Supervisor David Campos at a recent gathering outside City Hall.

Campos has inserted himself into the debate by leading the charge on a charter amendment to change how the MTA Board is appointed. He has also requested an audit of the MTA's management practices. Results should be ready in time to inform the supervisors' vote in May on the MTA's budget for the next two years.

On the unplanned side, Campos will be leading the confirmation process for two MTA Board members this month. He's the chair of the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee, the first stop for Mayor Newsom's MTA Board nominations before they reach the full Board of Supervisors.

There's uncertainty on all three fronts at the moment. Details of the audit and the charter amendment measure are still being hammered out, and Mayor Newsom hasn't said whom he'll appoint to fill two MTA Board seats that will open on March 1.

After a press event for the Central Subway yesterday, the Mayor said he's still figuring out his appointments to many of the city's commissions, including the MTA. "I have about 45 appointments that we'll be making in the next few weeks," he said.

With any shot at broader reforms still half a year away, Campos said the Board of Supervisors will be making the most of its confirmation power over mayoral appointees to the MTA Board. "If we put a measure on the ballot, it wouldn't go on the ballot until November," he said. "In the meantime, we want to make sure that, within the current governing structure, Muni is in the best hands possible."

Like many of his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, Campos said the keyword for directors is independence.

"What I look for is someone who is truly independent of not just the Mayor but also the Board, and who's going to ask the right questions, who's going to be engaged, who understands what it's like to ride Muni, who is responsive to the needs of the ridership, who holds Muni accountable. That kind of independence, in my humble opinion, has not been demonstrated by some members of this MTA Board."

Audit Could Shape Budget Decisions and Charter Amendment Measure

Despite a tight timeline, Campos is adamant that the audit will help inform both the supervisors' MTA budget decisions in early May and the charter amendment proposal. The picture is already looking grim, with deficits of about $50 million for each of the next two fiscal years

"It would really address a larger question that is in the minds of everyone who rides Muni: Is Muni being run properly? It would look at basic best practices around management. It's not just mid-level management or upper-level management, it's management, period."

That could include any level of management, from Executive Director Nat Ford to line supervisors, Campos said. In addition to making sure operations are run in a way that makes sense, the audit will look at how the MTA spends its money, and will almost certainly look at work orders from other city departments.

On the governance side, Campos' charter amendment proposal would include splitting appointments to the MTA Board between the Mayor and the supervisors, something Supervisor John Avalos had proposed last year. The Mayor currently appoints all seven Board members, who are confirmed by a majority vote of the supervisors.

"I think there has to be some form of a split appointment between the Mayor and the Board," said Campos. "Then we need to look at other things to consider. There are some agencies, like the Department of Elections commission, that are appointed by other city officials. There are a number of possibilities. So, I don't want to say that we're looking at one over the other."

Campos has ruled out the prospect of having a voter-elected MTA Board member.

"I think that makes it a political fight that is predicated on who runs the most effective campaign," he said. "Money could be a big part of that. We ultimately want something that's going to provide accountability and transparency for the ridership."

In addition to studying the city's other commissions, Campos said he would draw on the results of the audit in shaping his governance reform proposal. "Any time you look a management audit, you look at the oversight that's provided - or not provided, for that matter."

Initial reports on the ballot measure focused on the call for split MTA Board appointments, but Campos said the measure would include structural reforms as well. "By that I mean rules that govern the day-to-day structure and the operations of Muni in such a way that they're counterproductive," he said.

"I don't know that simply changing the governance structure will get you to the result you want, which is having the most effective public transportation system in the country. I think the governance structure is part of it, but not the only thing."

Once again, the results of the audit could play a key role in shaping that proposal. The city's transit advocates no doubt will wish to have a voice as well. Campos said he's listening. "I don't want it to be something that just comes out of the Board of Supervisors. I think it has to be a grassroots effort."

From left: MTA Board Vice Chairman Rev. Dr. James McCray, Jr., Chairman Tom Nolan and Director Shirley Breyer Black. Photo: Michael Rhodes

With the MTA facing massive budget shortfalls in the coming years on top of a mid-year budget crisis, a progressive majority controlling the Board of Supervisors, and a Mayor in his final two years in office, transit advocates and many supervisors are looking for appointees who will be independent-minded and engaged members of the MTA Board.

"In general, I think that the MTA commission has not been examining all options available to the MTA in the context of our budget crisis," said Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. "I think it's fair to say a majority of the Board of Supervisors believes we need commissioners who are independent enough to consider all options on the table."

For her part, Black is happy to continue serving, but hasn't heard what the Mayor is planning. "No one has told me anything," she said last week.

That may in part be because the Mayor is waiting to hear from the City Attorney's office on whether Black and McCray are eligible to serve additional terms. Proposition E, which created the MTA in 1999, set director term limits at three, but it's not clear whether Black and McCray's first terms counted, since both were shorter than the regular four years. Black was a member of the original MTA Board, which had staggered term lengths. Her first term, beginning in March 2000, was only two years long. McCray's first term, which began in 2002, was barely a month long, since he filled in the end of another director's term.

"Those are pending determinations made by the City Attorney's office that will be part of the Mayor's review of many upcoming Commission appointments," wrote mayoral spokesperson Tony Winnicker in an email.

"The Mayor is reviewing but has not yet made a decision on several dozen appointments to Boards and Commissions coming up soon, including these two important MTA appointments," said Winnicker.

Note: In several cases, directors were appointed to serve out the end of another director's term. Those terms weren't included in the counts above if they were less than a year. The City Attorney's office has not yet said whether those terms count towards the three-term limit. Graphic: Sean Reynolds

The Mayor's Transportation Agency

Though the MTA Board is ostensibly independent, in practice it answers first and foremost to the Mayor. Under the City Charter, the Mayor has authority over all MTA Board appointments, but supervisors can reject those picks by a majority vote - a lever of influence over the agency they've only exercised once.

This time around, the prospect of deep Muni service cuts and fare hikes has left the supervisors searching for options to wrangle more control over the MTA's policies.

Supervisor David Campos has proposed a ballot measure that would give the supervisors power to nominate three of the MTA Board's seven members. Campos has also requested an audit of the agency's management, and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has vowed to use his new position as chair of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to sway Muni by attaching more conditions to money it transfers to the MTA.

But the director appointment process could provide the supervisors with a more immediate opportunity to show constituents they're not taking devastating Muni cuts sitting down.

"I'll keep an open mind in terms of the reappointment of them," said Mirkarimi. "But I believe we need MTA commissioners that are not just parroting what Mayor Newsom wants, but what's best for the MTA."

Grading the Directors

Transit advocates generally gave Black and McCray - who served as Board chairman from 2006 until last February - middling grades as directors. Black, a former SEIU president, "has been a solid pro-labor vote, but I don't really feel like she's engaged much on the budget or Transit First," said Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City and a BART director who is often the lone dissenting voice on that board.

Jason Henderson, a geography professor at San Francisco State University, had a similar take. "They don't really seem to be pursuing the mandate to aggressively pursue creative and innovative ways to finance Muni."

Henderson, Radulovich and other transit advocates noted that criticism is applicable to most of the MTA Board and hardly limited to Black and McCray. "I always look at all of them and think, 'You could be a bit more proactive,'" said Radulovich.

But could the upcoming appointment process be an opportunity to push for directors who are more independent and advocate aggressively for transit?

Dan Murphy, head of the MTA's Citizens Advisory Council, declined to evaluate Black and McCray, but said the Board of Supervisors and advocates should closely scrutinize all MTA Board nominees.

Several transit advocates said they see the nomination process as an opportunity, but one that may only have a positive outcome if the Mayor is willing to try something bold. "Does the Mayor really want engaged, independent minds on that board?" asked Radulovich. "The answer from the evidence is no."

Still, Radulovich and Henderson both hoped the current crisis would propel the Mayor to consider candidates who are on the ball and engaged. "The calculus is different," said Henderson. "I actually think Newsom is capable of appointing some more outside-of-the-box people as a gesture, knowing with a wink and a nod that they're not going to get very far."

"To be bold like that would be great, especially as he's exiting out of office," said Mirkarimi. "It would really be inspired if he showed he's making those less partisan decisions and being more visionary and innovative, working with people he may not necessarily agree with and looking toward the future."

An 'Independent' Board

As the nominations from the Mayor loom, independence has been a key concern for advocates and the Board of Supervisors.

"Certainly, in recent months there have been many questions raised about the role of the MTA commission in independently reviewing the critical policy decisions," said Chiu.

"They have to reflect independence and critical thinking, and that might mean departing from those who you've benefited from," said Mirkarimi. Supervisor John Avalos called independence "a key litmus test."

By most measures, none of the current directors would pass that test. Over the past five years, 94 percent of the votes the MTA Board has taken have been unanimous. By a rough count, only 35 of those 582 votes had dissenting directors, and directors almost always approved MTA staff proposals - many of which are vetted by the Mayor before reaching the Board. That tally only counts procedural calendar items as one vote total per meeting, though, of course, many of the items the Board votes on are not controversial, even among transit advocates. The more telling fact may be that the Board virtually never votes against the privately expressed wishes of the Mayor.

McCray has actually shown more independence than many of the directors, finding himself in the minority on 3.6 percent of votes taken in the past five years. Black has been in the minority just nine times in that period, concurring with the majority on 98.5 percent of votes, with many of her dissents coming on labor issues.

By a great margin, all of the MTA directors vote according to the Mayor's wishes, especially on the most important matters, calling into question the notion of the Board's independence. The great exception to that rule was the Mayor's appointment of SFBC Executive Director Leah Shahum in 2006. But when the Mayor was reelected in 2008 and asked all commissioners to hand in their resignations, Shahum's was among the three on the MTA Board he accepted.

A Greater Say for the Supervisors and Voters? 

While the CAC's Murphy thinks the need for independence is all the more reason for the supervisors to look closely at nominees, he's leery of proposals to give the supervisors control over three Board members - or to let voters elect some of the members.

"I am really skeptical of the idea, 'if we just figure the process for selecting the Board in just the right way, somehow we're going to end up with good policy,'" said Murphy, citing elected transit boards for BART, AC Transit, and the Denver Regional Transit District that he said are deeply dysfunctional. "The answer is to elect a Mayor who's committed to transit and who will appoint transit advocates to the Board."

Murphy also thinks the MTA Board has shown more willingness to make tough decisions - for better and worse - than the supervisors would be. "I think it's absolutely insane" to consider changing the nomination process, said Murphy. "What we have seen so far is elected officials have been much more reluctant to raise parking prices than the MTA Board has."

Even if the Mayor does nominate independent-minded transit advocates to the Board, he'll still have a five-to-two majority, assuming his other appointees remain loyal. (There is some evidence Director Bruce Oka may be asserting his own independence in light of the current budget crisis.) With increasing pressure to show he's working to save Muni, and just two years left in office, the Mayor may not have that much to lose by appointing a visionary director.

"My expectations are low," said Radulovich. "But sometimes, if your expectations are low, you'll be pleasantly surprised."

While expectations may be low, the stakes are higher than ever.

"In many ways, who's in charge is [MTA Executive Director Nat Ford, a mayoral appointee] and senior staff," said Mirkarimi. "But the MTA commissioners are in an important position, and not one to be squandered."

Campos' call for an audit came during a special hearing before a Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee on the Muni budget situation. After the supervisors questioned MTA spokesperson Judson True on the layoffs, most of which are effective Friday, Campos said he wasn't certain the MTA had fully considered concerns brought up by representatives of SEIU, the union hit hardest by the cuts.

"What troubles me about where we are with respect to what SEIU has proposed is that, with all due respect, I'm not fully convinced that enough consideration was given to many of these points before you came to the MTA Board or to this Board to talk about some of the very drastic things that we're talking about," Campos told True.

In a press conference before the hearing and during the hearing's public comment period, members of SEIU questioned whether laying off parking control officers (PCOs) was economical, and expressed concerns about public health impacts that could result from laying off 10 car cleaners. During the meeting, Supervisor Chris Daly screened a video of the insides of Muni buses covered in graffiti and strewn with vomit and needles to emphasize the importance of the car cleaners' work.

SEIU organizer Robert Haaland pointed to the MTA's plan to spend $6 million on budget consultants as an example of the agency's mismanagement. "Last month at the Civil Service Commission, MTA asked for $6 million to hire a firm to help them with budgeting," Haaland told the supervisors. "[If the MTA] can't plan their own budget, maybe we should be laying off managers who do the planning around the budget and just hire this other firm."

As the MTA has previously maintained, True said the agency had actually seen a decline in parking citation revenue even as more PCOs were hired in recent years, prompting the agency to cut 24 positions and bank on higher citation rates from the remaining PCOs. The agency recently implemented a 30-day moratorium on the PCO layoffs to take a harder look at PCO deployment strategies.

Not fully satisfied with the MTA's responses, Campos asked the Board of Supervisors' budget analyst, Harvey Rose, when the MTA had last been audited. Aside from a Proof of Payment audit requested by Supervisor Bevan Dufty last year, Rose said the MTA had never been audited. The last comprehensive audit of Muni was in 1996, before the MTA existed.

Supervisor Chris Daly. Photo: Michael Rhodes

Such an audit would likely focus on staffing issues. "That not only deals with overtime but also the appropriate level of staffing in terms of layoffs, in terms of who you want to layoff," said Campos. "Is it appropriate to focus on front line workers being laid off, what about the level of management staffing?"

"If we're laying-off PCOs that actually lead to less revenue coming into the system, that's not a good thing. ... If we're laying off people who keep the buses clean, and our buses are in the condition that some claim they are, ridership is going to go down. You already have riders who are paying a lot more and if we're laying off people who maintain the buses, that ridership could potentially go down, which could only exacerbate the problem."

With Muni facing its second budget crisis in one year, and future budget shortfalls a near certainty, the Board of Supervisors is struggling to exert influence on an agency almost entirely controlled by the Mayor, who appoints the MTA's entire Board. (The supervisors do vote on the agency's two-year budgets as well as fare increases, but not on mid-year budget measures.) Campos is also working on a ballot proposal to give the Board of Supervisors control over three of the seven MTA Board seats.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi suggested that the MTA might exercise some influence via its control of the San Francisco Country Transportation Authority. "There needs to be larger reforms on the MTA," Mirkarimi said at the press conference this morning. "I hope that the Transportation Authority here in San Francisco, which is influenced by the Board of Supervisors, makes those reforms happen to the best of our ability."

Along with many of the supervisors, Mirkarimi said he doesn't like the direction the budget is headed. "I share in the solidarity of saying that we will not tolerate these unfair and not sensible cuts the MTA is proposing."

Of course, if the supervisors do find a way to influence Muni's budget, they'll have to decide what alternatives they'd prefer for balancing it. Supervisor Daly called on the MTA to take a look at a "more progressive parking tax in San Francisco," while Board President David Chiu said he doesn't care how the budget is balanced, as long as it doesn't involve further service cuts and fare increases. "I know that there were a lot of proposals in a lot of different areas, and I am probably agnostic on everything outside of service cuts and fare increases," said Chiu. "As far as I'm concerned, everything else is on the table and should be looked at pretty closely."

By a unanimous vote, the Board indicated its support for the ordinance, though the supervisors reasons differed. The vote only authorizes creating a parking plan for Golden Gate Park, not its implementation, which the MTA will need to seek later.

The Recreation and Park Department, the MTA, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, and Supervisors John Avalos and David Campos have expressed strong support for the measure in the past, since it will generate funds for the MTA and the Rec and Park Department, and is consistent with the city's Transit First policy.

After yesterday's vote, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said he still has "major reservations" about installing meters in Golden Gate Park, including the meters' aesthetic impact on the park. Elsbernd also expressed concern about whether the meters would "create residual parking problems" in surrounding neighborhoods, such as the Inner Sunset, the Richmond, and Haight-Ashbury.

Elsbernd said he also worried that charging for parking could drive park users away. "We want to encourage people to go to parks, we don't want to discourage," said Elsbernd. "I wonder if meters are going to do that."

Supervisor Carmen Chu, who represents the Sunset, also was concerned about parking spillover. Asked whether she could potentially support installing meters, Chu said, "to me there's still a lot of unknowns about what that would look like, what the meters would look like, what the rates would look like, how are we going to deal with disability issues, and also what the surrounding impact on the communities would be. So these would all be the things that I would take a look at when we have the report."

Chu did acknowledge that "there are some individuals who are unfortunately taking advantage of the park," and said the city "should think about what things we can do, what strategies when can do to address that issue."

She remained concerned about neighborhood impact regardless, however. "Whether it is a parker who is parking all day or a parker who is parking there for an hour," said Chu, "the impact of having parking meters installed inside the park will be that there will be an impact on the neighboring community."

Supervisor Eric Mar, while also sensitive to neighborhood concerns with parking spillover, called installing parking meters "a good way to insure that we have more promotion of the Transit First policy for the city," and said he's "open to parking meters in the park."

"I know that the pushback will come heavily in districts like mine, the Richmond District, and the Sunset, and a little bit in parts of District Five, so I'm going to be listening to residents, and trying to minimize the harm to the neighborhoods," said Mar. "But I think that in general, parking in a reasonable part of the park will insure that we have more public transit use. But I don't want to see kind of ugly meters in the park that destroy the environment for people too."

To limit the visual impact, the MTA has said it will use meters that cover 10-15 spaces each, with about 130 meters total.

The Board also gave final approval to putting the Safe Streets and Road Repair General Obligation Bond on the ballot for November. As we've written before, the bond measure would direct $368 million towards rehabilitating the city's aging streets and sidewalks, and would pay for streetscape enhancements, including enhancements to sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure. If voters support the measure in November, funding would be distributed over the next five years, with each issuance requiring Board of Supervisors approval.

Drivers often take advantage of Golden Gate Park's free on-street parking. Flickr photo: morganthemoth

The first is a measure to begin charging for on-street parking in the eastern half of Golden Gate Park, where many of the park's most popular attractions are located. The plan will turn over responsibility for on-street parking in Golden Gate Park from the Recreation and Park Department to the MTA, which will install meters and charge for some street parking in the park for the first time.

The Rec and Park department, the MTA, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, and Supervisors John Avalos and David Campos expressed support for the measure on public policy grounds, since charging for parking may lead to reduced driving and increased walking and biking in the park, and is consistent with the city's transit first policy.

Given the impact on transit riders of recent Muni fair hikes, Campos said drivers should "share the pain" of balancing the budget.

The meters will be a financial boon for the MTA and the park department, with the MTA collecting citation revenue and the park department collecting meter fare revenue. Once the meters are installed, as early as next April, they're projected to bring in $500,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30 and $1.4 million in the second year for the park department. The MTA will bring in a net profit of about $379,000 per year.

The area affected is bounded by Stanyan Street, Crossover Drive, Lincoln Way, and Fulton Street, and includes just over 1,800 spots. To limit the visual impact of the new meters, the MTA will use meters that cover 10-15 spaces each, with about 130 meters total.

The mayor has expressed more qualified support, reversing his previous opposition to charging for parking in Golden Gate Park only recently, in light of the budget crisis. Supervisor Carmen Chu, who supported the measure, also expressed reservations, especially regarding parking pricing, and the installation of the meters.

The parking measure ultimately gained the support of the full committee, and appears to have most of the full Board of Supervisors' support, and the support of the mayor.

The second proposal, which Streetsblog San Francisco wrote about last month, is a $368 million bond measure to create a one-time fund to pay for streetscape enhancements, including enhancements to sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure. This measure also had the strong support of the full committee, and Supervisor Avalos was confident it would pass next week at the full Board of Supervisors meeting. If it does pass, it will go before voters in November, and funding would be distributed over the next five years, with each issuance requiring Board of Supervisors approval.

Next of up for both measures: Board of Supervisors meeting, Tuesday, July 14, San Francisco City Hall, Room 250.

BOS Prez David Chiu, who voted not to reject: "It is time for us to move forward." Photo by Bryan Goebel.

Transit advocates, frustrated over the decision, said they are planning to rally behind Avalos' proposed charter amendment to reform the MTA Board, which is appointed by the Mayor. They felt a rejection of the budget was the only way to force a better plan, which they say is unfairly balanced, with riders taking a bigger hit than drivers. 

But Chiu, who pointed out that he rides Muni more than any other supervisor and is the only member of the Board who doesn't own a car, said "we have come quite a ways" since the first MTA budget was proposed. He said the upcoming debate over the city budget is going to "make this debate look like child's play."

"In fact, as I've done the math, we've come about 30 million dollars from where the original budget was," said Chiu, who proposed the original rejection motion. "It is time for us to move forward."

Chiu's office said the $30 million he was referring to is a $15 million reduction in work orders, the $10.3 million worked out in a compromise, and $5 million in anticipated parking revenues, assuming the MTA moves forward with stronger parking enforcement. 

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, in an interview after the vote, said he believed it was still possible to get the MTA to make more concessions because "a strong message has been sent," but said he is going to back Avalos' charter amendment, which could appear before voters as soon as November, assuming there are six votes on the Board to place it on the ballot. The amendment would see three members of the MTA Board appointed by the Board of Supervisors, three by the Mayor and one elected.

Supervisor David Campos, who criticized the MTA and its Chief Nat Ford for not following through on any of the recommendations in the proposed "Transit Justice Package," called today's vote a loss for Muni riders.

"I think while this budget is better than the original budget it is one that can be much better and I'm disappointed in the Board of Supervisors for not pushing the envelope to push Muni to do the right thing," he said, adding that he feels the one good thing that came out of the process was Avalos' proposed charter amendment.

"I don't think this would have happened if we had a truly independent MTA Board that deliberated without any political pressure, so it points for the need to move forward on that as quick as we can."

Ford pledged during testimony before the Board that the MTA would not make any further service cuts or fare increases other than what's been proposed. He said he would need 90 days to study the possibility of beefing up parking enforcement on Sundays and evenings before taking a plan to the MTA Board.

Asked by Streetsblog whether putting parking enforcement back on the table was a real possibility considering opposition from the Mayor (even if a study were to favor it), Ford responded: "I think that's premature at this point to assume that. I think, if we have a reasonable plan that takes into account all the impacts, I have found with the Mayor as well as the Board of Supervisors that they've been supportive of some of those suggestions we've made and in this case we need a little bit of time."

Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City, said today's decision continues to raise questions in his mind about whether the MTA, as it exists, is really working.

"They're not delivering any of the service they've promised to, in terms of on-time performance. There's a provision of the charter which says the MTA Board shall deligently seek new revenue sources, not just fare increases, but new revenue sources to support Muni operations. We've not seen them act very deligently in the 10 year history of the MTA. They've been pretty chicken and more often than not have gone to the riders."

Supervisor John Avalos at Transit Justice rally. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

Supervisor John Avalos, leading the charge for a Muni budget that is more equitably balanced between drivers and transit riders, was joined Monday by a broad coalition of advocates, including groups representing seniors and youth, in a rally designed to pressure the MTA into restoring about $15 million in revenue measures carved out of the original plan. It preceded a march to the MTA where Avalos and advocates demanded and got a meeting with MTA Chief Nat Ford (hear the audio below) on the eve of a Board of Supervisors meeting to consider another rejection motion.

It remained uncertain, though, whether Avalos had the seven required votes to reject the MTA's budget, and advocates were urging citizens to put the heat on Board President David Chiu and Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, considered a swing, by calling and emailing them.

Avalos spoke to a large crowd on the steps of City Hall, calling for a balanced Muni budget that doesn't fall on the backs of riders: "When it's budget season we don't come with our hat in our hand but our fists raised to win a better budget."

Also in attendance were Supervisors David Campos and Ross Mirkarimi, both of whom voted last week with Avalos on the Budget and Finance Committee to reject the MTA budget a second time, a move all three hoped would get the MTA to budge.

"In a city like ours that professes to be green, well, almost green, and professes to be aggressive in tackling global warming, this could be one of the most counter intuitive actions we could take in terms of trying to get people out of their cars and riding Muni," Mirkarimi said of the current MTA budget.

Campos said the "Transit Justice Package" proposed by Avalos represents an effort on the part of the progressive members of the Board to work with the MTA.

"I think that anyone who cares about making the city true to the principal of Transit First would jump at the opportunity of supporting something that simply gives 15 million dollars back to the system. That is not a radical proposal at all," said Campos. "It recognizes that we should not be balancing the MTA's budget on the backs of the poor."

Avalos proposed the changes to the MTA budget following a series of meetings with transit advocates. The package calls for reducing fare increases from $2.00 to $1.75 (or delaying the hike until January instead of July) and reducing the Lifeline Pass for low-income riders from the current $35 to $20. It also puts Sunday and evening downtown parking enforcement back on the table. Critics had charged the budget unfairly forces Muni riders to shoulder more than drivers by a 4-to-1 ratio. See the complete list of proposed changes here (PDF).

Avalos' plan would also hold the rate for a Fast Pass at $55. Addressing a question from a reporter about whether a Fast Pass hike is fair considering transit riders in some other major cities are paying far more, Avalos said: "I think we have different ways of doing things in San Francisco and I think it's worthy to consider that we would have the most economical and equitable type of Fast Pass in the country. And given that we are a Transit First city it would be a Transit First policy to have a very affordable Fast Pass."

Supervisor David Campos addresses the rally.

"We as a city have twice in the past ten years written into our city charter, which is the constitution of San Francisco, that San Franciscans have a right to a transit system which is safe, which is reliable, which serves every neighborhood and which they can afford," he said. "The current budget that we have from MTA does not do that."

Rev. Arnold Townsend of the Western Addition Citizens Advisory Commission said the issue of a fair Muni budget shouldn't have any type of political label on it.

"This is not a progressive issue and it shouldn't be a regressive issue," he said. "It's an issue dealing with the question of need and the most illogical thing I can think of is raising the fares for seniors and young people, students."

Avalos has also proposed a charter amendment that would reform the MTA Board of Directors, calling for three of them to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, three by the Mayor and one by a government body yet to be determined, or elected. All seven members are currently appointed by the Mayor, who advocates complain wields too much control over the agency, and has hamstrung it in many ways. Avalos plans to introduce the measure Tuesday, the last day supervisors can introduce measures for the November ballot.

"Ultimately, we need to have an independent MTA Board, one that doesn't cowtow to the Mayor, but is actually directly responsible to drivers, riders, people who care about pedestrian safety, and cyclists in San Francisco, to all of us," said Avalos.

Avalos and advocates meet with Nat Ford following rally.

After the rally at City Hall, Avalos lead a march to the MTA building at One South Van Ness Avenue where he and about thirty advocates met with Ford in a seventh floor conference room. In the 15-minute meeting Avalos laid out his demands. Hear the full audio here:

Avalos pressed Ford to make his proposed revenue changes in the budget by using his authority as executive director to rejigger 5 percent, or about $40 million. Ford responded that even though he has that discretion, he still has to consult with the MTA Board. He refused to make any changes or promises but said he is committed "to continue looking at options to reduce the impact of fares on these citizens."

Avalos' call for a new MTA budget comes after the Board of Supervisors earlier this month, in a 6-5 vote, agreed to table a rejection motion originally proposed by Chiu.  The District 3 supervisor led the original charge to reject the budget but rescinded the resolution after agreeing to last-minute negotiations with the Mayor via Supervisor Chu. The last-minute "compromise" happened after Chiu realized he couldn't secure Maxwell's vote despite an intense lobbying effort. The deal resulted in about $10.3 million in changes, including some yet-to-be announced service enhancements, which critics -- including Supervisors Avalos, Campos and Mirkimiri -- say still falls short.

Advocates spent the afternoon Monday lobbying Chiu to support a rejection, but it was unclear whether he was willing to change his position.

See more pictures on our Flickr page.  We'll be tweeting from today's Board of Supervisors meeting, which begins at 2 p.m.

Budget and Finance Committee file photo by Bryan Goebel

The 3-2 vote, with Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Carmen Chu dissenting, followed a lengthy discussion in which Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos and Ross Mirkirami argued that the MTA budget was still woefully unacceptable, with all agreeing the rejection motion was the only way to get the MTA to budge some more. A procedural move at the last meeting allowed members to consider the motion again.

"We were able to get to where we got to yesterday because we had a measure before us calling for the rejection of the MTA budget," said Avalos. "I do think that we live in a political world and need to have this rejection measure before us in order to be able build the kind of pressure we might need to get some more changes."

Avalos said if there was anything flawed about the process over the last week it was that supervisors weren't being specific enough about changes and ideas they wanted to see in the budget, instead only criticizing what they thought was wrong with it. 

"I think if we have a process where we can come to some agreements that are specific and take those to the MTA and the Mayor and use the next week to discuss that somewhat further, we might be able to make a few other changes that can alleviate perhaps fare increases [and] service cuts that are alarming.”

Dufty, however, warned that continuing the debate over the MTA budget would unravel the Board of Supervisor's ability to reach an agreement on the city's budget. He refused to call the result of Chiu's negotiations with the MTA and the Mayor's office a compromise, instead referring to it as "adjustments in the budget." 

“There is a lot of anger out here, but let’s be real about it. We can’t make everyone happy," he said. "There’s no way you can cobble together the discontent across this city with our budget, specifically about the Muni budget, which frankly is in better shape than the city budget is."

After the budget committee's vote, Chiu told Streetsblog San Francisco he doesn't "expect any movement on this. I mean, we voted on exactly the same item yesterday."

In an interview shortly before the vote, he said: “I think the agreement that was reached was the best possible deal we could have gotten given the enormous financial and budgetary constraints that we’re under right now. $10.3 million dollars for Muni riders, I think, is a really good thing.”

Rather than caving in to the Mayor's office, as some advocates have suggested, City Hall sources say Chiu failed to secure Supervisor Sophie Maxwell's vote on the rejection motion, despite an intense lobbying effort, and felt the 11th hour compromise was second best.

Mirkarimi told Streetsblog he understands the politics behind the move but added: “I think that when we look at the aggregate budget deficit before us I think it would be highly premature for us to close the case on the MTA.”

Campos agreed that given the harsh feedback he's hearing from his constituents he feels compelled to do everything he can to force more changes in the MTA budget.

“There are still a lot of outstanding issues and I think that the people of my district, that the people who ride Muni on a daily basis, expect us to do better and I think that we have an obligation to do our best.”

Under the city charter, the Board of Supes has the power to accept or reject the MTA budget, but not to make line item changes. The rejection motion is expected to be considered again at next Tuesday's meeting, which is also the first time the MTA Board will meet since it passed its $778 million budget.

Updated 10:50 a.m.