The One Day Muni Negotiations

 At times, I have implied that Supervisor David Chiu doesn’t have a sense of humor. Well, that was wrong. He had me cracking up Tuesday when he announced that a group of folks had spent almost one whole day negotiating the Municipal Transportation Agency’s budget. Oh, and he made sure to thank everyone for all their hard work. Bless their hearts!

Let me back up for a moment and discuss the timeline here. Muni unveiled its 2009-10 budget on April 21, and that same day Chiu introduced a measure to reject it. There was a marathon Budget and Finance Committee hearing May 6 on Chiu’s rejection measure, and the matter was before the full Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

If the board had voted to reject the budget, according to City Controller Ben Rosenfeld, up to $30 million would have come from somewhere — likely the general fund — to make sure the transit agency was paid. Most of supervisors hated the budget proposal, but no one wanted to deal with the cuts that would come from a $30 million hole in the general fund, so it seemed obvious that some negotiations were in order.

However, at Tuesday’s board meeting, Chiu opened the discussion on whether to approve the budget by stating that no one had reached out to negotiate changes  to the MTA budget until Monday night (that’s three weeks after the board’s threat to reject the proposal, y’all), when he received an e-mail saying that Supervisor Carmen Chu would be Mistermayor’s delegate for any such talks. Chiu, Chu and a rotating cast of characters that included Muni chief Nat Ford, Newsom’s chief of staff, Steve Kawa, and Mistermayor himself met throughout the day Tuesday to reach a deal and halt the board’s vote to reject the budget.

Wow, a whole day? Supervisor David Campos, for one, was not buying it. He pointed out that the deal only claws back $2.8 million of the $66 million in “work orders” that other city departments use to bill Muni for everything from 311 calls to Post-it notes, upon which they happen to doodle a picture of a train.

What else is in the One Day Deal? Of the $10.3 million identified as savings, about $9 million will be used for service “enhancements.” Note that it will not restore any of the lines already slated to be eliminated in the 2009-10 budget. Campos, Avalos, Daly, Maxwell and Mirkarimi voted against accepting the agreement.

Ultimately, these changes may be just fine, but isn't it reasonable to ask that the parties begin talking before the day of the vote? I guess that when it comes to Muni, we should just expect everything to be late. 

WEBSITE BONUS: The full deal

Savings: Total 10.3 million

1 million - miscellaneous spending on parts and materials. Frankly, I'd like some clarification here. Are we talking about paint or screwdrivers? It matters.

2.5 million - freeze on hiring "proof of purchase" cops. No word on how much riders will save by having so few people around to check for proof of purchase.

3 million - "salary savings." Hey now! Is Nat giving back some of his $315,000 salary?

2.8 million - stiffing other departments on for bogus "work orders" (see above) 

1 million - first we'll do a study (cost undisclosed) on how much we can get for extending parking meter hours from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.. That should bring in oh...let's just say....a million. That number sounds totally un-arbitrary. Ahem.

Spending: Total 10.2 million (you know, give or take)

1.25 million - delay of $5 increase in fares for youth, senior, and disabled people that was set for Jan 1, 2010, until May 2010. Will not change the $5 planned on increase on July 1, 2009 for same people.

350 thousand - reduce cost of lifeline pass from $35 to $30

8.6 million - enhancing services in areas where service is being reduced or modified. As Paul Hogarth points out, this will be a boost for the Transit Effectiveness Project.

Comments

[gdewar]

None of this would have been an issue had the MTA board simply listened to the many ideas put forth by MTA staff and the public that would have minimized the horrible blow the Governor and the legislature administered to the MTA by eliminating 80 million of state funding (aka all of it). No one was expecting puppies and rainbows with the budget this year, but the fact that the Mayor and the MTA refused to even listen to any ideas way back when was ridiculous.

David Chiu is taking a lot of crap for his gambit, but the fact is he tried using the only means he had left (this ham-handed "all or nothing" veto which is ridiculous in its structure).

There's no denying MUNI like any agency is going to take a hit. However the nature of the hit they're taking will almost ensure that we again defer things like training and maintenance (say hello to more lawsuit settlements) and that stimulus money will be pay for things like ticket machines to increase fare collection, but we won't have the people or the parts to service them when they break down....meanwhile big pay for people who don't show up to work and lots of money on consultants.

Sigh.

[Matt]

Sweetie Melissa,

I wrote a poem for you:

I like a girl named Griffin
When I think of her my heart beat will quicken
And the hairs at the back of my neck stiffen
When I read her blog I start trippin'
She could give me an ass kickin'
She would never make me sicken
Her and Beth be clickin'
Even though the clock keeps tickin'
I would cook her a chicken
And now we've reached the (Grif) Fin.

[Melissa Griffin]

@greg - I have to believe that if people on both sides were really committed to coming up with solutions, they would not have waited 3 weeks to talk about it. I know, on May 6, Chiu asked Ford to come to up with some new numbers, but that doesn't exactly sound like a vigorous pursuit. Of course the Mayor's people waited until the last minute, too. Problems all around.

You are a transit guru! Thank you so much for your astute observations!!

[phlavor]

Riddle me this Batgirl:

Shouldn't the Fare Cops be paying for themselves? What is the tally of the revenue stream from fines and increased purchasing of fares? (I know that last one is fuzzy but someone has to have ballparked the figure) If MUNI is having to increase their budget to pay for Fare Cops then the program doesn't work and should be cut.

[Paul Hogarth]

I really resent the way the Board of Supervisors' rejection of the MTA budget has been framed as "causing" a $30 million hole in the General Fund. That is simply not true, and does not necessarily have to happen. The MTA can resubmit a new budget after the Board rejects this one (which, let's face it, is the ONLY power the Supes have in the process -- it says something that this is literally the first time they have mustered seven votes to actually do something.)

Trouble is, the Charter doesn't require the MTA to do *ANYTHING* after the Supes reject the budget ... so the default result of inaction would be a $30 million deficit. I don't view that as the Board of Supes' fault ... I view it as the MTA (and the Mayor's) fault. For Gavin to blame them for being "irresponsible" is a lie.

But this fear tactic worked all too well. I talked with Bevan Dufty (*right* before the Board meeting), and what he told me was instructive. He told me he was "afraid" of more budget cuts, and he knows the Mayor well enough that this is how Gavin's petty and petulant personality would choose to respond (note: my words, not his -- he was a bit more diplomatic). I finally asked him, "so you're telling me that you are acting from a position of fear?" He said, "yes, that's a fair assessment. I blinked."

Trouble is, Muni riders -- and the City -- suffer because some Supervisors don't have the spine to stand up to the Mayor, and tell him he's being irresponsible for saying it's their fault for acting upon the only right they have in the Charter to affect Muni's budget.

[Beth Spotswood]

I don't know whether to be totally excited ot TOTALLY FREAKED OUT that I made it into that poem/rap. I'm going with the latter...

[Venerable Bede]

On the lengthening the hours parking meters are in effect, that doesn't come close to off-setting the lost revenue MTA claims from moving sweeping days from every week to twice a month in some parts of the city (such as the Inner Sunset where I live). MTA claims to have lost $3 million since they've made that change at the end of last year. I can't wait for the day when they simply divide the city up into parking zones and force all of us to buy a parking pass, like they do in D.C.

Oh wait, that might give them an idea. . .Forget I wrote that.

[Venerable Bede]

Oh, I should clarify- MTA claims to have lost $3 million from street sweeping changes due to lost parking ticket revenue. In other words, instead of saving $1 million from not sweeping, they've lost $3 million from lost parking ticket revenue due to not sweeping.

[Melissa Griffin]

@phlavor - Muni has been steadily increasing the number of fare cops for a few years, this cut will just stop the most recent planned expansion.

@paul - I see your point. Its why I wrote "according to..." because I'm not clear on why people keep saying there's a charter provision mandating the $30 million payment. I'm guessing there's a more specific argument but I haven't heard it.

@beth - Good choice. I'm still laughing about the reference to my ticking clock!