budget. but with a comfortable enough margin on the budget see. on the expenditure side again not a whole lot of significant changes. we add the maintenance positions we added only a half fte in the half year because of the details in hiring. and some of the increases particularly in the funding the jump is in the position. what's on the right is the kind of themes is reducing over time and developing in maintenance and safety. we've beefed-up crossing guard.

but if we look at what we have improved we're to be one half million dollars better. we're slightly on expenditures and slightly over on the revenue side. so over time i know it continues to be a great interest and certain to me. we had been running well over $50 million a year and million dollars our budget last year was only $32 million. my belief was both numbers were wro wrong. so we increased the budget going into this first year by about $10 million. and we've been actively working

at reducing the overtime. we're at a $16 million reduction. so we're going tracking a little bit higher but still it's a pretty big reduction and to meet our next budget for next year we've got to drive that adopt. we've been hiring part time folks. and we have not been to bring in folks as fast as we want to but that size you reduction is clearly the right direction still a lot of these room for improvement and want to get down to that that $37 million for next year.

another issue is work orders. i want to try to categorize them. we have to pay for energy we generally pay through a work order because we pay the puc for them. if we were in lease space they'd show up in a rent >> utility line. they show up as a work order. there are some services we have to use by the city signatures the city attorney's office.

we get allocated a share of some city functions like the controllers office and payroll system and i think even a little bit of the supervisors their city functions that get allocated out to other city agencies so we pay our share. the next line is a basically a portion of the police department work order that pays for the traffic policy. a number of years ago before any of us were here decided that the trapths department should pay for that traffic funding. but the policy nexus is the traffic company is enforcing

traffic and the thing is reasonable >> supervisor? >> just as we're talking about work orders i have a certain with regard to balboa station. this advisory committee had passed a resolution last week calling on the mta to make sure that the facilities around the station get cleaned sufficiently. it was brought up to the mayor a couple of years ago. and it was a profound difference

before and after. and we're sliding a little bit on that. it's always a solution to identify the areas if that can get addressed. >> i know you had mentioned that to me a couple of months ago and i thought we had resolved that. we do have is a capital project that's a rerailing of our own yard there but it will bring some improvements on the san jose side. so we want to make sure it's clean up >> the resolution identifies certain things and the oceanside was on there as well but the mta can be the lens it would be

greatly appreciated. >> and we'll make sure we work with the balboa park folks. >> thank you. and i agree it's important for work orders to take them case by case. in terms of the police work order was the in terms of amount? >> so you'll see the policy nexus line i want the only thing in there is the traffic order order we pay for 75 percent of the work order now we pay a $3 million for the police work order and that's more are of a service. what's in the approved budget.

i know the mayor's office has not put digit e together and approved the budget yet. but specifically with regard to the police department work order it's proposing a reduction of that work order by $5 million. i don't know if we want to kind of get into the mixes of how that works but we're anticipating the mayors proposed budget will fund that $5 million of those police services from within the general fund or another resources >> i think that's positive to convey that to the mayor's office. i have never been a fan of the police work order to the mta.

i actually think that nexus is tenuous at best the mta should not be paying anything to the police. in terms of quote/unquote security on muni that's the police of our public spaces and that should not be paid directly from muni. it's positive to be moving down from $5 million i hope it's not a one-time change i hope it becomes a permanent baseline >> i hope it's no a permanent baseline i hope it's a first step. >> i was hoping. >> almost all traffic agencies

pay for their own security. but there's no other transit agency that pays for the police. again there was a decision made many years ago when the general fund was under constrain we're in a different time now i think it's great to hear frndz the mayor's office >> i understand part of the muni money got swipt over to the police department. but it sound like we're is it a fair statement, to correct that >> and i guess i'll wait until the budget cites to see the mechanism. so that's the good news i'm sorry >> i'm like my colleagues what

they said their pleased and they notes the $5 million reduction is being worked out. i'm also i guess i'll see say that i hope you work that out and i don't want to see 7 point something million dollars and it sounds like you're making strides >> yes, it reflects the 10 for the traffic company and whatever the balance is to get up to the fourteen. we don't control the mayors budget but we hope it will include a reduction for the work order and we'll backlog that to

the police department. i expect you'll all see the mayor's budget it's not final listed but will go down to the fourteen figure. you see in our work orders going over 65 in the next year. as the numbers are coming in they're coming in a little bit higher so we have anothers $2.5 million some to existing lines and to new line items we're going to figure out how to manage and we're still in discussions with the mayor's office. we need to pay these and this will come out of our operating

budget. we understand some of them and some of them we don't understand. we have a 1.25 issue we need to resolve. so quickly i can run through the capital budget. last year, we approved a 5 capital plan the first two years

. a we generally can't take

highway funds for replacement to spend for other parts of the capital plan. some of the capital fell programs are saying you can shave some of them off for bike but the entire fleet pretty much the entire subway they're not flexible funds so the discretion we have to invest in the taxi system are to upgrade our facilities is relatively small and just to kind of further that point and this ties back to that structural deficit. on the capital side we have $12 billion worth the assets and

a backlog of $2.2 billion. so to bring it up we need $5.10 billion over the next few years and we have about half of that. so we've a quarter of billion dollars over the year and that's not talking about the expansion of the system just getting what we have today in a state of good repair. when you add on the things we want to implement our bike and pedestrian strategy you can see the costs there. some of those are included in the capital budget. there are not fully funded either. the t e p and other elements of that are partially funded presuming that the capital plan

t is pledged. so to get to the early question some possibility of transportation infrastructure, package which was what i referred to earlier. this has the vehicle license fee and the gop bond where we have grants that will be coming back to you for another issuance of revenue bond. we know there is a lively discussion about impact fees. so on the point of the bonds although this is not something really in our budget but since it's going to be coming to the budget and finance committee soon we've got 3 different streams of financing that will be coming our way.

we're joining with the city we're going to come and seek your authorization for to tenacious our own plan. the cash is a few years out so the commercial part is basically very short term and very low increase financing. the big one i don't think

authorization - we'd be seeking to issue revenue bonds this year and every couple of years

thereafter keeping relative to our operating budget at a pretty conserve, you know, two to four percent level of the operating budget. we're trying to balance our needs today with the cost we'll have to pay to meet those needs. given the state of our infrastructure and the borrowing it's a good time to balance it in terms of reduced costs >> so muni has $2.2 billion in unmet capital needs this it's system; right? >> that's our backlog right now. so that's the value of assets that's past your current use today

>> so 2.2 billion b; right? >>right. >> and it contains about 5 percent of the capital needs? >> not even - that doesn't address the state of good repair needs it addresses the t e p implementation to make the current assets perform better. the state of good repair is addressed through the general fund allocation that would provided us money for mid cycle over hallways and traffic signal upgrad upgrades. in terms of the b l f because you have that in here we're

assuming we're going to rely on the funding for the back log. what's our confident level that money will actually go to transit? >> we're base on assumes on the 10 year capital plan. it doesn't say it goes to any particularly to muni or streets. it says we anticipate being able to provide certainty levels of general fund to see muni and streets. so we're relying on the approved capital plan that i advocated strongly for although it doesn't go very far to meet our needs it goes more than zero.

it's not a vote of confidence but it abilities support to secure funding as evidenced by the he recent geobond. that's what we're relying on >> and going from zero dollars to something it's something but it's not combat. and i think you know this i think it's going to be a big, big political fight to make sure that the b o f is a general tax to make sure that that money goes to transit which is where it should go >> i have great confidence in the board of supervisors that this will happen. >> thank you, mr. reiskin any other items? >> that's what i had in terms

of an overview. >> colleagues any further questions for mr. reiskin? >> thank you for being here we'll move to item 5 if you're still here please come up. and anyone else who wants to commit on item 57 please come on up to the microphone >> go to the next one over there. >> good afternoon. my name is jean woods i've been living in north beach since 1962 continuously. i'm continual appearing before

the board of supervisors in opposition to the subway but living in north beach i and others are not aware of the damage that's going to be inflicted on north beach. it was clear that the drilling was to constant 7 blocks further than the last station. and the tunneling is going to go halfway down the boulevard. aaron explained this because he's pretty smart and he was the president of the board of supervisors at the time it was approved. he said it was in difference to

spur which is a private agency owned by lawyers. part of the urban research i if the record could reflect what the i r stand for. i don't why the city has to expend some much of this project. it's wishful thinking they'll be a phase thee since phase one was infinitely funded. it got pretty upset and it turnout that $70 million is being extended for this drilling and a minimum of 10 million to

extracted mill student off of columbus. mta can save a lot of money and if heather rose would put his attention on to the funding you would see that. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> hello, i'm a resident of north beach. i'm here to talk about the funding of the central subway as it relates to the overall mta. it seems like we're talking about the next few years there's an elephant in the room that no one oonlz the extra central subway the costs that are over

subjected. the study shows there be l about a $400 million overrun. the money that this will cost - let's have a little slide here, i don't know if that will show up or not - so the >> sir if you would speak into the microphone. >> sorry. the typical subway will be four and a half million dollars short this will have to be make up with taxi fund or whatever.

i'm interested in here there's a a project being done in north beach called the central beach project. it will run just fine without those extra tunnels and projects going into north beach. in addition to the federal funds there will be 9 million of city funds. my recommendation is to have a resolution by the board of supervisors >> thank you, sir. >> $70 million - >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good afternoon howard wong. as an architect i've managed city budget for half my career

so i've been following the budgets given the document that we could procedure. yesterday the mta board award the last contract for the major subway which mta reports in the case of $420 million over estimate. from what we understand from the examiner article oversight report indicates that it was known as october of 2012 that the central subway contingency amount had dropped to 65 million as the federal project oversight