we have a chart at the bottom from the mta. it was an appendix to a large group of documents we were given. it looks like a total fleet side demand and procurements needed -- and we cut out the section on light rail vehicles -- set up by fiscal year. we cut out the intervening years from prison until 2018. if you look at 201832019, that is when the central subway is slated to open. it has currently been pushed to a january 19 opening. the numbers are hard to make that on the slide, but their numbers project they will need a peak demand of 179th light rail vehicles for the fiscal year. however, the fleet size plan will only be 175 vehicles, leaving a deficit of four vehicles system-wide. looking at this document, it appears to ever wrote the mta response claim that they will have enough lrv's in this fiscal year was not aware of this predicted schedule. the next time i would like to draw attention to his finding 25. and richard found a lack of care in the mta is communicating of correct and accurate information. the mta disagree

individual members cannot exercise the powers of the mta board. and, of course, when the the board asks and exercises its power at a notice meeting, by means of a vote. any questions about any of that? president nolan: this year, we are looking at like a $22 million deficit in the budget. how does that fit in in terms of the board of supervisors? what are our options? >> director, as you know, the past five years, we have always had a budget deficits, and the way we have addressed it is by either not hiring or enhancing our revenues. as long as we do not go to the board to ask for more money, we are ok, and we usually have to do that. president nolan: thank you. ms? >> i know you did this ever you through -- every year through our online training. so the basic rules about open meetings is that all policy bodies operate in public meetings. those meetings must be publicly noticed, and the policy body must fix public comment at those meetings. what is a meeting? it seems painfully obvious, but people in my office spend a lot of time talking about thi

the capital programs division within the mta is very small. i think we have a total of five resident engineers who do construction management. for us to break down into different asset classis would be challenging. we need the flexibility -- we do not have been of engineers, construction managers, project managers where we can take folks and dedicate them to work in a team. we necessarily therefore need to maintain flexibility to have an engineer work one day on a building project and the next day on infrastructure projects. we do not have the luxury of the numbers to organize in a strict asset management way. we are doing that to some extent. shortly before i joined the fleet engineering group was moved in to work more closely with operations with a fleet maintenance folks are. now from project management to engineering to maintenance, they are working somewhat like an asset team. our sustainable streets division, we are doing that somewhat as well. and we do not have, i do not think, the staffing flexibility to be able to do that across the

now we can hear from the mta. >> good morning, supervisors. we also want to thank the civil grand jury. we verreally believed the disabled placard frauneeds to be better addressed. the mta's evaluations program has evolved over the years as we learn more about our parking. initially, mta had agreed with the civil grand jury that an independent review panel was necessary. having done our best practices study and our outreach, we believe that the independent review panel is not only administratively burnham some, but we also believe talking to the disabled community that they do not want to have another step for the have to come and demonstrate their disability. what we are recommending, the solution, is double prong. the first thing we think we need to do is understand -- if all the cities in california are asked to implement parking practices in the same way, for example, l.a., san francisco, and oakland have very different issues than vallejo and fresno. the first recommendation is to change the state legislation to allow individual cities an

thank you to mta staff. thank you to consultants who took lead in performance of it and transportation authority staff for their assistance and help facilitate this process and commissioner campos for your leadership here yen greatly appreciate it. this is not an action item, although it is. let's go ahead and take this with public comments first. public comment on this item, please. >> [inaudible] bob allen. i came from a meeting last week and a tree with fda commissionta commissioner, the f good repair for about an hour and how he encouraged at the kids to take a more active role, so we're really pleased. you did not see the chamber packed, not because people do not want to go through the audit, but it is incumbent upon the advocate committee to discuss issues like the audit and how we put a better system on the streets. we will be working to do that over the coming weeks. i sat on the advisory committee for the transportation sustainability project, which is an effort to save $100 million in operations fo

we recessed until we could be joined by the mta director. commissioner campos, would you like to introduce this item? commissioner campos: thank you for taking your time to be here. and i know he had a prior meeting. think you for your flexibility in coming to speak with us. for those of you that were here when this item was first requested and for those of you that are new to the board, i want to simply put this in some context. last year i requested a management, operational audit of the mta. at the time that the audit was requested, the mta had not been subject to a management operations audit in 14 years. as of best practice under our rules under the board of supervisors, we want agencies to undergo of management performance of it, at least every eight years. -- we want agencies to undergo management performances at least every eight years. what we have before you is the second phase of the audit. the first phase was conducted by the office of budget and legislative analyst. with respect to the second phase of the audit, we engaged cgr m

now we can hear from the mta. >> good morning, supervisors. we also want to thank the civil grand jury. we verreally believed the disabled placard frauneeds to be better addressed. the mta's evaluations program has evolved over the years as we learn more about our parking. initially, mta had agreed with the civil grand jury that an independent review panel was necessary. having done our best practices study and our outreach, we believe that the independent review panel is not only administratively burnham some, but we also believe talking to the disabled community that they do not want to have another step for the have to come and demonstrate their disability. what we are recommending, the solution, is double

individual members cannot exercise the powers of the mta board.nd, of course, when the the board asks and exercises its power at a notice meeting, by means of a vote. any questions about any of that? president nolan: this year, we are looking at like a $22 million deficit in the budget. how does that fit in in terms of the board of supervisors? what are our options? >> director, as you know, the past five years, we have always had a budget deficits, and the way we have addressed it is by either not hiring or enhancing our revenues. as long as we do not go to the board to ask for more money, we are ok, and we usually have to do that. president nolan:

. -- great deal of confusing financial information around the mta. i will draw your attention to two or three of them. the first one is this body, this board, march 30, 2010 authorized were passed a resolution authorizing 1.57 8 billion for the central subway project. this is on a number of conditions. one of the conditions was the stick to the 1.57 8 billion budget. -- 1.578 billion budget. the report shows the estimated cost was 50 billion above that. this did not attract comments from the board members, nor was unnoticed by the senior members of staff. in fact, when we inquired about it, we were told it was a typographical error. another example is the executive director, about a year ago, told the board that the mta expected to spend 455 million per year on the state of repair. just a few months earlier in march they had reduced capital budget for 2011 and 2012, which showed expenditure as less than half of that. the problem is that people possibly such as yourselves, see these variety of figures, and really do not know what to believe, and can o

the deficit -- look at the reports of the mta. one of the things they have not told to -- 36,000 hours of surface transportation will be cut to fund the deficits. that means wherever you are in san francisco, you will receive less service. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. i am going to be talking about the grand jury findings 118, 20, and 25 -- one, 18, 20, and 25. the response made much of the oversight that the central subway would receive from the federal transportation agency and in response 25, they claim that it -- as communications professionals, the accuracy of all his pronouncements. let's examine the accuracy of these claims. and he repeated that the central subway is highly regarded in washington. on october 18, the transportation authority staff told a citizens advisory committee that "the central subway project remains the highest-rated pre-full-funding grant agreement project in the country." there are 39 new starts projects, and -- new starts and small starch products. 14 of those project

i am not saying mta has done everything it can do in terms of building new facilities. we know that outdated facilities result in inefficient maintenance schedules, but the prop k program, when the voters approved it in 2003, devoted $1 billion to maintenance and rehabilitation projects to transit alone. $566 million of that money is still available for these projects. that money also includes money to match federal funds to renovate the fleet. it is not like we have run out of money to do maintenance facility or to renovate the fleet, but it also does not mean that we can only work on one priority at a time. capital projects and maintenance need to happen. synchronization continues to happen. we are working as aggressively as ever to match federal funds so that we can leverage the potential promised to the voters in prop k. as we continue to invest in a better flea, in a better set of maintenance facilities, we will begin to achieve the goals of more efficient maintenance, the actual activity of doing maintenance, that the mta has been pursuing for a long time. i do no

last year i requested a management, operational audit of the mta. at the time that the audit was requested, the mta had not been subject to a management operations audit in 14 years. as of best practice under our rules under the board of supervisors, we want agencies to undergo of management performance of it, at least every eight years. -- we want agencies to undergo management performances at least every eight years. what we have before you is the second phase of the audit. the first phase was conducted by the office of budget and legislative analyst. with respect to the second phase of the audit, we engaged cgr management consultants to conduct audit, and from my perspective the timing of the of it makes a great deal of sense. we have new leadership of the mta, and the director of transportation, someone who has a proven track record of making sure our agencies are following best practices. i know making sure we have the most affected management possible is a priority for mr. reiskin. i think of it that focuses on how the mta is managing capital

in terms of the mta, i was surprised on some of their responses.now that ed has only been there for a short amount of time. i thought it was very enlightening, the presentation. and also a caution to members of the grand jury on your report. and making sure that they are factual as well. we have looked at the location of certain companies, you don't knowledge of the fact that this is phase two of the line. it is getting to be a controversial topic at that point in time. with the findings and recommendations in front of us, and i would vote yes or support a motion with the exception of recommendation number four. supervisor campos: that is a motion by supervisor farrell. we don't need a second. president chiu, any comments? president chiu: i am happy to second that, the only comment i would make is in regard to 3, lowering expectations from muni's performance. the mta could find a more. i would set that as an amendment to the recommendation. supervisor campos: i will be supporting that motion. what this does is highlight the fact that even when you

mta has only one group in mind. pedestrian, runners, and people with disabilities were left in the dark. mta said they decided on a single sidewalk track plan. that is misleading. they created a survey for one group, showing that the survey is totally biased. the plan of $451,000 is not developed. it would be better if there was a petition to put it on hold until police, fire, emergency and the public is considered before any further improvements are considered. [bell rings] >> thank you. next. >> good morning. i live in the area and across the panhandle four times a week, where i dodge vehicles, where i dodge bicycles every day. in four years as chair of the physical assets council, this is probably the most important issue in terms of safety for people with mobility impairments, especially since this could be replicated throughout san francisco. but it only came to us on friday. and then only because of a of te parking spaces and not th

and committed to working with mta, the board, -- i am committed to working with mta, they're bored, and this board of supervisors. thank you, supervisor avalos, and certainly thank you to supervisor elsbernd for your question as well. [laughter] president chiu: and with that, that is the end of this month's question time. thank you, mr. mayor. madam clerk, what we go to our consent agenda, items 2 through 6? >> these items will be acted upon by a single roll call vote unless a member of the board requests a matter be removed from the agenda and considered separately. president chiu: colleagues, does anyone want to sever an item? roll call on items 2 through 6. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. >> there are 11 is. president chiu: item 7? >> providg that selected non- recurrence is the only be spent on the occurrences. >> same house, called? >> item 8 -- appropriating state revenue loss reserves in federal prison -- revenues for adult day

san francisco mta proposes to major all parking spaces in commercial areas. secondly, instead of a complete exemption from paying parking meter fees, it proposes to limit the exemption to low-income drivers would be entitled to at least 50% discount on posted me to rates. in its report, sf park consider proposals are based on the best practices of the cities. i urge the members of this committee to carefully review the report on best practices in title accessible parking practices and laws in other jurisdictions, issued by sf park in 2009. it will clearly show that the minimums that sf park are proposing here for more accommodating than those in assisting in the majority of service. unlike the case of new york city and other large urban areas, sf park is not requiring drivers to be recertified by a city assigned physician to qualify for discounted prepaid parking cards. if these proposals that we are continuing to pass and gradually enacted into law, it would three additional points about this report. the report fails to identify who will certify, register, a