. >> egbert in district ten in the bayview. this is an overview of the total funding for s.f. pd projects from easter 2020 easter 2014 and certificates of participation. the easter 2020 allocated bond funds for sfpd are just over 119 million after the cost of finance those funds were augmented by an additional 11.5 million million in remaining easter 2014 funds for s.f. pd and that brought the total sro funding available to about over 130 million and those easter 2014 funds were approved by capital planning committee and open in january of 2024. >> a few smaller projects were completed at about between three and 4 million and there is a balance of funds for both ingleside and surge of about 127 million. the budget for ingleside is about 103 million and the budget for search facility at egbert is about 17.7 million and there is additional program reserve in the amount of 5 to 6 million. >> the acquisition burden in addition to two is for the acquisition of 1828 aggregate for surge and pcd phase one was funded by certificates of participate portion in the amount of 79.3 million

harvest egbert allen role practicing lawyer at harvard law school permit clusters about tiktok.ecent decision avoided the issue of the propaganda risk and the risk of all they avoided it because of o the greater personal constitutionalal concerns. but the evidence that congress considered in passing the law to ban if tiktok if it divested the chinese ownership raise the propaganda insh the algorithmic risk how do you assess that risk and whereha you think that will end up? thank you. >> allen is somewhat like many in the room. i will leave it to others to offer their views of those risks. i will only say that it should be a matter of profound concern, alarm, and even scandal that the united states congress has made a risk assessment and set out a set of criteria necessary, given that level of, risk for either tiktok to be shut down, or to continue. that included, it had to have a relatively advanced business negotiations for the sale of tiktok. no such conditions existed. in the supreme court said yes, we are not going to give you legal relief. none of the conditions for risk mi

the committee of two met last wednesday at 1315 egbert and we discussed the action items and also the other items on the agenda today that have already been previously discussed and voted upon. thanks so much. is there any public comment on the committee report? >> item number eight? >> i'm not seeing any we can can close public comments. that takes us to item number 11 for a closed session. >> fantastic. before we open for public comment, this is a conference for legal counsel for anticipated litigation for significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph two of subdivision d of section 54956.9 of the california government code. >> just some logistics before we go in a close session we are going to be closing the zoom webinar so those online will be removed from the meeting. however, if you rejoin via the same meeting link you'll be put in a waiting room until we resume the commission meeting after a closed session has ended and then those in the room if you're not specifically involved with this litigation we will ask you to leave the room. that being said, if there's no add