and others to construct these budgets. we will pay our fair share for services. we need to revisit the notion of whether this is our fair share or not. we are an independent agency for that very reason. we're not a single agency in the traditional sense. i would ask that we continue to debate this and maybe we get a report back in several months on these negotiations to see if we want to take more extreme measures or see if we are reaching some sort of agreement and understanding where the nexus -- understanding. that is the place i would like to get. one step in that process, i do not know this proposal, if they say there is money to be saved i would like to look at that.

that is my first set of questions. i appreciate the long answer. this is one where many to push back a little bit more than saying this is a city hall decision. i know you are sensitive to that and i think the trend in a letter is a good for start. -- transmittal letter is a good start. put my second question concerns the parking proposal. i believe i have asked this question before. the plans for sunday parking is not -- will not have the deakin running in and out of his church. you will be able to buy the entire block of time. do i understand that correctly? >> we are proposing for our meters. it is not the entire time. -- four-hour meters. it would be able to load the

meter of to four hours. we will make it easier to pay for parking, credit cards, paid by phone. we are in the process of upgrading all the meter said they can be prepaid. if you're right at 11:00 the meter will start drawn the money down at 12:00. chair nolan: time for the board to discuss this. i will remind you of the last hearing. director heinicke: i am not sure we have the answer. one of the main reasons we are increasing the citations for the parking, sorry to switch topics, the courthouse the that the state has imposed on us. the last time around, i ask the question of whether san francisco is receiving that money back or whether we are

finding other counties courthouse. -- funding other counties courthouses. i think we need to our part state legislature with informations they can understand where this money is going. if it is going back to find san francisco, that is one thing. if it is going to fund courthouses and other counties, that is something we need to know. if we could give an answer on that question, i would appreciate it. chair nolan: any other members of the board? >> i, too, am prepared to vote on the budget. i have still below major concerns. the work order. i would urge you do look at that work order because i think it is unfair that we are offsetting

that when we are in a budget crunch. that is $9 million. maybe we can offset it with other agencies. i am not sure, but i would urge you to take a look at it. the second thing, as you know, i think san francisco is a great city, a diversity. but promote diversity. we promotes families. my concern is that it's -- the sunday parking impacts the quality of life for families to move around the city. it is a time when families move around with small children, senior citizens. when you start stipulating and implementing parking on sundays, it does have an adverse affect. will the money that we raise from parking meters, it will not

close that much of the gap? the quality of life is very important. i worry that the impact the quality of life, not just for people that are here, but people come into the city to appreciated and enjoy. i would like us to think about what we are trying to tell people about who we are, what we are, and what we offer. i want people to enjoy it. i am not sure of the fact that we promote other activities in the city that impact services. what is the impact of overall quality? if we want to support other organizations and functions on sundays, we should look at the quality of life for everyone. sunday is something that provides that opportunity.

now we're taking that away. many social programs that are provided throughout the city -- as we take away and people, and to volunteer for the social programs, now they would have to pay for parking and volunteer or get a ticket. if you are coming into volunteer, for example, how does that impact the quality you are giving back? it is something to think about. i urge the board to think about that. >> one of the things we need to look at t-- do we have a contingency plan, mr. director?

if we do not pass the parking meter part of the budget, do we have a contingency plan to fall back on? how do we get that $2 million back? are there ways we can do that? >> i did not make contingency plans for different line items in the budget. we just went through an exercise of identifying what choices we where -- we would make sure our revenue situation change. i guess i would make the same choices. i would recommend the same choices. were we to forego the revenue :::::::ñ revenues, i would like to make

the same recommendations for where we would make expenditure reductions accordingly. >> the other thing, we used to have a rainy day fund. nobody was supposed to be able to touch it. based upon the recommendations in the past, that rainy day fund should be put back in because it is our money to use for things like maintenance. if we have a hole in the means department, we could use that funding to fill that. -- maintenance department, we could use that funding to fill that. >> in this budget, we are

proposing to fund $2 million a year towards trying to get back in line with the board's reserve policy. we will know at the end of the fiscal year but we have been there. right now, we have $37 million in the balance. we have not been adhering to the boards approved reserve policy. we are attempting in this proposed budget to get ourselves back on track. >> ok. director ramos: thank you. i can count on my hand how many times and missed church's growing up as a kid. i happen to live about two

blocks away from st. ann's. never farther than an arm's length away from a rosary. i been called many things in my life, but never the devil. it is shocking to hear that from a community that lives by judge not lest ye be judged. i have gotten minimal sleep trying to put this thing together. trying to fight to keep people from being displaced in their communities. fighting to get people to church so they can get to where they need to be. i think it is very disingenuous and unfortunate that we took the kind of comments that we did given the direction that we have said we want to go. making the city a place for

everyone. the reason i am on this board is because my christian teachings, we should look out for those who are the least among us. people that do not have a car cannot afford a car are being pushed out of this city because they cannot even take the bus. we have been told that if we do not pass this budget, it results in a service cut. an addition from the revenue side, i want to speak to the idea of what is happening in this city. 49 square miles. our city is not the same city that it was when it was sand dunes. it is not the same city that it

was 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. we are jammed packed to the gills. on sunday, it is is about as bad as it ever is. that affects our transit. when we cannot find the support that we need from communities like yourselves, i am going to sacramento in -- on may 2. i am going to talk to those people. they can keep us from having to transfer these painful sources of revenue on to the community because we have to protect what we have. we do not get the kind of funding that we need and we are in these positions, we have to make tough choices. i am thinking about the folks who do not get free transit. they do not get free transit on holidays. they have to pay for a trip to

get to where they need to go after 6:00 on a sunday. or 10:00 on a weekday. or any time. i really do, and and very sensitive, to the needs of this community and the services that you offer. i want to support you 100%. i've been there with you in the past and i will be there in the future, but at this point in time, we have to start thinking about a different way that we use our streets. in a way that it does not make the transit service more expensive and difficult to provide. i do support the idea of sunday meters. hopefully, at some point, we will get to a place where we can have more money than me know what to do with. when we have people like you who are active, all the folks who came here and expect us to extend the program, and you were

there to fight for more funding, we might be able to see things differently. at this plant, we are in a desperate situation and we have to do what we have to do. in addition to thing about the long-term needs of providing service to the people who are least able to get a around. we're not talking about congestion fees. we would charge people just to drive your car into the city. that is maybe the next stop. i am asking you all to be engaged and to help us fight to keep us out of these predicaments. and to come to more welcoming solutions. at this point, we have to do what we have to do. thank you. director lee: this whole thing on meters on sunday, i have seen

areas where streets are just packed. i went down to the financial district on sunday to help my wife " at a for office. every -- moved out of her officeevery spot was taken. we were not charging for the meters. i do understand the need for the faith community. i do not know if it is possible, you know, we have these smart meters, if we can identify where these locations are at, what is the impact if we did not put these meters into effect at the churches? i do not know. a huge impact? it may not be. is that available? >> logistically and

technically, that would be possible. legally, i am not sure. that it would be defensible. it would be theoretically and administratively possible to do that. i am not sure would be on solid legal ground to do that. director lee: one of my main concerns that you have areas that people part and they leave their vehicles there all day. there are areas where i will not even shop at because i know there is no way to get in there. i go outside the city to do my shopping. it is impossible. ok? >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

>> to let them know that it has been going on for a number of years. it is time to look at it and maybe to share the pain would some other city agencies. share the pain with the general fund. it will be a hole in somebody's budget that will have to be plugged. it is unfortunate that needs to be our budget. it would be great to continue to look at that. i am ready to go ahead and make a motion to approve the budget. i want to state that i am still completely in favor of the sunday parking meters. we have been doing a lot of work around parking policy on this board. we had a lot of goals and we have strategies in place as an agency. managing parking is one of them. just because it is a sunday does not mean that we turn our backs and we stopped managing parking. we need to keep our transit

vehicles moving. we need to keep people moving around the city and the most efficient manner. bernie madoff will find that it is easier to find a meter parking spot -- we may find that it is easier to find a metered parking spot once those are enforced. people are paying for muni on sunday evenings. it is -- you cannot make policy changes without finding some group that seems to be hurt by this policy change. it is always interesting to look at it the other way. if we currently had a free muni on sunday for everybody, what position would be be taking to defend that for everybody? i would like to look at it in the reverse. if we were paying for sunday meters all of these years, what would be the arguments we would suddenly be used? i do not think it is gone to be as bad as everybody thinks.

it is going to help our commercial areas. it is going to manage our parking. it will keep our transit vehicles running. and it is good policy. i am willing to make a motion. >> is there a second? >> second. director bridges: i have a quick question. is it possible -- to have some type of exemption from a period of time? not all churches are located in those commercial areas. a limited amount of churches. >> administratively, it would be theoretically possible. legally, i am not sure we could do that. i am happy -- i hear the

question. i have offered to address specific location concerns with any party, not just faith based. just as we do generally it with our parking policies are having some adverse or unintended impacts. i am happy to explore that. faith based waivers probably would not be legal. director bridges: they could apply for that specific thing. we should explore the possibility. it would not be in every district. it is a limited amount. if we could see if there could be some relief provided for communities that could get away with exemptions we have a motion and second on the floor. i will support it. i think we absolutely need to get a budget passed to get to

the budget -- order supervisors and the mayor. i have several thoughts. i think between now and implementation, and january of next year, there is time to work out some details. along those details i have heard are the powers of enforcement, take a look at that again. possibility of white zones and this needed to be all over san francisco. on the basis this is not going to happen until january, it will not happen until all meters are equipped with a capability and you're able to pay by phone and all these other ways. i would support the amendment. the work order thing, i will

identify with that one. it is a good question to raise. i think the seiu proposals that were suggested are something we should look seriously at as well. if there are no more comments, i have a motion and a second. >> does it mean that director reiskin will come back? >> does that sound reasonable to you? members here agree with that, i would be happy to participate in any conversations around this as well. we have a motion and a second. no further issues? all in favor, said aye. -- say aye. we have a budget. >> item 14. approving a two year capital budget and they fiscal year 13

budget, 477 million. -- $477.8 for fiscal year 2014. the capital budget is adequate to make substantial progress toward meeting various goals and performance standards. and making the same authorization to the director of transportation as you just did in the operating budget. no one has indicated an interest in addressing you with regard to the capital budget. >> are there any changes? there were some small changes made last time. >> that is correct. like with the operating budget, you are looking at the same capital budget. it is $1.10 billion capital budget. we have in the interim since last meeting refine some numbers based on some updated

information from the mtc which added to the overall amount. it is $582.3 million. it is as was proposed last time. president nolan: no one from the public has expressed an interest? is there motion to approve? >> just a couple of comments. director reiskin did explain my concern around street safety, bike and pedestrian, some of those projects to fall under the headings of other projects as you explained. some of them fall under transit project and others under street redesign. it continues to be a concern to me that you fund pedestrian and

bicycle safety improvements to the level that will get us to our stated goals that we have. the board of supervisors has adopted 20% bike trips by 2020. if you judge market street at 9:30 a.m., where there already. we still have some work to do. as i look through the capital budget, we have a lot of money going toward projects to redesign our streets to make them safer which i am 100% in favor for. we are -- the thing that concerns me is we're doing this to keep us safe from cars and car drivers to cannot be trusted to drive at an appropriate speed with an appropriate level of safety. i will circle back again to speed cameras and trying to get those on our legislative agenda for 2013. we're going to have an example

from the city of chicago that passed legislation which is very narrowly written and some interesting. -- it is interesting. we can save money in our capital budget if we can trust the people in cars to drive in a safe and appropriate manner for the city. we do face the challenge that a lot of people are coming from other areas, other regions and they are not used to driving in a congested urban environment. to have a tool for the city and county of san francisco. that will help us remind those people that have transitioned to a different environment and what they might need to do and to have that be automated. we're talking about the work order for the police department. how much money could we say there if we have some automated speed enforcement we could trust? we cannot afford to have a police officer on every block. i know there is so -- some

concern around pedestrian and bicycle safety. concern for pedestrians to be safe from cars and unfortunately, say from bicycles. there is a lot we can do to yank the choke chain and remind the users that have to be concerned about every single street users. we need something that will get people's attention, talking about automated speed. we will have to redesign streets we spent 40 years designing to facilitate the fast movement of automobiles. it is something that [unintelligible] we need -- a want to call that out in the budget. we are going to have more people on foot and on bicycles, people walking to and for --

from fabulous transportation options. >> is there a second? but i would like to -- >> lets make sure we have a second. director oka: one thing i am concerned about and have been for a long time is we have bicycles who on a regular basis ride the red lights and we still have that. what is going to happen if we do not stop that? how can we stop bicycles -- bicycle riders who do not care what decisions, they say it is too hard for me to stop so they speed through. we have seen fatalities on both

sides of that. i want to see all the traffic in san francisco obeying the law. and some bicyclist do not care. we want to make sure that hurts when they do not care. that is the only way that this bitter can change. that is all i will say on that. president nolan: thank you. we have a motion and second to improve the capital budget as described by mr. reiskin. is there any further discussion? if not, we have a motion and a second. all in favor? the ayes have it, we have a capital budget. >> item 6, introduction of new or unfinished business by board members.