>> that is right. we have a long way to go, even if we take all of the contingencies. >> so far, only the 2.5% current-year production was taken. thank you. supervisor kim: i have a question for the mayor's office. i was curious if there has been any movement on the state level around a special june election. >> i do not have that information. i do not believe an election has been called. i do not have the information. supervisor kim: do you know if there is a timeline by which the state has to declare the election? >> i know the governor set his own deadline of friday of this week. supervisor kim: something that is very challenging about looking at budgets by department is that it is often hard to evaluate the impact of the cuts on other services to our city.

just to give an example, if we were to cut our drop in resource centers during the day, the additional cost potentially to our public safety folks or police, who i know get called a lot by some of our businesses and residents during the day, when people are out on the streets are not able to access services, showers, laundry, and case management. has there been any movement in terms of evaluating some of the costs of these cuts so we are able to make the best decisions possible? while we have to make cuts, we do not want to inadvertently make cuts that increase costs to the city. another example i will point out is home visit costs. there are potentially liability issues for the city if we were to miss-evaluate safety for our youth, families, and foster children. i am wondering if there has been

any analysis done on cuts. >> let me address more broadly and then specifically. certainly, a lot of our cuts are informed by what the impact would be not only for individuals but for cost pressures elsewhere. i will give you a couple examples. supportive housing, we are not proposing to eliminate any supportive housing. there is a proverbial lock box around supportive housing. studies have demonstrated across the country and in san francisco -- we had a pioneering study, actually. it is cheaper to put someone in supportive housing than to have that individual on the street by five or six times. eliminating supportive housing, that individual is more likely to go to the emergency room, a county jail, mental health crisis clinics. that is sort of a real-world example of what you were suggesting.

similarly, in-home supportive services. we providers a little over $11 an hour to keep individuals in their community and their home. not only does that maintain dignity for that person and provide care in context of his or her environment. it's a significant dollars to avoidance of and nursing-home care. the cost of nursing homes is well above the hundreds of dollars it may cost a month to do ihss. specific to the drop-in centers, that is a harder one to evaluate. i think it is reasonable to assume that individuals who cannot access a chair during a day might stay on the street and have more interaction with law enforcement. they probably will have more exposure, so therefore -- more exposure to the elements, i

mean, and therefore more needs for emergency care. we have not quantify that. that would be a difficult undertaking. i think your assumption is correct that you would see some cost pressures. if not cost pressures, you would see service pressures. you would see the emergency room taking on more of these clients and have increasing wait times for others. you would seek ambulance calls going unnecessarily to these folks versus others. chairperson chu: is there any way to do a rough analysis of some of these potential costs? >> it is difficult in the drop- in center environment. we do it all the time. we do it in foster care as well. when we think about supporting foster family homes or groups -- or group care, when we are

looking at our budget, we want to grow our foster home population and keep front-line child welfare workers to monitor so we avoid group care. we do those evaluations probably 90% of the time for reductions we end up not making. supervisor kim: it would be great to see some of that. i appreciate that hsa does some of that analysis. i would love to see what you have done to put this list together. >> we just completed an analysis of our advocacy program which showed that for every dollar of general funds spent we save about $4 in terms of the avoidance of medi-cal and cash assistance. we propose to increase ssi advocacy for that reason.

i would be happy to share that analysis with you. supervisor kim: thank you. chairperson chu: i do want to open it for public comment now. why don't we go to public comment? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the executive director of the in-home supportive services public authority. ihss in concept is a very simple program, but as it has salted out over the years since it was established in the early 1970's, it has gotten more and more complicated in terms of streams of money and the entities that provide this service. the public authority has a major role in the city. we are an employer of record of about 18,000 independent providers of home care under ihss. i wanted to put forward that the

projections that have been approved by dos that the mayor's office is looking at least not negatively on, the savings that have been proposed -- the issue around the independent providers paying more per month as a contribution toward the premium for health care and the dental package are both specified in part of the contract that the public authority has with the independent provider work force. if those proposals are to be 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.