supervisor avalos: good morning, welcome to the budget and

finance committee. my name is supervisor john and avalos. i enjoyed to my right by sean elsbernd. to my left, ross mirkarimi. mr. young, can you share with us your announcements? >> please turn off all cell phones and pagers. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out a speaker card and turn it into myself. items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on december 14, 2010 unless otherwise stated. supervisor avalos: thank you. colleagues, today is the last budget committee meeting of the year. it has been quite a year, and it will be quite a meeting, i'm sure, especially with the america's cup discussion. that, we will probably get to, for those of the waiting in the audience, probably about 12:30,

12:45. since we have a long meeting, i expect a short break after that to get to the latter items on the agenda. could you please call item one. >> item 1. ordinance appropriating $2,385,068 of visitacion valley infrastructure fee revenue from the visitacion valley infrastructure fund, including $2,169,200 in the public library for the visitacion valley branch library project and $215,868 in the department of public works, for the planning and design of utility undergrounding on leland avenue for fy2010-2011, and placing $1,156,304 on controller's reserve in the public library pending receipt of visitacion valley infrastructure fee revenue. >> good morning, members of the committee. jon low, office of soapy

maxwell. i wanted to give you the history of this corporation before you. the infrastructure fund was approved by the board in 2005 to support public infrastructure development needed to mitigate the impact of a dramatic increase in residential development projected for the neighborhood at the time. eligible expenditures of fund revenues included the areas of active recreational space, library facilities, community facilities, and streetscape improvement. the ordinance before you has two key projects, among them, the library and the underground of utilities on leland avenue. staff, dpw's street design team is here. i will just say, the city has invested already in these two projects. the supervisor feels it is

appropriate to finalize and assert our commitment to this effort for which this appropriation would accomplish. the library has had to borrow money from their preservation fund, which they need to restore, and a supplemental would make dpw complete. the undergrounding of utilities on a leland would help with leveraging and attracting future dollars. happy to answer any questions. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> i have an overhead that i want to show. good morning, supervisors. i am the chief financial officer of the library. i am here to discuss the public library portion of this request. the total developer contribution of the branch library was deemed to be

$2,169,900 as part of the branch library improvement program, property was acquired, a new branch library was designed for completion in june 2011 the board of supervisors approved in advance $2 million from elaborate preservation fund in anticipation of subsequent receipt of funds from the infrastructure funds. the library is now seeking appropriation of $2,169,000, of which $1,065,000 is currently available. we are requesting the balance of 1,174,000 ballots be placed on controllers reserved for the library pending collection of additional infrastructure fees. supervisor avalos: thank you.

>> project manner bear for the department of public works great streets program. the purpose of utility undergrounding is to eliminate the overhead wires along leland avenue. that is both for ease of maintenance and aesthetics. this was the number one request of the community coming out of the planning process in 2006. the scope of this current request is covered, design work, including utility agencies, on the run in districts, community outreach, and development of a funding plan for the property owner conversion portion of the work. the total request about is $215,000.800 $60. -- $215, 868, 000.

>> thank you. let's hear from the budget director. >> i would note, the public library used to million dollars of the requested infrastructure funds that are being requested to be appropriated under this ordinance. that would be to prepay library preservation fund that had already been advanced and expended for this project. also on page 7 of the report, we point out this infrastructure fund has an available balance of $1.7 million, however, the proposed ordinance would appropriate $2.3 million. so therefore, given there are not sufficient funds currently in the visitacion valley infrastructure fund, the remaining balance of $1.5

million would be placed on comptroller reserves, and that is included in your legislation. we recommend you approve this ordinance. supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. rose. colleagues, comments, questions? why don't we go on to public comment. we are opening up public comment to item one relating to the visitacion valley library. >> my name is francisco decosta. the explanation given to us is like reading your pg&e bill. every time it changes. there is relevant documentation that goes but this. what you see here is that businesses in executive park, which is not part of visitacion valley, have to pay the

visitacion valley infrastructure fees. so you supervisors, and those of you who do the analysis, have to understand that the developers are held hostage. this is becoming a fashion. in the dire economic times, as you know, and you will be hearing a lot of items tied to the economy, it is very difficult for the developers to pay this money. but because you supervisors, at another time, when the economy was better, got past the visitacion valley infrastructure fees, not paying attention who was contributing to this fund,

now as the budget analyst has revealed to you, there is less than $2 million. i have not heard you supervisors asked the people presenting whatever was being presented in a convoluted matter for line item fees or expenses. some grants were given and wanted to use it but they could not use it because they were for carbon emissions. this 18-page document has it all here. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. let me call a few cards. fran martin. peter orfield. john dogerdoge.

>> i am disappointed to see two minutes on the clock. when the capital planning committee took this up, i was present and asked questions. the controller got confirmation from the library about what was happening with the money. i would say there is a bit of a shell game going on, and the pg&e characterization is an understatement of the complexity here. there were two questions basically. first, the purpose of the visitacion valley community facilities and infrastructure fee and fund was to "mitigate the impact from residential development on public infrastructure in visitacion valley, including libraries, streets, and so on." i would appreciate if the supervisors paid attention. the question is, what, in fact,

is a mitigation of an impact of development? is that a legitimate use to underground existing wires? i do not oppose undergrounding, i think it is great. it should happen everywhere, but is that an appropriate use, especially when the library is hurting for operating funds and cannot provide service in the fifth district while park branch is closed? that deprives the community a years of service. the other issue is what is happening with the money. can the developers pay it? what is happening with page 1-1. the public library is intending to use $2 million in a proposed ordinance to reimburse their preservation fund, which will then be we appropriated to other projects. so, in other words, it looks like a raid on library

preservation funds one way or another to put money that is normally for other operations -- supervisor avalos: thank you. is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment? >> my name is fran martin. we are the organization that instituted this fee in the first place. we asked for infrastructure funding in our neighborhood. in termwe really want this to go forward. it is only paying back what has already been borrowed. it is only fair that the developers and the new people moving in participate in making

this a better neighborhood. there is no point to put this housing in if there is no infrastructure. in terms of the location, the boundaries, executive clark, all you have to do is look at the map. visitacion valley, guadalupe watershed. this ieeir was just put out for theupe upc development, but the impact will be in visitacion valley. i cannot think why anyone would be against visitacion valley getting these fees from the impact. supervisor avalos: thank you.

any other member of the public that would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: it is a good question. the intimation by some of the concerns from the public with regard to the undergrounding -- i am a big fan of that. in this case, if there is an assignment of dollars, then maybe one to speak to it. i have not heard it done before, using dollars from this type of project law before and undergrounding. remind the if there has been a case. maybe you could make your case stronger about utility undergrounding with the use of these funds? >> to answer your question, no, this type of funding has