|
|
|
|
  |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
| SFMTA home > About Us > Meetings > SFMTA Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) > FAC May 18, 2005, minutes , 2007, | |||
|
City and County of San Francisco Finance & Administration Committee (FAC) FINAL MINUTES Wednesday, May 18, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call (Agenda Item 1). The regular meeting of the Finance & Administration Committee (FAC) was called to order at 3:15 p.m., Wednesday, May 18, 2005. Daniel Murphy (chair) presided. A quorum was present including the following: FAC Members present at roll call: Daniel Murphy (Chair), Emily Drennen, Griffith Humphrey, and Bruce Oka. FAC Members absent at roll call: FAC absent: None. MTA CAC Members not on this committee present: MTA Staff (San Francisco Municipal Railway [MUNI] and Department of Parking and Traffic [DPT]) Present: BJ Dix (MUNI), Debra Ward (MUNI Director of Finance), Scott Heugly (MUNI Chief Protective Services-POP), Robinson Oguike (MUNI - Sergeant Proof of Payment Supervisor/Investigator), Thomas Tom (MUNI Fare Inspection Supervisor), and Debra Reed (MTA CAC Secretary) Community representatives present: None 2. Adopt Minutes of February 8, 2005: Motion to adopt the February minutes by Bruce Oka. 2nd by Emily Drennen MTA CAC “FAC” passed unanimously (Ayes – Murphy, Drennen, Humphrey, and Oka) 3. Public Comment – Concerning any issue within the jurisdiction of the Council and not noted on the agenda: None. 4. Report of the Chair: Daniel Murphy (Chair) None. 5. FY 2006 Budget Update: BJ Dix, and Debra Ward (MUNI Director of Finance) [Handouts] BJ Dix opened, explaining that the Budget which was passed by the MTA Board, February 28, 2005 was updated to meet Mayor Gavin Newsom’s specifications. Changes included reducing operator force by 145.5 Full Time Equivalent, based on runs that were to be eliminated from the Budget. May 1st Budget reflects 4.5 new Safety positions and 4.5 or 6 new Division Safety officers for FY06. Their safety focus will be proactive work, accident reduction, and accident investigations. Supervisor Jake McGoldrick asked that the Budget Analyst review MUNI’s budget. Their recommendations as of 6:00 p.m. last Tuesday was that MUNI would be receiving funding as a result of the Controller locating a higher General Fund transfer of approximately $2.69 million for FY05 to restore some of the scheduled service cuts and supervisory positions, as well as hire some 9102 car cleaners and 2708 custodians; and for FY06 the General Fund transfer will give MUNI $6.5 million to restore the L Taraval service reductions, and to ease increases slated for parking fines and meter increases. The Budget Analysts also recommended an additional $2.5 million in cuts: positions, training, programs, parking and traffic. MUNI will be responding to the Budget Analyst on the recommendations. In going forward, MUNI has neither MOU reserves nor operating reserves. Being on the margin, in order to sustain itself and avoid increasing MUNI’s structural deficit, revenue streams such as cash fare and fast pass increases are crucial. Questions and Comments for the FAC a) Daniel Murphy asked: What was the sum of Proposition 42 monies. Answer: $5.9 million in tax revenue would be due MUNI should the state budget passes between July and September 2005. How will it be spent? Answer: Plans were for preventive maintenance and capital, such as cable car restoration and small facility or maintenance type projects. Specific preventative projections for allocation would need to be determined by the Capital Planner. In the Budget there was a $10 million Deferred Maintenance item, a transfer between Capital and Operating. Answer: It is the delay on the purchase of capital equipment, not the repair or new capital facility, i.e. buses, example the purchase of 12 buses over 12 years. How will it affect the 3rd Street Light Rail with its 4th Street Bridge overrun? Answer: While the 3rd Street light rail will open in 2006 instead of the 2005-projected date for MUNI to run service, the funding was actually a DPW issue. MUNI is still servicing that area with the 15 Third Street line. In looking at the math, including monies from Proposition 42, fare increases still cannot be avoided. However, Neighborhood parking could make up the difference and avoid the fare increase. Board of Supervisors was not happy about increase in Neighborhood fines. b) Questions from Emily Drennen: Regarding the additional funds from the General Fund transfer, how did the original figure decrease from $11 million to 9.2 million. Answer: Inaudible. Explanation of the Lifeline pass. Answer: Department of Human Services (DHS) will be in charge administrating the program and all the details. The $35 pass would be available to DHS clients at 200% of the Federal poverty level. On the other hand, Class Pass programs were already available to colleges and universities; institutions just needed to sign up. Will the Paul Moyer or FTCA, Air District be taking back $10 million because of MUNI not spending it to their satisfaction on air quality technology, i.e. they did not approve of MUNI’s clean diesel project? Answer: Duncan Waltry or Joe Speaks (MUNI Senior Administrative Analyst) could better answer that question. Motion: WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco has an adopted “Transit-First” policy, and WHEREAS, approximately two-thirds of San Francisco residents are regular MUNI riders, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT The MTA CAC recommends that none of the $9.2 million in General Fund transfer identified by the City Controller, nor any future Proposition 42 funds be used to reduce parking fines or parking fees. Moved by Bruce Oka 6. MUNI Fare Evasion: Scott Heugly (Chief of Protective Services – POP), Robinson Oguike (Sergeant Proof of Payment Supervisor/Investigator), and Thomas Tom (Fare Inspection Supervisor) Scott Heugly opened giving an overview of fare checking programs on various transit lines using light duty personnel returning to work through the Transitional Work program, to educate the public that there was no rear door loading on buses. Currently there are 66 employees on light duty. Questions and Comments from FAC a) Daniel Murphy: Are people changing their habits or are they only paying when checkers are present? Answer: Some patrons where not aware of the “no rear door boarding” policy, and some even thought MUNI was free. On the other hand, there are those that return to old habits of fare evasion. There is some public confusion distinguishing Metro from the Bus system. Estimated revenue lost is 3 to 18%. What additional effort to prevent fare evasion would be cost effective? Answer: There are 18 inspectors on 5 of the Metro lines. On the average for just the light rails system alone not included warnings, there were about 500 to 600 citations per month and increasing. Plane clothes inspectors have observed violators at the platforms coming through the sides, jumping over turn styles, or squeezing through. In a one and a half hour period during peak time some 80 to 120 violators were successfully intercept, but others circumvented. b) Bruce Oka: System wide, what is the revenue lost? Some operators are instructing patrons to board the rear if they have fast passes and transfers in order to speed efficiency. Answer: Presently, the Proof of Payment (POP) program is exclusive to the Light Rail. c) Emily Drennen: In view of operators instructing patrons to board the rear if they have fast passes and transfers in order to speed efficiency, what is the lost in efficiency and does it balance out in revenue? Answer: There is no data available. What is the estimated percent of fare evaders based on citations and warnings combined? Answer: Closer to 20% to 30%. Without sting operations was 15% to 20%. Are fare evaders minors, as they only pay $.35? Answer: Mr. Murphy observed from the N Judah lines a disproportionate number of youth. He suggested an evasion study would be useful to distinguish numbers for grouping purposes in terms of minors, adults and seniors. d) Griffith Humphrey commented that he has never been asked for proof of payment. Bruce Oka recalled being asked once. Both gentlemen are Para transit patrons. Motion: WHEREAS, industry-wide statistics for fare evasion vary widely; and WHEREAS, approximately 15% to 20% of Metro riders contacted by fare inspectors are without a valid fare instrument; and WHEREAS, a pilot program that used light-duty MUNI personnel to discourage riders from entering from the rear doors of the 14 Mission bus resulted in a 14% to 18% increase in fares; and WHEREAS, MUNI is planning to move towards a system-wide Proof of Payment (POP) policy in order to increase efficiencies and revenue; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the MTA CAC recommends that MUNI initiate a pilot program (Murphy) or study (Drennen) by which fare inspectors and light-duty personnel conduct random inspections on MUNI lines throughout the City in order to determine the scope of net revenue lost to fare evasion, including a breakdown by type of fare (adult, youth, senior/disabled) lost to evasion. Moved by Bruce Oka 7. Fast Pass/Fare Instrument Sales through Vendors: (Discussion/Action) To be continued at July’s meeting. 8. Impact of State Legislation of MTA Finances: (Discussion/Action) Kate Breen was not available. Mr. Murphy felt that her presentation to Rescue MUNI that would be of interest to the CAC. To be continued with July’s meeting. 9. Committee Members’ questions/Information Request: Discussion 10. Schedule Upcoming Meetings and Agenda Items: (Discussion /Action) · $10million from the Clean Air District (Duncan Watry or Joe Speeks) 11. Adjournment: 4:59 p.m. Attachments and handouts Item 2- Draft of February FAC minutes Item 5- Summary of Budget changes Explore: |
|
|
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) manages transportation in San Francisco, California. Copyright © 2000-2010 SFMTA. All rights reserved. Updated February 25, 2010
|
|
