effective on july 1,we have hadg session, and i think the position of the unions is that until the city budget is final, meeting totally final, they would not consider that there is any reduction there for them or anything that they would have to negotiate to change the contract. so i want to put that on the table and say that if you want the public authority to be the messenger to negotiate with the workers and the union, we would need back-up from the city. [bell] these proposals are real. chair chu: thank you.

and we should probably have a follow-up conversation with you and the mayor's office about that. >> assessing the possibilities and so on would be great. chair chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is gail, and i am representing a collaboration of supportive housing providers here in san francisco and another group. we do not believe the situation this committee is in. we know this is a tough situation for all of us, and we ask you to look at other forms to close that budget gap, but i do think we have a difference of opinion with the director, who we know is not going to make these cuts, but we are here today to say that if the cuts on supportive housing go through, there will be loss of support of housing. supportive housing is more than four walls and a bed. what makes a cost-effective and what makes it a product that is

$9,000 per year to house someone versus $18,000 per year when they are on the street is a service package. we have lost over $1 million in funding over the last two years. if these cuts go through, it is a tipping point. it would change shoe comes through and our promises. i have investors who have invested $2 to $3 for every dollar that the city has invested, from the state, federal equity, and we have a commitment to provide a rich and full housing package to them to keep it stable. the property management staff cannot do that alone. i urge this committee to support the human services commission in to reject all contingency cuts from this. this is the year we should be allowing them to be held harmless and not have those cuts. hundreds of individuals will be at risk for their housing, and hundreds more will be on the streets every day as housing and

shelters are closed. i ask also the mayor's budget staff have these not go through, these cuts, on the hsa. chair chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is debbie, and we are an association of about 100 health and human service nonprofits in san francisco. first of all, i want to applaud the early nature of the process and the idea of having these hearings now and other opportunities for public input, like the town hall. we urge the board to work closely with the mayor, do your priority setting early, and work on these so we do not have the kind of service destruction and turmoil that we see. we really appreciate the is. secondly, we have heard about some very devastating cuts to the services in both the department of human services and

the department of aging today, and we have not even heard many of the details that we heard in the commission hearings, but we know the caseloads are high. the number of seniors in the city is growing, and we cannot afford these cuts, so we have asked the mayor, and we urge this board, as well, to do everything we can to avoid the contingency cuts in this department, which to attack very basic services that people need to survive -- which to attack them and get third, we want to do a focus on long-term planning -- which do attack very basic services that people need to survive. third, we want to focus on long- term planning. we have not had an increase in four years, and we have had as much stress it, and we are not allowed to pass on any of of

premiums to our employees. they have not had raises, and many have mou's, and they have to find money to pay for those raises. we need to address how we're going to provide this, for these organizations. thank you. chair chu: thank you. >> supervisors, gabriel. we represent several nonprofits that are on the list of cuts, and i am rising to oppose the contingency cuts, as well. there is a starkness to the idea that earlier today, we were talking about rental subsidies to corporations that are doing quite well, and now, i am here on the same day, talking about losing housing in the very area for people, so that starkness is not lost on me with a contradiction about this.

we see these kinds of cuts before us on the very same day. chair chu: 80. are there any other speakers who would like to speak on this item -- thank you. seeing none, this item is closed. [gavel] i will ask that we filed this item. i fully expect that between now and when the budget is up, there will be multiple conversations with the board, the mayor, different constituencies. without objection. but -- [gavel]

please read item number four. clerk young: a resolution adopting the city's 10-year capital expenditure plan for fiscal years 2012 and 2021. >> amy brown. good afternoon, supervisors. you're acting city supervisor. -- administrator. 2012 to 2021. differing projects without funding sources.

these capital improvements will create more than 160,000 local jobs over the next decade. we obviously have police and fire stations, roads, libraries, support and utility systems, and our facilities, among many others. in total, we have over 50 million square feet of

facilities, 850 miles of streets, and infrastructure that lies within a few blocks of everything in the city. we operate over two hospitals, clinics, county jails, housing 2000 prisoners, and county health programs, in a regionally, and we operate several facilities, most notably our international airport. all of these are dealt with within the capital plan. the 10-year capital plan was created in 2005 because upload

this is with department heads as well as with the board, the planning director, the controller, and the budget director. caught this is the sixth capital plan that has been prepared since the code was adopted. we are anticipating that with this plan, we will move into a biennial preparation. legislation will be coming to you shortly. we are working on that now to submit to you so the next time we will be back with a new plan will be two years from now. with that, i would like to call up our director, brian, who will highlight the accomplishments over the last year and of the proposed plan this year. thank you. >> thank you very much. brian strong with the capital planning program. good afternoon.

there is a lot on the agenda today, so i will try to go through these slides and make sure we have ample time. we do have various constraints, and she was mentioning, in our capital plan. we do believe that we are living within our means. we have also been able to get a lot done. in 2002, we had an emergency response, which enables us to have work on the public safety building and allows us to work on the process of moving people out with the seismically unsafe department of justice. there are 1900 new curb ramps. you have seen them in the city. they are going up. there is the laguna honda hospital. there is the park brant's, -- branch, which you can see. there is also improvement on

valencia's street. some of the other improvements that we have had our groundbreaking. part of the bond is supported, part of the capital plan is park bonds and open space bonds. we have seen ground work done on the chinese recreation center, central subway, the playground, the bayview branch library, as well. these all included. we have done quite a bit of work. we had quite a bit of work that made recommendations. many of those are reflected in the capital plan that is before you. we're also working with the mayor's office on rincon hill on what we expect will be the first

one to be able to issue debt again to be able to provide infrastructure improvements and important amenities in that area. that area of town is, i should say, included in many aspects of the infrastructure. we also have been working with the city administrator's office on the lifeline council. a lot of our plan involves seismic preparedness. we know with the recent events how important this is. we continue to prioritize those. if you go to the next slide, there we go. the next slide, we talk about principles. very quickly, we recognize the need in san francisco for infrastructure is so great that we have been addressing and by prioritizing projects, will be based on mandates and then safety. those are the critical issues that we are facing. we're also looking for the

timely maintenance so we also use public dollars as wisely as we can. we want to make sure that we are not repaid in the streets -- we are repaving the streets -- before it gets more expensive. so getting to the proposed capital plan here, amy was mentioning some of the numbers. we can see the the general fund, it is mostly around health and human services and those others, those areas are really where we would expect to see these general funds. a lot of the dollars, especially in the enterprise category, are coming from the new sewer system

improvement program that the puc is going to be moving forward with, and recreation and culture, we have two jail bonds that are now within the 10-year period of the capital plan, and we do expect to continue work. there is still a great need to make improvements in that area, and economic development, you can see a lot of that work is coming externally. such as this would be worked out at hunters point. this would be a treasure island, rather large development projects that are ongoing. and in transportation i should mention, some of that is going to and bobby central subway and some of those others that are being run through, the mta and the transportation authority. this will give you an idea of the proposed sources. this is the overall capital plan. this is not broken down by

general fund or any particular area, but you can see it is really revenue bonds. this is primarily for the public utilities commission, but there are other acts that have revenue bonds. general fund supports about 4%. some bonds that we will talk about today, this is about 17% of capital spending, and then there are state and federal dollars, often involving matches. so for the general fund program, we tend to focus our efforts, this lists both what we fund and do not find in our capital plan, so the repair and renewal needs are about $1.40 billion. at the same time, we are differing quite a bit. this would include street repaving. it would include work on buildings, roads, hvacs systems and those types of things.

san francisco general hospital was funded and is under this category. but we of several other structures throughout the city that are vulnerable, most notably the hall of justice, where korea of 800 prisoners and 900 prisoners sitting on top of that structure. there is disability access, another very important feature of the capital plan. we fully fund our ata program -- ada program. it is a critical feature of all of the programs we do, as it is mandated by the federal government. whenever we touch a building, typically, we are making significant ada improvements, and that goes with parks and other things. we are still differing $694 million. there are various other improvements at, such as the library, the branch library

improvement program, in some of the others. the next slide gives you a sense of where we are with respect to where we are and what we are deferring in the pay as you go situation. you can see it is a little difficult to see because of the scale. this is still outside of the 10- year capital plan. this is assuming we are going to grow our cash commitment by 10% per year. real inflation, 5% for growth. it is a catch up. even at that level of investment, you can see the sort of dark black line that is going up rather dramatically. that is the backlog that we need for our pay-as-you-go program. this line is what would be going up if we were able to meet our and real needs and reduce our annual needs.

we are receiving if you go to the next slide, we are assuming approximately $77 million in general fund support for the pay-as-you-go program for the next fiscal year. that is, again, following the formula of increasing it by 10% per year. you can see that the red line is what we are recommending in the capital plan. what is below is what we have been able to fund. often what we plan and what we have been able to do are not completely in sync, and this is an area where we recognize we need more work. you can see the gray bar of one- time sources. we were using this primarily for

street resurfacing over the past three years. we get the gas tax revenue, and we were at a point where we wanted to address some of these before they got more expensive, so we were using some of that revenue to pay down debt to be able to do more street work. that also includes some other one-time sources, the public utilities commission, and from the federal government. there are some dollars that went to the energy savings and also helped us with the renewal program. the next slide, again, because we know the streets, that is such a critical topic, we just wanted to show this, and i will show a follow-up slide. the show's biggest toward funding levels. there is the index that we use to break our streets. it is at a 64, which is in a

fare category. this would be 70. we're not talking about excellent or the highest category by any means, but we do want to get it up to 70, and that shows the level of commitment that would be needed. this those -- this show's general fund support. this is what the picture would look like. there would also be little or no

money for some other things, so getting work for roofs or hvac, that would be impacted, as well. chair chu: brian, this has to deal with the reallocation about what would be sent on? >> right. i am looking for dodi, if he wants to verify that. that is accurate -- i am looking for drug -- doug. chair chu: it seems pretty level overall. >> right. chair chu: and then the hetch bar area, that is the area where we are most doubtful. >> right. this is the area we are hoping to grow by 10%. we should mention there are certain things that we pay right off of the top that we do not question.

some of its is our ada work, and part of the reason we are doing well is critical. we know we cannot do it without doing a really good job. chair chu: and one last issue, the tax. into what area? >> it is inc. -- well, it would be part of the federal and state dollars. you are talking about the new fee that came from the cta, i can check on that for you. chair chu: it is very little. >> yes, it is only around $2.50

million per year, $2 million. but let me double check. so if we go to the next slide, we talk about some of the revenue constraints and the bond program. et we made a commitment when we first plaque -- passed the capital plan. chair chu: if we do not commit, where does our score fall by the year -- in 10 years? >> i believe it is indy -- in the fifties. we are currently at 64. when there was the working group reports, when you get below 60, you are in a dangerous area.

there is a bit of a tipping point, where future costs become dramatically more. now, you are not able to do a top coat. you have to go into all of the streets and start from the ground up, so -- chair chu: thank you. >> this shows the proposal that the capital planners are working on. originally, we thought that we would be doing say street and road repair, a bond, in 2012. this was to address the concerns. chair chu: there was a question about streets.

supervisor wiener: my understanding is that this would be replacing what was from before. >> really, and i can defer to the director of public works, we have never had a significant amount of the general fund money going to the streets. we had some going in that direction, but really, we are -- we have not had a dedicated source for streets. we are really thinking of the bahn as a way to get us over the next, and address some of the backlog. once we get there, this is sort of implementing a more permanent source.

supervisor wiener: it seems to me that we need to make sure that we are being irresponsible with the general fund in terms of funding, and i know that is painful, in my concern is that in a few years, we will be in the exact same position, where korea little or nothing coming from the general fund. we have no other sources. we have not got our act together in terms of funding. to have a steady funding stream, and then when we are voting on other bonds, letting it slide, so do you know where we are wrote korea where we are? if we will be allowed to do that. >> so the working group is

completed, is essentially. this is looking at " what we are trying to do. i appreciate it. i am happy to answer it now. for right now, the report is done, and that is their role, but what we are looking to do now is working closely, i think, with the mayor's office, with the state legislators, and so forth, especially on this idea, and i think that idea seems to be the top line. the idea would be in 2012, we would go to the ballot. penn that is a commitment in the capital plan. we do not commit to any particular source, but that is what is being discussed, and that is what we would hope to do. 2012 is an election, so it would be a voter threshold.

we think that it will be most appropriately used for maintaining the streets. it is tight between the two. other sources that have been discussed and that we have presented, they, against a lot of the same challenges. we have also looked at a sales tax, and that is something else that could be on the table, if there is a willingness on behalf of the policy makers to increase the sales tax, and that could also go towards it. that is what other jurisdictions have done, so that is another possibility. so does that answer your question? going back to this slide a little bit, we are showing the bonds that we are