the original contract price. should they also call item 15 as well? >> i think you should. did >> an increase of 17% to the existing 10% for the construction contract pipeline and authorize the general manager to approve any accumulative contract associated with circumstances of to 27% of the original contract price. >> in the interest of time, i can take questions, or if you want me to summarize further, i can do that, too. >> i will second that. >> any questions or comments on this item? all those in favor? thank you.

next item, mr. secretary. >> the information you provided was helpful, and that is what makes it possible. >> the regional construction services to c.h.p. for additional services associated with restoration science within the sunol valley region and increasing the agreement for a total not to exceed $19 million, provided that expenditures shall be limited to pre-construction of a nativity until such time as the commission views and considers the final environmental documents and determines whether or not to

approve the proposed project subject to supervisors' approval. amendment no. 1 for the agreement for additional construction services associated with habitat restoration sites within the peninsula region to execute this amendment, increasing the agreement for a total of $26 million, provided expenditures should be limited until such time as the commission considers environmental documents and determines whether or not to approve the proposed project. items 16 and 17. >> public comment?

>> aye. >> so we return to item 14? >> the principal amount of $600 billion in bonds to fund water improvement programs and subject to the approval of the board of supervisors to authorize the delivery of related documents authorizing the general manager to sell bonds on competitive negotiated basis of the general manager determines the best interest, delegating to the general manager authorization to reward bonds to the highest manager and also authorizing the resolution to the board of supervisors, of addressing the issue cannot expand the principal amount, provided that

such bonds shall be subject to the terms and adopting findings for the quality act. also providing a 3% threshold. >> i am before you again as part of what we're doing for the water system improvement program. in your packet is a great deal of information. we have sold $2 billion in

loans. this would be doing another a up to $600 million in your packet. a continuation of existing strategies. we always try to go to market with the cheapest debt. the assets we are funding have 65 or 70 years. sometimes more. savings of 1% under our 5% planning.

the reason i should say we are timing this in december as opposed to january -- congress has not removed the 35% interest rate, so this would allow them to capture more savings, and that is significant for our customers. the saving is about $10 million. the overview financing authorities -- what is before you is consistent with ordinance 189. we will be going by to the board next week.

this outlines the projected program, 83 programto 85 cents for the project. the rest goes to cross -- costs such as construction that has been the case since the financial market melted in 2008. that is noted as a strength. your package was so large " because it contains these resolutions. the official notice of sale, the notice of intention of sale, a

custody agreement, and one more thing i want to make sure to talk to you about as well is that we have handed out an update of things that turn new information that we want to make sure we bring to you. what this does is of dates the official -- updates the official packet with the information she gave you. it also of its various tables for additional audits -- updates various tables for additional audit information. it includes a very wet october.

the city attorney's office has provided an update to the proposition, and lastly, we have updated some entitlement information, so everything we typically do and you delegate to the staff to make various updates as long as they are reviewed with the city attorney. and i will see if she has any other comments. >> i would like to point out there is a typo showing the resolution approved $500 million in bonds, whereas we are asking you to approve six. i want to make sure we got that on the record so it will be

corrected. good >> it is correct every place except page 3, line 10, where it is a five instead of a six. i am so sorry about that. >> questions. >> one other of state i would like to provide for you -- update i would like to provide for you is the last slide. there is not a market available right now. our credit rating is so high, it is higher than most bond insurers with the exception of one, and we have an equal raging. the only one that was not insured was warren buffett, and he is no longer writing

insurance on municipal bonds. because we are a strong rating, you do not need to buy additional ratings. they have chosen not to buy it either. we think there will be a normalization over the next couple years, so i want to make sure you are aware of that, and lastly, the private use. because we sell a portion of the water to california walker, we are always making sure we are selling a small amount of taxable commercial paper to make sure we provide regulation. we are really on track, and i think there are additional savings for rate-payers. >> thank you so much. >questions or comments devlin --

or comments? >> they have to buy everything or nothing. bring the checkbook. i would also like to acknowledge mark. he is the debt manager who does the heavy lifting. if i could have the public manager rise, too. >> thank you very much barry and -- very much. >> team effort. we really appreciate it. is there a motion? >> i think we have reached the circumstances were the documents way more than i do, and i need

to go on a diet, so i guess that is a commendation. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> where are we? >> we will now move into closed session. the first item will be if there is any public comment on closed session. >> any public comment on closed session? hearing none, we will move to a closed session. >> i will move. >> is there a second? >> if you would give me a moment, item 20 related to the chief of security concerning water and power, legal counsel,

existing litigation, court of appeals for the state of california first appellate california first appellate district, filed in january 29, >> i will move not to disclose. >> is there any additional new business experts -- new business? president vietor: i would like to take a short moment because the believe michael's mother passed. african have a few moments of silence on her behalf, i would appreciate it. -- if we can have a few moments

of silence on her behalf, i would appreciate it. please pass onto mr. carlin our sympathies and condolences. >> madame president, you may request a motion to adjourn if there is no other business. >> so moved. president vietor: meeting adjourned.

>> one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> please turn off any self funds or pagers you may have. they tend to interfere with the equipment in the room. president marshall: present. vice president mazzucco: present. commissioner dejesus: present. >> you have a quorum. also seated at the day's tonight is the chief of police and the director of the occ. president marshall: this is a regular meeting of the san francisco police commission for

october 20, 2010. i would say i want to be informed of the score, but i cannot really say that during a meeting. please call item one. >> item 1 is the approval of the consent calendar. this is a quarterly report by the police department and the office of citizen complaints regarding policy proposals, and also the office of citizen complaints third quarter statistical report. president marshall: are the questions on any items contained therein? commissioner kingsley: i had a couple of questions on the report by the director of the office of citizen complaints, please. there is an item on page 5, i believe.

there is an indication of 7% of cases having been -- the complaints have been sustained. i guess the question is what would you attribute that number two? if you could elaborate, help us understand a little bit more about that number. >> commissioner, the 7% number haps to do -- has to do with the number of sustained allegations in the third quarter overall for the nine month period. it is a partially a%. the historic average over 20 years, about 16 years of taking -- of keeping track of state allegations, is around 9%. commissioner kingsley: for

cities that are comparable to ours, that have similar programs, are other statistics comparable? >> i have attempted to get that information and have not been successful in receiving that from other jurisdictions. that is in terms of what they're sustained rate is. commissioner kingsley: thank you. the only other question is i noted that 44% of the cases were on neglect of duty for failure to collect traffic stop data. i was confused about that in connection with occ and what that meant. >> of what that means is that when the complaint is filed with the occ, the occ conduct a full investigation. and often the allegations arise

as a complaint from an individual who is dissatisfied with a traffic citation they may have received, or some other type of traffic stop. we call that an added an addition -- and added allegation -- an added allegation. we look at whether the officer has collected that data. >> it is peripheral data that is collected after somebody who has been stopped files a complaint? >> i am probably not explain it clearly. this is a requirement of officers. it is to determine whether or not there is a disproportionate number of stops against people of color. it falls into the investigation of racial profiling. so it is data collection that is required of officers when they

make traffic stops. they need to indicate the race of the individual and other factors as well. have i answered your question? commissioner kingsley: maybe we can talk separately on this. i do not want to take up commission time if everybody else is understanding this. i had understood it. it made sense that this was traffic stop data that would be required of a police officer on the data they picked up when they stop somebody. the confusion is how does it fit in with complaints that citizens would make when they are stopped. >> the way it fits in is when an investigator investigate a complaint, the investigator investigates the entirety of the action that occurred with the officer. so the investigator not only

investigates whether or not it was a valid stop, but also whether the things an officer is required to do pursuant to department bulletins, whether those things have been done as well. we would call those added allegations. if an officer failed to collect traffic stop data, that is not information to provide to the complainant. the complaint does not know one way or the other. we do advise the chief and the officer in the forms of a report. commissioner kingsley: very good. thank you very much. commissioner chan: i want to thank you for a well-written and thorough report. a lot of time was spent on it. i saw several times in the report the top four recommendations to enhance police response to mental health crisis calls. these are synched and clear recommendations. i want to let you know that at our retreat, commissioner

mazzucco and i will volunteered to take on the mental health reforms that are needed. >> think you very much. these are recommendations that the officers have made over the years. they have become more refined as time goes on. a lot of them arise from complaints that we have received and investigations we have made, and policy recommendations we have made as a result of the investigation of those complaints. commissioner chan: i can tell they are very well thought out. we look forward to working with the department to implement these recommendations. president marshall: commissioners, anything further? if not, can i get a motion for approval of the consent calendar? >> so moved. president marshall: public

comment on the approval of action items -- go ahead. >> i am the director of san francisco open government. having been elected to two terms on a neighborhood board in honolulu, i interacted with the police for their very frequently. i believe if i understand it correctly the answer to your question maybe if i am a police officer and i stop someone and subsequently set them for a traffic violation or arrest them, there is a clear connection between my stopping them and my reason for stopping them. however, if i simply stop a person and subsequently let them go on their way, there becomes some question as to whether or not i stopped them for a legitimate purpose or for some other illegitimate purpose. i believe police officers are required to collect a certain amount of data to show there is justification for the stop, even though there was no subsequent action on their part which would have been the normal proof of

justification. you know, the director is certainly willing -- able to correct me if i am incorrect in that. but that was the way they explained it to us in the honolulu police department. if i stop someone, i have to have a reason. and if i stop someone and do not subsequently set them for whatever purpose -- cite them for whatever purpose, but protection for myself and the city is to collect this data so that if somebody comes back later and looks at me as an individual officer or the department and say, "you are stopping people because of the racial profile," or some other thing, they know here are the people i stopped and here is their background and ethnic makeup. in honolulu, unfortunately, we did find some places where they collected the data and it was pretty clear the person had stopped people for reasons that were inappropriate, and in some

cases not allowed. president marshall: further public comment on this item? >> good evening, ladies and gentleman. -- gentlemen. we have had two officers commit suicide in the last three months. these are the rank and file. you know what i am talking about, and i should address to directly. the chief did not show up when an officer killed himself. we have had three in the last 18 months. mr. desk phone -- mr. gascone, show your rank. president marshall: any further public comment? i had a motion and i do not know if i had a second. any objections? without objection, so ordered.

thank you. lieutenant, we will move to item no. 2. >> members of the public may address the police commission for a time. determined by the chair not to exceed three minutes on matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission which do not appear on the agenda. president marshall: general public comment, please. >> reinhardt, director of san francisco open government. --ray hart, director of san francisco open government. i want to acknowledge that the agenda is good. all the members on which the matter of public -- all the matters on which members of the public may wish to comment on are arranged in front of the closed session and there will be no reason to deny their free- speech rights and their ability under the sunshine ordinance to participate in the session. i would like to comment on something that occurred last

week. during one of my comments, i paused. after a couple seconds, the presiding officer said, "we are not going to comment." i know that, because it says under police commission rules of order that during public comment commissioners are not to enter into debate with the speakers. however, i would remind you of the week prior, where i had some comments on the occ director's report. it was the statistical reports through [unintelligible] following my comments, the officer said, "we do not usually respond to this, but i want to do exactly that." he allowed the occ director to make some comments that refuted what i was trying to express. i had to wait until the pauling

week in general public comment to show the statistics and how i came up with them, and to clarify the fact that i believed what i had originally said was true, that in 2010 the cases that were resolved -- there was one sustained. there were a number of others, 53 -- 52 there were actually sustained that were filed in 2009, and we came to the same statistics -- 8.1%, which was the same the director had said for the 2010 year. but we are still stuck with the fact that less than one-third of 1% were actually sustained of complaints filed in 2010 and dissolved in 2010. what i am trying to say generally is that it seems convenient to say, "there are the rules. we do not respond."