands are treated under your fee structure in the same way as white zones, although they're very different from a white zone, and they're actually not even in the budget at all. but they cost thousands of dollars to setup a taxi stand. these are a public good, and they should not cost anything. and i wish i had more time to explain it, but thank you. >> thank you, mr. gruber. next speaker, please. >> peter strauss. >> thank you. good afternoon. peter straw peter strauss. i'm very concerned with the struggles of the taxi industry, but there are a lot of things that we like in this budget from a tran ssit perspective. we really like doing a day pass, we like the reduction in the a-pass price. we'd like to see that go to zero differential. we like that there's some
recognition of the need for -- to better address the budgetary concerns of families, you know, that's reflected in some of the visitor past proposals, and we'd like to see that recognition of family needs addressed in other parts of the budget. but the main thing that i want to address today is the prop b fund. and we very strongly urge you to take a portion of the operating funds and use it for the operating budget. we feel it's very essential that the mta move into a mode of budgeting for expansion of transit service, not just maintenance. it's very troubling to see -- well, you didn't hear about it today, but the only proposals the staff suggested to us is there are efficiencies that would balance some of the expansion needs, efficiencies that are really a lot of those
service cuts. we don't want to see those cuts. we do want to see you move things like the prop b funds to help support the expansion of operations. there's a strong nexus here in terms of how those funds were created. actually, a lot of projects pay funds into the general fund, and to cover transit service, but there's no way to get those funds over to mta. the prop b mechanism essentially provides a way to move funds from the general fund budget to the transit budget where those funds were intended -- [ inaudible ] >> thank you. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> david pilpal. >> allocating two minutes to talk about a billion dollar operating budget and a billion dollar capital budget isn't fair, and you should have given us more time.
i understand that supervisor katie tang has asked for a review of the growth of the division which i hope will be completed in the next few days. i hope that will be made public and discussed at the next board meeting as relates to this budget. if there are tough decisions to make, maybe we can cutback on some programs that have grown more than others within the agency over its -- the life of the agency. addressing transit service and equity for a moment, it seems a bit incongruous both at the same time to increase service in equity neighborhoods based on the service equity strategy and charge more for transit service in the belief that somehow more folks will get access to clipper cards that they don't have now. it seems like a great leap of faith and one that i'm not particularly sharing. i think that there are some efficiencies to be gained, both on the transit side and
throughout the agency, and i hope that we would see some of those details in the next two weeks before the next hearing. my understanding is that some of transit efficiencies are not that significant: chestnut street, various other small changes in service to better allocate and better balance service with demand. and finally, the expansion of lrv service, as i understand it, would program some of those 24 to 64 or 68 lrv's in the next two years, but really looks to increase peak service when there's no additional subway capacity, so it doesn't make sense how that service increase would be delivered,
and so i really want to -- >> thank you very much, mr. pilpal. next speaker, please. >> our last speaker is barry corngold. >> hi. i'm barry corngold. i've been driving a cab in this city since 1987. getting a medallion, earning a medallion used to be a reason for people to stay in the industry, and so some of your best cab drivers became medallion holders. you guys funded your budget, some $70 million off the backs of taxi drivers who then had to buy their medallions, basically giving up whatever extra income they would get by getting their medallion after a 15-year wait. now something like 90 of those drivers have had to default on their loans. you've waived their fees, rightly so because they're not making any money, but now, it's somehow devalued our medallions, where you feel like you can makeup for your short comings by charging us more. and this has become a minimum wage job or less. it's very hard to make it, and very frustrating, when we're
surrounded by what used to be illegal gypsy cabs. now they're considered ethical entrepreneur. you're making special stands for them. why don't you charge people more, fine people more for charging in taxi stands, and marking in tmc's, who get obstinate when they're asked to move. minimum wage isn't a lot of money when you're struggling to pay your rent and pay your bills, and then, in three payments, you have to come up with 375 bucks. you might think that passive income is just passive income, but all of you guys get pensions and passive incomes. we have to pay for our health insurance, and we get no
pensions at all. it's very hard to stay in this industry -- [ inaudible ] >> thank you, thank you mr. corngold. next speaker, please. >> herbert weiner. >> herbert weiner. what i really want to say is i support the taxi drivers. i don't think there should be medallions at all. i don't think they should have been instituted at all. i will always take a taxi, i will never take an uber or lyft. >> thank you, mr. weiner. anymore public comment? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. all right directors, it sounds like mr. reiskin would like a weigh in on some of the 23 are
changes. >> i'm happy to go first. so my daughter will probably not appreciate this comment. i -- i can see the policy benefit of free muni for all youth, but i think at a time, just given the last comments from mr. corngold that we'll address in a moment, that having young people whose families can get their passes, having them get them for free, doesn't induce the right environment. i see a benefit to encouraging young people to ride muni and understand it, as they are in these classes, and i've certainly seen as a parent, it's really wonderful for children, but i just -- given the amount of money that would cost, my personal view would be to wait on that and not incur that cost at this time. on the 20% versus $15, my personal preference would be for 25%. having done this now many, many
times, i'm starting to see the wisdom of indexing and having things be flexible so that we're not having to revisit all of this. and these fares are going to change by indexing. it's possible they may even reduce by indexing, so to me, it seems that a permanent marker is much more consistent with our indexing program than is a flat dollar amount. on the day pass, i would favor 2.5 times because two times is a roundtrip that lasts more than the transfer time, whereas a day pass is good for all day. that may sound like a sort of silly way to approach it, but i think it's a situation where the day passes are going to be purchased mostly by visitors, and asking 2.5 times seems like the right mark for me there. so then, finally, on -- i'm sure this will not surprise you, on the fund balance, we heard a suggestion about maybe
using that to backfill some funds, but we didn't get a report on where we are with the fund balance, how that is with our current plan, and whether using that money would bring us below our guidelines or create other issues. so your -- well, i'll let you say your view. >> yeah, thank you. so what we expect in this fiscal year would probably double the fund balance that your policy requires us to have, which leaves us quite a bit of room to be able to propose use of fund balance in the next two fiscal years while leaving ourselves well above the 10% reserve requirement. i think last year, we had discussed trying to stay above 15%. >> right. >> so i -- i certainly wouldn't propose something that would bring us down below 10%. i think we'd be looking to aim probably closer to keeping it at least 15%. so anything i propose will be in line with policy and will probably still be -- leave us a
much bigger cushion than the policy minimum. >> okay. i would favor that. i would favor the 15%. just, you know, i've given this speech again about fund balance. i won't give it again, but one of the things that you said is in these certain times -- in these times, we have uncertain funding from particular sources, particularly the federal and state governments, all the more reason for us to go conservative with our balance. so that would be my preference for that. finally, on the taxi cabs, i'll suspect you'll hear this from others. it is a compelling point. i think we do need to look at ways in which we can alleviate the pain for our taxi drivers, and ways in which will also serve a policy goal. if there is a shortage of drivers right now, some sort of break on the a-card may be the way to go. if, you know, it's a situation where the