Rivers from the sfmta is pulling something up on his computer; right . Well hear from him later. Okay. Ill continue on the next slide all of the fund in this particular category mr. Be advanced over the next 5ier period so after this 5 years no funding in the category, however, it is an advanced for priorities to move this project forward in this timeframe. The amendment the first of the two amendments thats before you today is one to say the transit enhancement category it adds the geary bus Rapid Transit project are 30 million in 1718 Construction Funds and that was done in order to maximize the amount of money in the brt for the t r that so weve added geary to the transit enhancement category with the results to push out the Customer First project that had funds programmed in the early part of the 5 year plans but those proctologist projects will be funded for the prop k program so everything is funded it is moving things around and through an amendment because of the timing of what
Previous to that it was not balanced and it showed a shortfall. But it did you point out that it is relatively straightforward if we dont have more revenues to pay for costs, we could only buy what we can afford to. So, here again now, we fast forward two years three new pieces of information mean costs even larger than what we have ever assumed. Mountain tunnel was already in last years capital plan [speaker not understood]. It was in it for the last several as far as the maintenance work, but it was in at 100 million of cost. With the potential for collapse of the mountain tunnel which would disrupt the water supply and a recently completed engineering study, though costs have gone upwards of 6 28 million ~. So, that, sir, is new, and i do understand that that would be a very surprising and large change. The Interconnection Agreement expiration, though costs have always been in our tenyear plan, but not to the recently filed and heightened levels by pg e, to ferc and cpuc. But lastly
From 5 million down to 2 million go solar sf, cut energy sufficiency, cut City Renewables on city buildings, 90 million, 30 million each from programs that we really want to do. But if we continue to provide power below cost, there just is not enough money to do all the things that are good and that we would want to do. And, so, the fiscal plan for the pucs power enterprise was balanced the last two. Previous to that it was not balanced and it showed a shortfall. But it did you point out that it is relatively straightforward if we dont have more revenues to pay for costs, we could only buy what we can afford to. So, here again now, we fast forward two years three new pieces of information mean costs even larger than what we have ever assumed. Mountain tunnel was already in last years capital plan [speaker not understood]. It was in it for the last several as far as the maintenance work, but it was in at 100 million of cost. With the potential for collapse of the mountain tunnel which w
Deferring 2 24 million ~ of other types of improvements. That 2 24 million of cuts included the assumed reductions from 5 million down to 2 million go solar sf, cut energy sufficiency, cut City Renewables on city buildings, 90 million, 30 million each from programs that we really want to do. But if we continue to provide power below cost, there just is not enough money to do all the things that are good and that we would want to do. And, so, the fiscal plan for the pucs power enterprise was balanced the last two. Previous to that it was not balanced and it showed a shortfall. But it did you point out that it is relatively straightforward if we dont have more revenues to pay for costs, we could only buy what we can afford to. So, here again now, we fast forward two years three new pieces of information mean costs even larger than what we have ever assumed. Mountain tunnel was already in last years capital plan [speaker not understood]. It was in it for the last several as far as the mai
Item at a maximum of 15 wraps. On a bus, i think that we have heard a lot from our community in terms of the limitations and advertisementses that they want to see on our Public Transit and i agree with that. I appreciate the conversation around mtas budget. We have currently secured funding for lowincome youth, so, that is not on the table. That is funded privately now. So, that has been included at mtas budget. If mta was to come out and say they would support free muni for lowincome seniors and disability, he if he we can approve 30 wraps im happy to support 30 wraps today, but i dont think that is the commitment being made today nor do the 15 wraps cover the cost of free muni for lowincome seniors and disabled. If im wrong about that, director reiskin, im happy to hear a commitment today for free muni for lowincome seniors and disabled. Supervisor yee. Might as well join the chorus here. If director reiskin [speaker not understood], i would also support the expansion. If not, then