i think this is where a lot of the focus is going to be. we have a neighborhood parks and open space bahn. this was moved up to 2012. et -- midway through 2012 and early 2013, we do not think it would be particularly wise to have both of those on the same ballot. on the other hand and in addition to that, this includes a medical examiner unit, note in the basement of the hall of justice, and this is far below current standards, at risk of losing accreditation, and we really think that we have to do something about that soon, and, again, this is especially in

light of the potential for a major disaster. we need to have it functioning. this needs to be relocated. these are projects that you need to get them started, and they will still take two or three years to complete. we have a bond in here for public health facilities. this is really trying to address some of the remaining needs of at san francisco general hospital. we have building 5, which is actually the koran hospital which will need to be re- purpose. we have 1 across the street, which is another seismically vulnerable building that has had issues that need some addressing, as well, and then we have neighborhood parks and open space, and that will be the third bond coming up in 2020, and then another earthquake safety bond. this is a way to sort of address

their needs and do some long- term planning. the next slide shows the impact on tax rates, and we are committed to make sure we do not go beyond the 2006 tax rate. this showed you that we are working closely with the comptroller's office of finance. it is really vital to us that we are keeping tax rates constant. this does assume the overall value in our city, which will be growing. we assume they will be growing at about 4.5%. historically, they have grown as high as 6% or 7%, so we believe that that is something that is prudent, and that is something that we're watching that could change down the road, but you can kind of see the white bar where bonds have already been

issued, and you can see that the hospital takes up a considerable amount of the funds that we have available, and the earthquake safety fund was just passed, and you can see the street bond on top of that, and the parks and bonds, and the other is down the road. >> -- chair chu: brian, in 2014, later, they are above a certain level. those potentially could go above that, depending on things? >> that is right, that is right. and, in fact, i think, in talking with nadia earlier, et -- earlier, in turn numbers, she showed it being below. i think i talked about this life

already. chair chu: before you go on, i believe supervisor note supervisor -- i believe supervisor boat -- supervisor chiu had something. supervisor chiu: the emergencies we have had are intense, and while fixing roads may not be the sexiest thing we do, it is among some of the basic city services that we provide. i want to echo the importance of thinking about long-term ongoing financing, as mentioned by supervisor wiener: . -- by supervisor wiener. obviously, we need to do that in addition to a measure that has

been proposed for this november. as i think everyone knows, we were not able to do it then, and every year that we wait, we see the exponential pain that the city will have to experience in order to dig ourselves out of this deep hole. the question i have, i think you talked about it briefly, but what is the criteria by which you think of this number and what projects go into that and what the priorities ought to be? i know that number is in a little bit of flux. how should we as policymakers think about this to deal with the exponential growth and needs " with this chart that you have laid out. >> the number we are looking at is taking three years worth of

funding. we want to make sure that we were not falling behind, so that we can reach the goal, of improving the streets. at the same time, we wanted to make sure that we were staying within the tax limit and that we were sort of moving forward with the expectation of a permanent revenue source. we think this is the best, smartest way it to save streets. that is what we are looking at. these are assets that last a long time. these are also vital parts of our public right of way. some of the sidewalks, especially these, they are included in that number. et -- there is some expectation

that that number could potentially go up some. we do not think very much, but we have worked with the mayor's office -- excuse me, the comptroller's office, and we do think there may be some room to add on to that. the goal is that so by 2022, this requires that level of funding on that bar there. i should mention that this highlights the urgency of doing

this note, and even passing this bond, we will still of some period of time that we have to note biggest, where we will be working with dpw to make sure we get that gap covered, but, really, it is important that we do it now and that we get the money going in. otherwise, we lose ground. and when we lose ground, it takes longer to catch up. supervisor chiu: we do this every five years or so? >> we would be doing this now, addressing our backlog, getting it up to 70, and using a new revenue source to pay for it, so i think we would not be doing this in five or six years. >> rick wagoner, the mayor's budget director. i just wanted to go to this

point. a first question of how we arrive at the figure and what room that there is, we have an assumption that are bonded debt will not exceed the 2006 tax rate, which is the year that the plan was adopted, so our primary constraint is that we do not authorize or issue new bonds at a rate faster than we are paying off all bonds. so as bryan said, the office of financing is working on how much we need, but that is one of the central driving factors in of the capital planning committee has decided to size the bonds, note and this is a self-imposed policy constraints, but that does allow us to place the bonds on the ballot.

at some point, if you exceed the goal. >> as the budget director was mentioning, we also have a constraint as far as revenue bonds and what we think is permitted and what we are able to do. the other policy constraint is that we're going to maintain what is spent on debt service. a certain amount of discretionary revenue.

we are trying to stay within the commitment as best we can. this goes back into 1993 or so when we started working on this. this is between 859 other prisoners on top of the hall of justice. that is a top priority of ours. i understand there are significant operating costs that

you need to incur. if you go to the next slide, you can see that the great one is some of the existing debt. " these are some of the moscow the improvements that we did, mosconi west. -- the mosconi improvements that we did. the yellow bars, we have been in discussions with the sheriff.

we are looking at how we can phase the project or build 400 beds. we have done research on the attitudes, and it just is not there. it is really something that has been attempted in the past, twice with san bruno, and it failed. we believe that for now, this is the best strategy, other

options. chair chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i am curious. are you gleaning from polling and surveying? with regard to support? in the rehabbing, where are you getting that information. >> we do go out a little while ago, and we try to get it understanding of where people's priorities are. we recognize we're spending a significant amount of dollars on the efforts before they go on the ballot. we want to be prudent and have a good understanding of what the priorities are and what makes the most sense.

we are trying to be responsible and understanding. but what they would be willing to support, and using that information to sort of a gauge of the best fun things and how we can of a plan that is as close to being implemented ball as possible, trying to reduce the amount. yes, we think that is going to work, but we are not sure. we're trying to be realistic about these things. we do not think that is realistic. supervisor mirkarimi: other than the complete rehabbing of jails three and four -- >> there is a whole situation we have. it is best to replace what is

there. the second earth day -- it will address the traffic that is there and the medical examiner that is there, and we have a third one further down the road bed is going to address the district attorney and the adult -- that is going to address the district attorney and the adult situation. recognizing again the constraints we have established in the plan. the courts are there. that jail sort of takes up the whole length of the building. if we are able to take the jail out, it enables us to separate the building, meanwhile, we can tear down the other way note, and they can build a new courthouse. the most expensive thing in doing this capital work is

having to build a temporary relocation, and building a temporary jail would be expensive. building a temporary court would be very expensive. the goal is to phase this in a way that the people who need to stay there can stay there until we can find a permanent home for them. does that answer your question? supervisor mirkarimi: it does, but what if there were emergency, where we had to move the population anyway? >> right, and it involves a temporary housing, and it involves taking people out to san bruno or something like that. supervisor mirkarimi: it is limited capacity. >> right. supervisor mirkarimi: it would be detent option, or candlestick

or something. >> that is right. i do not think anyone from the sheriff's office is here, but we expect if we have an earthquake that is going to knock down our jail, we will probably not be able to relocate people in al liby or someplace else. -- in alameda or someplace else. in the coming months, we know that it will be a great expense to transport people and that it would be a difficult thing to do to bring them back to the court. supervisor mirkarimi: i think he would be worthwhile to follow up on what these contingencies are. it is worth getting a little more clarity on that, the emergency management response. >> sure, i would be happy to. chair chu: on the slide, discretionary revenue, it is obviously a concern.

for this one, we do see five years, in which we would expect, if this plan were to go forward and is implemented the way it looks now, it would go up to roughly, as it looks now, over 4%, as opposed to what we have now, correct? i imagine now, there may be project scope changes that could impact this. there is probably going to be some work from the mayor's office with regards to the issuance, the timing of issuance, to have this be lower. i imagine we might be looking for the debt service on mosconi, to see if we can retire some of that debt earlier.

>> right, right. chair chu: thanks. >> that is really the meat of the presentation. i would just mention that we are also aggressively trying to get out to the public as much as we can, so we have revamped our website with testimonials and so forth. we are really trying to make clear that we do have a very transparent, objective process. we have actually been approached by some to tell us how we are doing it, to share information with them, so there is the building are featured campaign out there, to make sure that people, that their tax dollars are going towards real infrastructure, we'll work that is being done, and seeing that this is a city family effort, and this is something that we need to work together to address.

and that is it. so if you have any questions or any further questions. chair chu: supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: just one about the st. bahn. could you talk a little bit about the different pieces of the bond that would cater to different modes of transit? pedestrian, biking, mta public transit, and others streetscapes issues? it i know that there is some in here, but there has been a discussion about biking permits and other things. >> do you want to take any of these things? >> the way that this was done,

as brian mentioned, this will enable us to improve the streets, and in doing so, we are working on the backlog. the general fund, for pothole repair, and maintenance. street resurfacing would allow us to work down the backlog. whenever we resurface the street and go through an intersection, we do those, as well. for the amount of funds that we need, being prepared to meet our responsibilities under the transition plan for the public right of way, but that is all that is in the number of the proposed capital plan, and the

balance is for the sidewalks and for the financing and oversight costs. the previous street bond, the $309 billion from 2009, included funds for st. structures which are bridges and stairways it, and we had a small amount of that. this is like what we did on valencia or divisidero. there it are the pedestrian countdown signals, crosswalks, and other by a plan " amenities -- bike plan amenities, so this is just the streets, sidewalks, the ramps, so what we could

include, and it seems there is probably room that would enable us to add more, a property tax policy cap, there would be st. state improvements, and the other thing would be discussing some transit improvements, such as overhead wire renovation, which the mta has identified, in their capital plant, as caps in funding, in this kind of fits well with the st. bonds. supervisor chiu: i did not hear you talk about bicycle improvements in addition to other transit-related stuff. i think the more that we will be able to convince san francisco that we need it for all of san francisco? >> yes, we need to have a category, and it certainly

includes the biplane elements, as well, so it would be pedestrian, bicycle, and kind of the environmental improvements, such as we have seen on places like valencia. supervisor chiu: thank you. chair chu: 84 your comments. i just want to talk about this. .i would be very cautious about that. i think the problem that we are trying to fix is about sweetening the pot, asking the taxpayers to pay for it, when we say that the problem is really not -- really the streets, and a this is not something i would be very supportive of. i would just say to the extent that we are hitting our cap on that, maintaining the 2006

level, i would be very suspicious about adding a lot of bells and whistles that is something that we should be looking at. having good roads are part of the benefit that i think not only the automobile drivers, not only people who are walking, but others would have. hellmann the times of we seen litigation from a bicyclist who has hit a pothole and has been hurt, so i would be just very cautious about that. one of the primary -- >> one of the primary things we can do is make sure korea programs and sidewalks that are safe. however, the additional streetscape program that we were talking about, but the things

that enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety and experience, they are not only in keeping with our better street policy and our transit force policy, but they are necessary to increase the mode share for bicycles and pedestrians, which then decreases it for automobiles, which is largely where it is now. i think if you look in a strategic, long-term sense, it fits with the policy, and giving people safe and attractive and inviting options that are different, that are not -- it can have some long-term benefits on our infrastructure, as well, so i think modest improvements that we can make and strategic things that we can do, while expecting the property tax cap, that is something we should be able vote to consider.

-- should be able to consider. chair chu: why do we not open it up for public comment? i have only one speaker card, nancy. >> i am nancy -- and i am here to ask the committee to keep the original schedule for voting on the park bond in 2014 as planned. moving the bonds of to 2012 does not allow plans -- time for proper planning and for conducting appropriate outreach and the voting needed to achieve consensus to approve it. the recreation and parks department has not heard much less approved the proposed acceleration it for 2012. such an important policy decision needs much more before changing the timing.

this can result in policy delays for some projects, such as requiring full environmental reviews, as in the case with the soccer field. also, recreation and parks has yet to repair the bad feelings they have about their bond renovated clubhouse, which they released out to private entities, or the repair and swimming pools being closed on sunday. why should it take 30 years to fix up places just to be shut out from enjoying the because of privatization? recreation and parks needs to make sure that all improvements will be operated for