each other and a lot of people, and there does not seem to be a clear direction on this. that continues to be my issue. >> the direction would be to come back with a revised budget proposal to fund free muni for all 5-17, showing the difference in the balance for today. >> i would say yess - it is not. it is a drop in the bucket in the budget. [applause] >> i am -- >> i guess the direction to the executive director is to come back at the next meeting, showing where the budget would

come. >> no. >> we don't have to do that. it is a drop in the bucket. >> i don't think i'm comfortable voting for a budget we have just taken $6.7 million out of. i don't think that is prudent or wise. i don't think i can do that. so, do i have any kind of member consent on asking the executive director to come back, showing us where the money would come out of the budget, to know what it is we are voting on? >> yes. i would like to know the increased operating costs. >> i don't know that he'll know. >> then you are walking in

blind. >> help me here. i don't think you know the direct hit on operational cost by the next meeting. you won't know until you have the pilot program. >> this is to the extent we can ballpark them. we are not accounting for them in the budget. >> you will not know more of that in the budget -- >> what i would solve for is the $6.70 million. >> this is what i interpreted. the only thing that you can tell is where you really modified to extract to meet the budget target for all of this. >> this is correct. >> and we can look at the proposals, side by side?

>> the biggest source of lifeline funding is the capital funding, to reduce the budget revenues by $6.70 million. this would be one approach. we cannot pull this out of work orders right now. >> there is another source. >> the direction of the board is to continue 14, 15, and 16 to the april 27 board meeting. because heineke said they could provide additional discussion with regard to the other options in the budget, should they so desire to discuss those items to provide any other directions, when he returns he has the full impact of the

board, and he knows the wishes of the board with regard to the other aspects of the budget. >> these two items, we have had discussion and they are closed and they are being continued for the further vote. >> we have had public comment on 15, the we have not had the board discussion. could we go ahead and have a discussion -- >> there is an interest on the part of the community, with the speed of our decision. we will get some additional information, analyzing the budget impact in what you do to accommodate the full muni use. at that point, we can vote on everything. we've had public comment and discussion on 14. is this how it is playing out,

roberta? >> julia? >> if you -- if you undrtaertake this dicussion, we have yet to see 16. you could see the vote and take public comment, and there would not be a lot to do in the next meeting. >> i think we should have the board discussion on 15. we will have that discussion. >> item 14, just for the youth -- item 14 is continued to april 17. the board's consideration, pending further discussion -- with regard to how he would resolve the budget issue. so the board will continue and

discuss among themselves item 15, with other thoughts and discussions. and when they return on april 17, they will have the input on the other items. >> and may we have two budgets. >> he will bring a revised budget with the options for the board's consideration. >> you already have this one. you have the alternative for the budget. the balancing items will address the remaining -- >> we cannot vote on the budget

unless we see where the $6.7 million is coming from. >> let's move on to the dicussion on -- discussion on item 15. i know this was a long and arduous day for you. it was confusing for all of you and for all of us. thank you. >> so on item 15, i have a set of questions. >> yes, director. >> so -- one of the items we are funding and impoising on the citizens at a high level, are the stae -- state court fees to motorists with increased parking citations. and -- i realize the hour is

late, but i want t oaso ask thi. the state is using this for courthouse construction? >> i do not have the specifics. one of them is the courthouse construction. >> for the state courthouse construction, the trial court house construction fund. these different kinds of courts. >> we are asking people to get parking tickets to pay to the state for courthouse construction. >> the state legislature. >> i guess my first question, and we can answer this later, is san francisco even getting back the money? are we increasing parking citation costs to find the

courthouses in other counties. i would like to know the answer. i suspect we get a higher rate of parking citations with the level of parking citations than we do spending on the to courthouses. this is something we need to do as we educate the citizens into why we are doing this and why this is unfair that this is being imposed on us. >> i do know that the administrative office of the court has undertaken a master planning process, and though there is nothing in the near term that is here, because many parts of the court system here are relatively new, the criminal courts operate out of 850 bryant, at a building past the end of its life. part o fthf the capital plan anticipates moving the functions

out, part of that would require the courthouse to move out. when the courts build new criminal courts, that would be replacement money in san francisco. there were some discussions trying to get them to advance their time line, in the next 10 years. >> i am not suggesting that san francisco is getting no money. basically we implement a couple of increases for the state mandate, with information on whether or not we are getting back our money, were paying an unfair share to other counties. this would be an important piece of information. the other question is, if we have taken any formal actions to ask the state to stop doing this and just passing on the budget

issues to the drivers, and is this feasible to implement the recommendations that this be broken out as a state tax, as it would be a sales tax if we were purchasing something from a store. >> we will have a separate, line-item number. >> you can see from the direction of my question that i am troubled by this because every time that this is passed on -- i worry that there has not been the appropriate response from the city and county of san francisco. the drivers and the newspaper editorial board are angry at us when we pass the indexing policy to prevent excessive parking citation increases and now that policy is being undermined by the fact that the state is imposing mandates on us. i want to understand if this is

unfair to the county and what we can do to stop this in the future and at least educate people so that they know why parking citations go up. and we are abiding by the indexing policy that was put into place. my next set of questions on sunday enforcement. this is noon-6 only, and you would get this in blocks of time. there was comment about someone stuffing a meter every 30 minutes. the proposal would be for larger blocks of time. the notion of somebody being tapped on the shoulder, and whoever's building that this is -- this is not going to be a problem on the sunday parking? we do this in congested areas where this is already at 85%

capacity to begin with. this is not a situation where there will be no turnover. by definition, this is a place with turnover problems. >> we propose to implement this on all meters, because all meters are at this level. >> i saw all of the neighborhood studies. i had urged on that, that we do a pilot with the district -- and this is something where we have to be very cognizant of the business communities. noon-6:00 only is directed towards that. i would still like that and i understand -- when you sit in this chair you do not always get

what you want. i very much appreciated him coming here and saying that the chamber is for this, with concerns. this attitude needs to be recognized and appreciated, and i would ask us to keep a close dialogue with the business community, and if we see that this is harming business with some of the other concerns, i would hope we will address this very quickly. the final thing, under this current budget proposal, we are living by the reserve policy. this is the end of my questions or interrogation. thank you. >> on the sunday meter enforcement, we give them four hours. but you have to have the parking

meter to do this. not all of the meters are geared to be a four-hour parking meter? >> do you do that electronically? >> that is correct. >> it will no to flip to four- hour increments. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for covering my last question. the sunday parking, i want to get back to that. did we look at areas -- a lot of the areas are mixed use areas. there is commercial at the bottom, but presidential at the top. are we telling residents that you are paying for parking because there are no garages.

did we look at neighborhoods that had mixed use? >> are meters are primarily in commercial areas. -- our meters are primarily in commercial areas. people are paying for parking on saturdays, mondays through fridays. we're not making a distinction by use type. the premise is that the activity on a sunday is much like it is on a saturday. albeit starting later. therefore, we should manage it accordingly. i am not sure if that answers. >> looking at -- and going back to the top on the shoulder, some of those institutions are located in a mixed use areas as well. my concern is that having --

will be four hours be enough? >> on the newer meters, we are proposing not to start this until january. at some point in the next calendar year, we would have all the new meters. you can prepay. you could pay at 10:00, but it will start ticking down until noon. -- won't start ticking down until noon. that flexibility will be there for the new meters. they will be everywhere in the city in the year and a half. >> i am not clear on the impact on the business community. >> with regard to the business community, right now, those spaces are completely

unavailable to people accessing those businesses by car. the parking is on managed. from saturday night to monday, people can and to leave their cars. the availability data seems to support the notion that the parking is pretty much locked up all day on sunday and most of these areas. the businesses are getting no benefit, or very minimal benefit from those parking spaces without any management by regulating parking for a portion of sundays, that would lead to increased availability, which would be helpful to businesses who are being patronized by people who are accessing the my car. -- by car. the business issue -- the business use is i do not want tr businesses, but the businesses

every other day of the week. it is not different on sundays. most of them are now open on sundays. >> not to prolong it, i did some driving around the mission district, a lot of those businesses are closed on sunday. presidents have an opportunity to not fight for parking on sunday -- residents have an opportunity to not fight for parking on sunday. it seems like there is a catch- 22. the sunday parking is a catch-22 for businesses and residents, that is what i am trying to say. >> residents and commuters are benefiting from the policy of not managing parking on sundays. that is a policy i would suggest that is not consistent with our transit first policy. this would be difficult for people. there are some people who are benefiting from a free parking that will lose that benefit.

that is correct. >> cannot something -- can i say something? i have been doing this for a couple of years. not many. i certainly have not seen a budget proposal that have the chamber of commerce and the transit riders union complement our executive director and staff for putting together a budget that was responsible and addressed import needs. i want to say that. i know it has been a tough day. i hope you caught that and appreciated it. and you and your staff take the praise. one thing that has gotten not enough attention, but is so critical as we think about this, there are so many things we would love to spend money on. this budget represents a significant, not a panacea, but a significant commitment to maintenance. as those of us to ride the system every day know, that is

what service is about. i think on the whole, you heard my specific questions, i do not want to lose sight that you have done a very positive job. i want to provide the feedback. >> thank you. i would also like to thank you for the overtime peace. thank you for addressing that. >> i was not going to say too much other than just what -- i thoroughly commend you and your staff for all this great work you have done. i was heading into this thing so scared. people are so afraid that we will have to cut service. there were a lot of folks that are worked out. do you think we have gone so far and we are disclosed to adopt in

this budget says quite a bit about yourself and your staffs. i am very grateful for the progressive thinking. at this point, i will take it for what it is worth. i appreciate the hard work you've done. >> the cac has recommended a higher cash fair. -- fare. i would urge is to continue to look at the flexibility the part-time operators give us, but the smaller buses on the list utilize route. that is a way that could be some latitude as a future revenue source. >> just a couple of comments. i know we got a lot of public feedback on the sunday meters. the point -- we do need to

institute that. policy change always hurts. i think the charging for sunday meters, we have come to a good compromise. it is totally supported by our strategy and our goal. i know we talked about the court cost being past dawn on the ticket and will be interesting to find out if that can be called out on the ticket. if it can be listed as a line item. i know you made a note to look in -- what did that. it can become excellent. i missed that. i was pleased to see that we added a modest increased to the meter bagging fee. it did seem unfair. as we mentioned in a previous

meeting since we are talking about the transit sustainability feet, we want to hold off on hitting that meter bagging fee very hard. it seemed unfair to do nothing, said that was a good compromise. i do not have any other comments. i have that all my questions answered. anybody else? ok. >> i just want to say that this is a budget i feel very confident about. i want to thank -- for their work on that. this is reasonable, this is doable. i want to thank you for that. >> thank you for your work. do we still need closed session? >> we have capital budgets. if you want to hear that -- >> do you want to continue the

matter? >> it is really brief. it will have to come back next time. >> do we want to continue, given the hour? >> i am ok. >> you are okay to go live? >> let's do it. >> item 16, adopting the capital improvement program and approving the two-year cabral budget of $537 million. >> all right. >> i think i can make my report shorter than that. [laughter]

i will walk through a brief presentation. you have already approved the 20-year capital plan. you already have the five-year at a high level presented to you. what this item is approving the five-year capital of improvement program and the two-year capital budget. it is much along the lines of what you've seen before. if we can get the slides. is that sfgtv? the context, we start with a 20- year plan. it is a look at all of our capital needs, all of our assets, everything we would need to do. in that unconstrained view, we established public -- policy priorities. that is what you adopted earlier this calendar year. from that, we have developed a

five-year look ahead based on the revenues we anticipate. this is a constraint view. we look -- we take these logger looks because many programs take a long time to develop. many take more than a few years to implement. the five-year document is a constraint to look at what we anticipate our revenues to be over the next five years. and how we propose to expand them. we take the first two years of that five-year cip and put those forth as the proposed capital budget. the goals are to develop a detailed program and this presentation will hit on the highlights. the materials, you had every project that we are proposing. a detailed program that is achievable and realistic. we are completely funding projects in phases, so we will

fully fund the design phase, the planning phase and the design phase, and in the construction phase. so we're not waiting until we have all the money to move a project forward. didn't -- giving the planning and design done helps us secure grants for the construction. we are proposing 10% of what we are budgeting be set aside so we are programming 90% of the revenues, leaving the other 10% for flexibility and for the uncertainty as we know projects involve overtime. costs can go up, costs can go down. so we can implement without having to go back through the budget process. from our strategic plan, we are directly hitting on some of the main objectives of the plan as it regards to safety, a state of good repair, reliability.

as was the 20-year capital plan, the five and two-year plan and are organized along the 16 capital programs. the revenues are based on our best guess is. in terms of what we expected it from the federal government, the state government, from the region, from our own initiatives. the revenue bonds that we're bringing forward to the board of supervisors tomorrow. what that gets us next year is $550 million and in the second year, $473 million. that is in addition to $600 million of previously approved funds that we expect will be the balances of the projects that are currently in play. ig