on the next slide shows the capital budget and the capital budget is a five year budget as sfmta. the total budget for the current five year period is 2.6 billion. of that 35. 7 million or 1.39% is allocated to the bicycle mode and this chart shows the distribution of the budget by mode. it does include a big chunk in transit because central subway project is included in there the number is larger than usual but if you back that out the majority is still on the transit side. in terms of bicycle spending in other cities and you provided some of the summary numbers on that supervisor mar. here's the table showing some of those comparisons. because of the difficult of getting budget information that's truly comparable to what we have for san francisco we used a per capita measure so we used expenditures from the other cities on their capital improvement per year and projects and compared it to the population so we could get a common denominator for all of the cities we're comparing. mostly we looked at u.s. cities but we have amsterdam and one of the leaders and copenhagen in bicycle

i am before you today to receive the committee's budget guidelines for the board of supervisors budget. the department will provide the draft budget to the committee in january. ~ where we will propose recommendations that you'll hear today as well as any others that i may hear from the committee. i'll take a moment. i have six quick slides that we can review. the first slide is the expenditures by category for the current year 13-14. as you can see, the largest expenditure area is staff, making up 75% of this year's budget at 9.7 million. the breakdown by nonpersonnel serve as at 21% of the budget which is allocated primarily to the budget and legislative analyst services in addition to the city's c-a-f-r. the next slide is the expenditures by division. it's a relatively small department, so, it's based on the committee's direction over the years we've sought to mostly efficiently deliver the chartered duties and functions, maintaining the board's legislative record, providing public access and compliance with the open meeting laws, providing resources to the 11 members of the board,

before we get to the whole strategy. one last budget question. the service chief, worked very hard, lobbied very, very hard to avert sequestration. so did the defense industry is. this a partial victory with partial sequestration or did we end up here for reasons totally different? >> i think this is a bigger political deal. frankly i think it is always a bigger political deal. when the budget committees are making this deal i don't contribute a lot of impact to the defense attorney or the service chiefs. i think it is a bigger budget deal and everybody gets through the sequestration. >> here is how we mow it is partly true, the part of the deal that affects military retirees, pull out all of the service pieces, and political pieces, and they took them by surprise and probably not support it by politically when they are asked in february. so this tells that you this was part of a bigger political deal. it was something that the super committee actually had looked at two years ago, as part of -- before the budget control act was taken into effect.

the house ryan budget is a historic budget. it also is a debt course of america and puts us on a sound path, and the senate budget that cleared this body over my objection would have spent a trillion dollars -- would raise taxes a trillion dollars, but instead of using those tax revenues to pay down the debt, it would have funded a new trillion dollars in more spending above the budget control act limit we agreed to in august of 2011. so that's the situation. these are different budgets. and with 57 reserve funds, the murray-ryan spending bill that's before us now will allow senator reid and chairman murray to bring to the floor a practically unlimited number of big tax-and-spend bills, and it will not be subject to the 60-vote limit. normally, the minority party would be able to raise a point of order under section 302-f of the budget act. the 302-f is known as the tax-and-spend point of order because it's the one we deploy when congress tries to spend more money than it promised to spend and offset that new spending with some

the senate had a budget. the house had a budget. the president had a budget. to use a very simple analogy. we were at this number, the senate was at this number, the president was about at the senate's number. we ended up compromising at this number. the critical point of this agreement is they finally come together and have a number. then you can have legitimate and honest debate about how much should go to this or should go to that program. that is part of the legislative progress. i also want to agree with marty that leadership, in recent years, both sides of the aisle have lost track of a very important theme that margaret thatcher advanced 30 years ago. first you win the debate. then you win the vote. what we have seen going on in congress, and why there is so much rancor, in terms of the posturing, leadership on both sides no longer think they have to win the debate. they just have to get enough votes. if they have to break knuckles, promise bridges, that is all considered fair game. if we can get back to the basic notion of having legitimate debate about

and the capital budget for sfmta. this table on the slide now presented shows that on the operating budget side the bicycle program within sfmta is budgeted at about $4.2 million in the current fiscal year and that's out of a total budget listed and 1/2 percentage point of the total budget. the budget itself is not distributed by mode so we can't present all the numbers for how much is spent on each number and we know and sfmta can confirm that the lion's share go into transit and operations of buses and trolleys and lrv systems. on the next slide shows the capital budget and the capital budget is a five year budget as sfmta. the total budget for the current five year period is 2.6 billion. of that 35. 7 million or 1.39% is allocated to the bicycle mode and this chart shows the distribution of the budget by mode. it does include a big chunk in transit because central subway project is included in there the number is larger than usual but if you back that out the majority is still on the transit side. in terms of bicycl

the budget we passed here in the house, just like the prior two budgets that we passed here in the house, represents the full extent of our ambition, our vision and our goals. it balances the budget within 10 years. it reforms the tax code without raising taxes. it reforms our entitlement programs that were vital and were made in the 20th century so they work for the 21st century. it pays off our debt so that we do not leave our children a nation of debt. that's our goal. that's our vision. that's our destiny. with the bipartisan budget agreement we couldn't accomplish that because we have different opinions, we have different objectives. hat's why we work for common ground. that's why we took our budget, all the different budgets that were offered, we laid them on top of each other and we looked for common ground. we went through the federal budget program by program, line by line. we discussed and debated these things and we saw where is it we agree needs reforming? where is it that we agree taxpayer money is being wasted? where is it we agree that cronyism and corporate welfare should

i rise this morning to reiterate my strong opposition to the thousands-passed budget, to the murray-ryan budget, and i do so for one specific reason. i would first interject there are many aspects of the budget that members do not like, that we're not overly delighted with. we realized from the outset that there would be compromises and unpleasant decisions that have to be made because when you find additional revenues, when you cut programs that are popular, it hurts and it is uncomfortable. and so i appreciate the fact that senator murray and representative ryan have made tough decisions and apparently the house of representatives on a bipartisan basis has agreed to go along. but my objection that moves me from undecided to a no is what this budget does to current and military retirees and the fact that it breaks a promise that has been made to military retirees for years and years. it does so retro actively, unlike it does to federal employees in the budget. and unlike this congress directed on an earlier occasion, when establishing a commission to look into retirement. what it does i

the presentation. thank you. >> okay. thank you. again no budget analyst report for item nine so we will move to public comment. anyone wish to comment on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. >> i will move the recommendation. >> move with recommendation to the full board. madam clerk can you please call 10 through 15 together please. >> items 10 through 15 are resolutions approving master lease amendments for the united states navy treasure island water waterfront and land and structures and marina and child care and event and venues and firefighter training center for week 10. >> good morning. we are here to ask for your approval of the master leases. as you know the treasure island authority became the caretaker of the islands 16 years ago. during that time what we call the interim period use while the property is waiting to transfer to the city the navy allows us to lease the property and buildings at no cost through the six master leases just read into the record. they sub lease the records for maritime and special events to genera

the budget committee chairman has also made a good-faith effort to attack the real problems on her budget i cutting money for mandatory programs rather than searching for more discretionary cuts. in their agreement, they took note of how often the federal government is giving special treatment to certain groups. they have taken efforts to curb that. well many outside group attack these reforms, they are representative of the types of reforms that will have to be included in any future agreement to achieve entitlement reform. at the end of the day, that is where the real problem in our federal budget lies stop mr. president, this deal does little to address the $17 trillion debt. it is a start down that road and i truly hope that this will lead to more serious discussions on the floor of the united states senate and a solution for how we are going to see that $17 trillion repaid. deal represents a partial completion of the work the american people express from us. while far from perfect, it leaves much to be desired. the prospect of compromise on the single most important issue of our time

a lot of concern about the defense budget. enormous concern about the farm bill and getting that passed. speaker, you are a farmer. a lot of our farmers in minnesota are very concerned about the farm bill. when you look to washington and the agreement that was reached to have a two-year budget on discretionary spending, does it give you hope or realistic sense that congress is going to be able to move on the farm bill? >> it gives me hope that we will be able to move on to the farm bill. it is a path of success that can be built upon. meeting people's expectations is a very difficult thing. it is especially tough to meet expectations of members in a caucus. it is even more difficult to meet expectations of special interest groups outside the caucus. the farm bill has only a few days left of decision-making. everybody has to tone down their expectations. this empowerment of murray and ryan, this empowerment of a bipartisan working group, i think it does create a path for us to the defense budget. there are 12 different budget bi

there is also on the operating side of the budget where and how we purchase power. so that's not funded through bonds. that's really funding through the currents rates and charges. >> also to tie into the bonds, these bonds we have to have revenue actually pay for the bonds. >> from the sales of the power? >> from power operations. so we probably getting some good rates for capital power assets to deal now but we have to pay, have the receive -- revenue to pay down on those bonds. in essence we can't get as many bonds as possible but we can get to afford to pay. >> hence the question about customers to generate the nu

quickly so that you have a chance to tell us what you want to see in the upcoming budget. the general manager is already very busy going through hundreds of pages of proposals that staff have developed and call through what meets his muster. there are several things that are new this year and they are because of policies that you have adopted and you have told us to review these and look at these. i will review these quickly. over all you are going to hear during the budget hearings in january and february an update to a nearly billion dollar budget and this is to refresh our memory, the most recent adopted one is $874 million. we have had a number that has worked well for us. this is to pause to see if the mission statement still works and if it does we will develop the budget to tieback to that mission statement. in past cycles you have adopted strategic goals and you have done well for us as well as the commission for the budget. they are here in this page to provide high quality service plan for the future, promote a green sustain able city and engage the public and als

and that appears not to be part of the budget deal. that would be another $25 billion or so, and if they wanted to do that without adding to the deficit, they'd have to find another $25 billion of savings. so it's probably not going to be part of the budget deal that we're, that we've been reading about over the weekend. >> host: all right. let's start taking some of your calls. first in chicago, illinois, carl is on our line for democrats. >> caller: yes, hello, how are you doing, mr. bixby? >> guest: hi, how are you? >> caller: i'm fine, thank you. i think that people like yourself and the american people need to realize we need to restructure our economic policies. primarily, we're in problems that we have because trickle down pro-growth doesn't work. we need to have more taxation, we need to have some adjustments to these trade agreements so that we can build on our economy from within, help the people that's in the middle and the bottom incomes rise to we can have more revenue. but it's primarily we can't continue to let business b

we didn't say continue to the budget. all that we are saying is continue it until we are provided with the information that will justify these positions. specifically, continue the proposed annual salary ordinance filed 13-1141 for the pending rfpd existing staff assignments comparison with other bond projects and staffing for the new positions to meet this work load. in fact, as soon as, if they give us the information this week, we'll be prepared for the next or maybe two weeks2 weeks. well, in january, that's right. the next meeting would be in january. we are certainly prepared to report within the six 6 months of the budget. debra newman who prepared this report, i will be happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you. on the information of the two salary positions. i guess i was hoping to get it resold -- resolved in the last 2 days. >> i think there is a little bit of a disconnect from the timing of where the material, the budgeting analyst office was given notice which i think is very appreciative of the work of

number and the house budget number. this number is also less than the 2000 spending levels set forth in chairman ryan's 2011 budget. while the overall spending number is higher than what i would have wanted, the house and senate budget committee chairmen were able to craft a budget deal that produces $23 billion in net deficit reduction. now, very honestly, $23 billion with the deficit that we've been running is a mere pittance and i think all of us who are concerned about the debt and the deficit of this country would like to see that number higher. but more importantly, they have produced a budget that will set in place some fiscally responsible spending policies and give us a way forward. regardless of how each member of this chamber feels about the resulting policy, we should all recognize the importance of this agreement and thank the chairmen for their tireless work to end this chapter of political disagreement. although i would still prefer a grand bargain to solve our fiscal crisis, this deal marks the first step

now, this brings us to the budget agreement. i am very pleased that the senator from washington has included within this budget that we're going to pass -- it would be nice today but it looks like it's going to be tomorrow -- what some of us have been calling on for years, restricting access to this master file, making it harder for criminals to steal identities. and, therefore, making it harder to steal taxpayer money. that's where this actually has a revenue effect because we're going to actually save the u.s. government by doing this -- we're going to save the u.s. government money that otherwise is being stolen. so i want to thank the courageous chairman of the budget committee for including this idea in the act and in crafting it, what used to be s. 676, the identity theft and tax fraud prevention act. it was never any intent of this senator or the cosponsors of denying access to the master file by the people who need it for legitimate purposes. and the language in this budget deal would include the file in the freedom of in

of the budget is going to take the biggest hit? next, from california, daniel is on our line for republicans. caller: i just wanted to ask why can't we, with our technological abilities now, draw down a lot -- because and keep we have many nations in the world with armies that can provide military support for the , for advancing democracy and freedom. i don't see why we all have to go broke to support all these and theirtries defense when there are many other nations with militaries just like ours. guest: i think daniel makes a couple of interesting points there. one of the issues diplomatically we are having is a lot of our allies are trying to cut their own defense budgets for obvious reasons, and that is a concern of the pentagon. the other point is that we have so much more technology these days. thatked to several people suggested to me that, yes, the cost per person has gone up a lot, but that makes sense considering these are not the ground pounding trigger pullers we may have had in the army 30, 40 years ago. the people in

. >> the senate is back in session with the budget still not settled. that's tonight's "inside story." >> hello, i'm ray suarez. the u.s. house is already home for the holidays, now all eyes are on senate to see this they can pass the budget deal. if they can, it will mark achievement in a year of rankle. on this edition of our program we will an ask a ask what cost is compromise. first this background. the senate is race to go wrap up its work for the year and the pressure is on senators to pass a budget before heading home for the holidays. democrats know they need a handful of republicans to pass the spending plan. some senators indicated they would vote to end debate. >> i hope it will pass the senate. i'll do anything, but not anything but we must not shut down the government again. >> reporter: last week the house passed a 1 trillion-dollar budget that would ease cuts from the sequester and avoid risk ing another government shutdown. >> i'm glad to report that senator murray and i have reached an agreement. >> reporter: months in the making this co

and agreed on a combine budget. theppropriations bills passed is we didn't have a budget to guide those appropriations. so everything was sitting there for ted cruz and rand paul and the guys who wanted to shut down the government to just come in and knock off the continuing resolution. a lot of it is the lack of urgency. what drove tip together, my old boss, and reagan together, was a sense, dammit, we have to get something done here. we're grown-ups. you want to do something the conservative way, i want to do it the liberal or progressive way. let's find a compromise here. you get some of what you want, you give me something, i give you something. and that was the sense of urgency that you don't have today. again, i'm not going to knock the budget deal they just got through. it's something. it's a -- maybe it's a bunt in baseball terms. it's not a single. it's a bunt. maybe a successful bunt. but it's not great. but it's something. but the idea of doing something urgent, if you think something urgent needs to be done,

the hill newspapers as the budget deal is sealed. it?guest: n off on the deal is well struck between the chairman's. both good people trying to come to an agreement. what we did in terms of the actual conference committee is we held a couple of hearings, which were also somewhat useful. the first hearing were opening statements. you generally won't -- roll your .yes to shut down the government. i think the federal government does enough harm to our economy -- that was the first thing i think the chairman got from that first hearing, to try to do something that will prevent a government shutdown so we do not harm the economy further. a second hearing, we actually had the congressional budget office director -- the process of that meeting was, how do you define the problem. to get a simple answer to one question. i tried it with treasury secretary lou and the acting omb director. they have never had it in them to admit the fact it has no value. you have to first of may you have a problem and then properly define it if you are going to move

the senate had a budget. the house had a budget. the president had a budget. to use a very simple analogy. we were at this number, the senate was at this number, the president was about at the senate's number. we ended up compromising at this number. the critical point of this agreement is they finally come together and have a number. then you can have legitimate and honest debate about how much should go to this or should go to that program. that is part of the legislative progress. years, has in recent important of a very theme that margaret thatcher advanced 30 years ago. first you win the debate. then you win the vote. what we have seen going on in congress, and why there is so leadership on both sides no longer think they have to win the debate. they just have to get enough votes. if they have to break knuckles, promise bridges, that is all considered fair game. if we can get back to the basic notion of having legitimate debate about legitimate issues and not allowing personalities to be allowed in the debate, i think you will see a much more -- you will s