MTA in a bind for already-spent cash

Back in high school, my friend Jason had a "parking angel" named Stacks that sat on his dashboard. Stacks was an Elvis doll wearing a jumpsuit which, as far as I could tell, completely lacked the talismanic ability to ensure Jason a decent parking spot. "I need all the help I can get," he would say, patting Stacks on the head, careful not to upset the sombrero perched precariously thereupon.

San Francisco could use an angel right about now, because we have a parking meter situation whose resolution will require some tough decisions.

In March, members of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency were presented with a teensy problem: The agency was about $129 million short of the full $856 million it needs for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. (.pdf of report here: Download Nonprofit Ord.) The board presented The City with a plan in April to balance its budget that was remarkable insofar as everyone could hate it. Muni service cuts and fare increases, and even taxi medallion sales were proposed to keep the agency afloat until July 2010.

Several members of the Board of Supervisors threatened to vote against the revised MTA budget, so double-secret negotiations ensued between supervisors David Chiu and John Avalos and representatives from the MTA and Mistermayor’s office. I imagine they looked under the couch cushions, consulted an astrologer (the MTA is a Scorpio) and bought more than one scratch-off lottery ticket.

In the end, more than half of the supes agreed to a deal which "found" $10.3 million dollars and then spent it — mostly on "service enhancements." At least $1 million of that new money was supposed to come from extended parking meter hours that were to be implemented after a feasibility study. (See bottom of post.)

In other words: we have already "spent" the $1 million of the money that we were supposed to get from extended parking meter hours.

The initial proposal was to extend the hours of all meters in The City from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. However, the feasibility study just released by the MTA proposes different hours for different parts of The City, depending on factors like scarcity of spaces. For example, on weekdays North Beach and Union Square would be metered until midnight, but there would be no change in the Bayview. This targeted proposal is expected to bring in about $6 million dollars this year. (.pdf of feasibility report here Download SFMTAExtendedParkingMeterHoursStudy10-13-09 .)

There will be an informational hearing before the MTA board on Oct. 20, but no actual vote on the parking meter proposal has been scheduled yet.

According to MTA spokesman Judson True, it is up to the MTA board to decide whether and how to alter The City’s parking meter systems. Note that members of the MTA board are all appointed by the mayor, who has made it clear that he opposes additional meter hours.

Ultimately, either the hours of some metered parking spaces will be extended to include nights and weekends, or $1 million needs to come from somewhere to make up for the assumed revenue in this year’s MTA budget.

Anyone got a "parking angel"? We need all the help we can get. 

OTHER GREAT COVERAGE OF THE PARKING METER ISSUE:

Joe Eskenazi at SFWeekly has great coverage here, here and here.

SF.Streetsblog is doing some excellent work on this issue, including coverage of Newsom talking trash about  bloggers who are covering this  story.

The full deal negotiated in May of this year:

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]

Newsom really frakked this up. It just goes to show when you negotiate with him you can't trust him.

The extended parking meter hours will not harm businesses - it will help them because it will keep people from hogging free parking for their cars and blocking those that might want to pick up something at the store. Plus, transit riders took some pretty nasty cuts thanks to the Democrats in Sacto+Arnie arbitrarily raiding the state's transit assistance fund (since ruled illegal dealing a blow to shaky budget practices in Sacto), but people driving cars continue to get their mode subsidized by the City. That's just unfair.

(Said as someone who used to drive all the time and paid a fortune in parking tickets to DPT)

[Randy]

Here's a novel idea: Quit letting the "disabled" park for free at meters all day. We all see the cheaters, parking their expensive cars / SUVs and dashing off to run errands, hit the gym or spend the day at work. It's a scam, and our elected officials refuse to address it. The fake disabled are parasites who hurt business by taking metered spaces from potential customers and cheat municipalities by not paying their share.

[Melissa Griffin]

@Randy - I heard that Oakland is cracking down on placard abuse as part of an effort to raise more city revenue.

[DJTennessee]

Elvis wore a sombrero?

[Melissa Griffin]

@DJT - Not sure if Elvis wore one. But Stacks certainly did.