where we have to have public comment? >> quickly, to give you an overview of the capital budget, you had already approved the 20-year capital plan, unconstrained. where we are for the next step forward is the five-year capital improvement program, constrained, meaning that we have to balance the programs that we put forthwith the revenues available. from that five-year picture, we get to our two year budget, which will come to you along with the operating budget in april. in terms of sources, this is where you will see the potential impact from the activity happening right now in washington, d.c., on us. we are fairly heavily reliant on federal formula funds, for example, for much of our transit capital improvements.

if that were to significantly change, some of those proposals seem to be leaning towards the back, moving forward to maintain what we have. you will see that there are a number of other local state and funding sources for the proposed city obligation bond. passed by the voters this past november, legislating a small portion of which, coming to the mta, the mta has not generally been a significant center -- player in the geobond table. the mta has been seen as independent in its need to generate its own capital improvement money. this idea actually came from the budget balancing panel.

that we should consider the voters at large as a possible avenue for capital revenue for program where we have a clear investment that we can articulate in terms of service improvement. we have built in an assumption of this and have not yet begun to take it through the city process to get it into the capital plan. it is an idea that is worth pursuing. we are putting it into the five- year plan. the other thing that you will see on the slide are the revenue bonds that you had previously approved. so that those lines make for new revenue items. new revenue items for our capital plan. moving to the next slide, we were kind of walking you through

a bill but a change. from projections that we previously showed you on a five- year side, showing kind of what it works out to on the to your side, -- two years side. things seem to get dwarfed by the central subway, but when you take it out, jumping to the next slide began point out the differences from what we had shared you previously. because of the way the regional formula funding works, we have quite a bit less dollars coming in. more than we had previously anticipated. we had been working at restructuring our plan and procurement so that we could

celebrate purchases. all to me, we will not be constrained by the amount of federal money flowing through the region. the other changes, the traffic signal line that has gone up in part because of the bond from last year, the other big changes are the inclusion of the $150 million proposed bond that we should be ready to implement upon the completion of the eir. it was the summer of 2013. so, those are the major changes. moving forward, we have developed capital investment in debts. -- index.

this is reflected in the unrestrained plan, showing the allocation of resources across the programs to bring ourselves fully into a state of good repair. so, the 20-year plan, because of the unconstrained numbers, they show what the allocation could be. but we have done now is overlay the five-year picture, so that you can see proportionally who the winners and losers are as we start to put the constraints of the reality of revenue on to the program. that is shown in slide 7. what you will see on the far right column, those items that have a negative are in parentheses and in red. the ones that have a lower percentage of the portfolio based on the revenue available,

more than what we think we actually need, based on the 20- year plan, it is based on the revenues available. they will do a little bit better as a percentage of total available and based on what the total needs are. it is important to note that we may end up with a higher percentage of the revenue coming in and what it needs as a result of the overall portfolio. as opposed to 21% of the overall capital need. we still will not have the revenues that we need in that one line item. this just shows the impact of putting our constraints and how it changes the distribution of the revenues that we would have to address, agency-wide, capital needs. you will see that the bottom-

line revenues are significantly last them of what our plan says that we need and what is happening in washington that can completely exacerbate those proposals to move forward. so, because we have greater needs and revenues to support them, slide in priorities. if that i believe were previously approved by the board. these are basically the filters to ultimately come up with a five-year and two-year capital plan is that we will be bringing to you for approval, so we are taking each one of the projects that are submitted, and each one of the program line items, running them through the filter, and through that process, we will prioritize to get down to a two-year budget and a five-year-

budget that is balanced, so slide 9 then shows the shortfall that we have to close in terms of the needs relative to the revenues. we have gone through one level of prioritization to get the $2.7 billion need down to just a little over $2 billion, but because we only have $1.98 billion in revenues, we still have some gap to close, off -- so we will continue to put projects on that screen that we can bring to you in april a balanced budget. we are also looking at existing projects that have balances, and considering whether or not we need to complete those projects or bring some of those balances forward to address some of these needs, and we are doing that

cleanup now, and we will be bringing to you a balanced capital budget proposal along with the operating budget in april. so that is our update on where we are with the operating and capital budgets with a lot coming in the next few months. chairman nolan: ms, members of the board, any comments? any members of the public? secretary boomer: david pilpell. >> there is a lot of information here, so let me be quick, and maybe i will ask a question at the end. these require a little more detailed explanation, at least to the public. the $2 million in management reductions, not clear what that is, the determination of the leases was not clear what and where the operating impacts

would be. i want to be clear, on page 11 of the operating hand out, that charging for transfers i think it's a bad idea. similarly, charging for the clipper, that is bad. there could be a discount for multiple rides on the clipper, similar to tokens, so if somebody wants to load $40 worth of cash, i would give them more than 20 rides so there is an incentive to use multiple rides using clipper, tokens, but i would not charge more overtly for a cash there unless we are increasing cash fares generally, and we have had some discussions about ratios between the cash fares and the ratios.

on slide 12, the automatic indexing, one of the boxes, the 13-dollar fare, i believe sometimes in the past we were told that it cannot exceed twice or anything else on the system, which is cable cars, and the staff may want to look at that. i look forward for more detail on the operating budget so i can comment more use only on that. if i can have a moment on the capital budget, it is only a few dollars billion. there are 16 program categories here, but this does not list specific projects, those things that are at or below the line and at risk of not being funded,

that when help understand how the prioritization plays out, and i have always believed that those projects that save operating and maintenance costs should be the highest priority, and those that expand the system or increase operating costs should be correspondingly a lower priority. it appears that that is calculated in here, and i certainly see director reiskin's philosophy about breaking down crotchets explained very well here, so i look forward to more detail, and a look forward to the budget deliberations before this board. chairman nolan: thank you. secretary boomer: mark grueber. >> mark grueber.

this was a date that we were told that we would have discussion of the tax proposals, which you may have an idea now that are very controversial, and i would really hate to see us stopped at the end of a long meeting, which will then be a very long meeting, and try to get your attention devoted to this other issue when you are probably at wit's end already. i would say to push this whole thing back to may. there is no need for you to be discussing these tax changes now. there is another round of the medallion sales that is just about to get underway, and that will be the thing that is going to provide your revenues going forward at this point, so give us the opportunity to have our issues discussed in an atmosphere where they may make a

difference. secondly, and this is totally unorthodox, and probably any political consultant will tell you it is a harebrained scheme beyond any possibility of passage, but i see you have five revenue solutions in terms of ballot measures, and my thought was, why not put all of these before the public at once and say, "take your choice"? it is very hard to get a tax measure passed, and if you say to the public, "we have to have a solution. you take your pick." and those that do not get enough votes fall by the wayside. only the one that got the highest number of votes would pass. they would be receptive to that. just an idea. chairman nolan: interesting thought.

there is a conversation going on around the budget proposal. it is one better than three or four, so interesting. mayor brown weighed in on this. anyone else on this one? secretary boomer: there is no one else. chairman nolan: an action item. how long do you anticipate the closed session? 10 minutes? we have a request for the break. secretary boomer: item number 12, a discussion and vote to go to closed session. chairman nolan: all in favor? all right, we will be back at 20 after.

secretary boomer: the directors went into closed session, and i never drove in the discussion to vote to disclose or not to disclose the closed session. chairman nolan: motion to disclose? not to disclose. secretary boomer: and as you noted, at today's meeting will be adjourned in honor of hannah. chairman nolan: ok. thank you.

>> can we please stand for the pledge of allegiance?

[pledge of allegiance] >> thank you. >> roll call, mr. president. [rollc all] -- [roll call] >> marshall is en route, he is a little bit delayed. >> [roll call continues] you have a quorum, mr. president. you also have the chief and the director of the occ. >> welcome to the february 22 to

san francisco police commission meeting. we have a pretty heavy agenda tonight and special items in addition to some closed session disciplinary matters and a lawsuit matter is that we will be dealing with towards the end of the calendar. without further ado, welcome. i see the sacred heart fighting irish sweatshirt. with that, we will move to line item #one. >> adoption of the minutes. >> we have minutes from the previous meetings. are there questions, reviews, revisions? >> i have to talk to the city attorney, but on the medical leave act, is an excuse? or was that eds and? >> i would be happy to look at the attendance policy. >> commissioner chan isn't here, she usually has corrections.

>> i would like to correct that, but only if i need to. >> thank you for putting the minutes together, i appreciate it. >> in light of the justifiable question, why don't we table it a week? >> we don't need to move to public comment, if we can call line item #2, public comment. >> the public now 10, and have three minutes to speak. the public is welcome to address the commission on items that do not appear on tonight's's agenda, but are within the subject matter of the commission. >> it is now public comment. >> hello, president mazzucco. [inaudible]

you claim you have no auth ority on the report, i don't believe it is so. you're able to issue a referral to the board of supervisors office seconding or not agreeing with the conclusion of the comptroller's report. you need to do something with the report you have had for 18 months and have done zilch on. i brought a list. 14 weeks ago, commissioner dejesus and city attorny miss porter were supposed to be delegated with the authority to deal with the situation in the

castro, where there are different beats operating illegally. as listed by lt. yick 8 months ago. they would figure out the ambiguities in the rules, but nothing has been done. people can follow the rules, they just change them. him the rules should be that you have to be breathing. i think they can follow that rule. they have to actually break the wills, they have broken the rules since then, and under what rules, if any, do they currently operate? that is my first question. let me look at my list here. last week, you had the "it gets better" video. i thought the video, all the of 20 years later, was excellent.

bullies should have been dealt with long ago, you did a great job on the video. there is a lot of other bullying that goes on the sides anti-gay bullying. there is anti republican bullying and anti conservative bullying that goes on. it is not just going on by individuals, it is going on by members of your own force and police patrol special. they break the rules on a regular basis. [chime] >> next speaker. go ahead. >> thanks, clyde. thank you for receiving me. i would like to begin by asking a question. is in a crime to give a police oic