streetscape, bicycle, landscaping improvements, $50 million, as well as the transit straight signal infrastructure -- why doesn't make sense to put all of these into a string of effort -- resurfacing bond? >> let me say first the streetscape, bicycle, and other improvements are about having streets that are usable by everybody. we have found that there are a lot of people who are very concerned about pedestrian bicycle safety, the livability of our streets. my next slide will show this is really the only funding source available for those improvements, and they are part of st. safety. and this is not just a resurfacing bond, but a safety bond.

we also believe when we are going into the streets and improving them, muni, because it carries so many passengers, is a key part of our transportation system, that women are making these improvements in the street -- when we are making these improvements in the street, improvements to muni should also be made. with the st. transit signal infrastructure, the mta does not have any other identify the source of funding. >>supervisor chu: i'd think many of us recognize the need to have transit improvement work, whether it is the signals we are talking about in this situation, among other things, for muni. the question is why this comes forward with a street repaving bond. is there something that links transit signals to a street?

if you are paying, is there something that you need to put into the ground anyway? >> what we're really trying to look at is the entire street and road network, the concept of the bond that we are approving -- we are trying to improve the entire network. yes, muni is implementing their signal upgrades to do that. it is much more efficient for us to be doing it at the same time with the same contractor doing the street resurfacing. throughout the street program, we are trying to coordinate with anyone else digging up the streets, and that includes the water department, sewer department, pg&e, and anything that mta is doing in the street because it saves both money and

aggravation for residents for having streets being dug up, construction going on more than necessary. this slide shows what other sources of funding, in addition to the bond, are anticipated over the next three years. you will see, about two-thirds of the funds for street resurfacing are in this bond. over half of the funds or curb ramps and sidewalk a sensibility are in this bond. nearly all of the funds for structures, streetscape, bicycle improvements, and transit signaling infrastructure improvements are in this bond. so if it does not pass, we do not believe it is likely that these improvements will be implemented over the next three

years. all of that being said, however, to 60% of the funds are going to just street resurfacing, and if you add sidewalks and curbs ramps in with that. we have prioritization criteria for all of our projects. a few years ago we implemented street repaving projects coordinator with utility companies so that we could have efficiencies. we are looking at pavement condition index scores and we are trying a variety of improvements on streets. we are reaching some streets

that are in terrible condition and made investments in order to extend their useful life. as well, making improvements on those more expensive streets that are probably the one that the public feels most strongly about that we need to fix. if we put all of our money into those streets, though, we would have a lot more streets in that condition 10 years from now, if we are not making needed investments in streets that have a score around 50 now. we're putting all of our money into these areas. the sidewalk and curb ramp improvements are prioritized in accordance with our ada transition plan. those are also distributed throughout the city. we give priority to high pedestrian areas and places where there are people with

disabilities. they have let us know that they need and accessible path of travel to get to work, a medical appointment, school. the st. structure rehabilitation program is prioritized based on the level of safety hazard and deterioration as well as usage frequency and locations on emergency access routes. the streetscape pedestrian and the bike projects, as well as being for midwood utilities, being geographically distributed, mostly will be made in instances where there is a community-supported plan. with the $50 million for these, we have many more streets throughout the city that are candidates for these kinds of improvements than we have funds to place.

the transit signal infrastructure will be prioritized based on need. traffic, passenger volume, from your roots, transit network recommendations. it will go through the entire mta process with their committee structure in a public hearing. the bond legislation includes transparency and accountability measures. we have objective and other criteria for the selection of projects within each program. we will have a dedicated web page that lists projects, scope, budget. we will have regular hearing before the capital planning committee and the citizens general oversight obligation bonds committee. before any funds are sent -- spent on these projects, we will have to come to this board to have those funds appropriated. you will see the specific

projects that are to be accomplished with the bond funds, when that time comes. finally, i just want to mention briefly, the schedule we are on today, we are anticipating the ordinance will be before you in early july. the order and it needs to be approved on second reading by the board of supervisors by july 26, for submittal to the department of alexians july 29. -- elections july 29. that is the end of my presentation. we have program managers from various projects we are proposing to implement -- i am hoping susan from the mayor's office of disability can answer any questions about curb ramps.

supervisor chu: on the level of funding we have been the proposed budget this year, it looks like the combined source of federal, state, prop k sales tax moneys is equivalent to what it was in the current fiscal year. the big difference is, we use cops in the next year, they will not be available? >> that is correct. supervisor chu: so if this does not go through, what is the value of the cop roughly? $20 million? $30 million? >> 30. supervisor chu: ok, so without this bomb, $30 million less --

bond, $30 million less. let us go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, on the bottom of page five, as shown in attachment 2, on page 16, the estimated total debt service requirement -- between july 1, 2011 and june 30 -- a period of 24 years -- that is an annual average debt service of $8.2 million a year. that includes $240 million in the principal $189.2 million in interest. we also point out on page 6, on a five under thousand dollars home, this bond would result in an increase of property taxes of about $37.33 annually after

deductions, however, as the department pointed out, the timing of the issuance of the bonds would occur such that increases in property taxes from the proposed bond would be offset by reductions in property taxes as the city's existing general fund is redeemed. so there should be a neutral effect in terms of increased property taxes. on page 9 of our report, we point out, the mta has its own debt authority to finance the cost of the transit street signal infrastructure improvements, irrespective of the mta's current financial standing. we also point out on the bottom of page 9 we consider the proposed $148.4 million in

general-obligation bonds for street repaving and reconstruction projects to be routine and ongoing when considering the entirety of the city streets system, and therefore, find such projects -- and i say this in a perfect world -- such project would be more appropriately financed on a pay-as-you-go basis without the issuance of the proposed go bond that will relate result in long- term debt. as i mentioned, there is a significant interest expense attached to bonds. if we had the revenue, it would be more appropriate to use in general revenues -- general fund revenues. we consider conclusion, on page 10, we say in the recommendation, inclusion of the $140 million to be used for street repaving and reconstruction. $20.3 million for the minister of transportation agency transit traffic street signal infrastructure improvement to be

a matter of the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: supervisor weener? supervisor wiener: for the budget analyst, regarding the last item -- this is more corporate for reconstructing -- this is more a program as a financing item. i want to ask you what your basis is for saying that. in light of what we just heard in the presentation, i do not want to say there is conventional wisdom, but there is a view out there. i disagree that bond financing is only used for building something. when you look at par bonds, we do existing work from those assets that perhaps sometimes

accrued from a long period of neglect. if you add up the square footage of our roads, i would suspect that our roads are our largest asset. so why is it inappropriate? >> madam chair, members of the committee, but i stated, in a perfect world, in our judgment, it would be better to use general fund revenues. i state that, supervisor, because, as you know, on the top of page six, when you issue $240 million in general-obligation bonds, you are automatically incurring an additional $189 million in interest expense. that is the reason why we believe, if the city has sufficient revenues -- we did not say do not do this. we said as a policy. if the city has sufficient revenues that could pay for this, it would save $189

million. that is primarily -- the only reason we say this. supervisor chiu supervisor wie.: supervisor wiener: that is true of every bond. if we did that have all these problems, in a perfect world, we would be able to pay for everything and i would be able to pay for my home in cash instead of taking on a mortgage. how is this different from a park spawned where we do capital work that is not as dramatic as building a new jail or something like that? >> supervisor wiener, we look at this from street reconstruction. these last about seven years, something of that nature. continually, these types of projects that are funded must be continually improve done again.

that is where we see a difference. supervisor wiener: 4 significant repaving, 20 years, seven years for the slurry sealing. i agree, there is a gray area. as supervisor carmen chu said, when you are talking about extreme reconstruction compared to the packaging of a pothole, and there is a big spectrum in between. i just wanted to see where that line is. >> the other thing, as we say in our report, the department has acknowledged, within three years, we need to find additional revenues for this. it is an ongoing problem. but having said all this, our recommendation to you is not to disapprove this. we simply said because of that, we considered it to be a policy for the board. if we felt strongly against

this, we would say we recommend you do not approve it, and we are absolutely not saying that. >> thank you, supervisors. i do appreciate the change on that item because i grappled with the same issue on what is a corporate to be considered long- term compared to something that should be covered in operations. i will be a first to say, if we had more general fund dollars to put into street resurfacing, we would do that, but given the reality of what we are seeing, where our budget has been, it is asking me to reconsider the cap the project and what we would maintain. in an ideal world come as mr. rose said, i agree, we should be doing as much as we can on a pay-as-you-go basis and identify general fund sources, as you once did, for street resurfacing. the thing that also brings me concern is, after the three years that would be paid for for the st. reservists in bonn, we still have an unidentified source of funding to deal with

the condition of our streets. to that extent, i wonder if the department could speak about the efforts on identification of future revenues. are we considering a certain portion that would potentially come from the general fund, as we once invested in? are we taking a look at prop k allocations? i have heard that we are potentially looking at the vls issue, but that is contingent on what the state does. to me, that the not sound like a completely reliable source as well. could you speak about those efforts? >> as i mentioned in my presentation, the street resurfacing finance group looked at 17 different funding and revenue options as a long-term funding source, and they prioritized them -- some that

were likely, good options, some that did not make sense. amongst the ones that were most highly regarded, the vehicle license fee. there was also consideration of a city-wide parcel tax. the city still has room for a quarter-cent sales tax. one of the things that i thought was interesting about the street resurfacing, the working group's recommendations were that -- the vls, as it is proposed -- it would be a general tax. it would not be a special tax that would require two-thirds voter approval. it but it woulwould be a simplel tax that could be approved by a majority of voters. we would consider implementing

part of that tax, a parcel tax, what we call a conditional tax. the tax could only be levied in a subsequent year, if the city actually made an investment in its streets. so we will set a floor that would give incentive to you, the policymakers, to make these investments and appropriations for streets. and they could be tied to an absolute appropriation of or to pavement condition index scores, and if the city fails to make those investments in one year, essentially, this big it would be turned off and those funds would not be available for appropriation or collection in a subsequent year. all of these revenue measure that i have spoken of, reallocation of prop k sales tax

revenues, that was one of the things considered. all of this will require policy approval in working through a political process. so i cannot come before you now and say we have a magic bullet or something that is not going to require policy consideration and approval by this board, and probably by the voters. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we go to public comment on this item. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? item 3. >> good afternoon, supervisors. san francisco bicycle coalition. we are watching and listening with great interest. pavement quality is of paramount interest to bicycles in california.

two skinny wheels are very vulnerable to for pavement. we have found in our surveys, folks to ride bicycles in the city are as bothered by and injured by bad pavement as they are by other hazards. we are proud of our work with public works and other agencies. we are participants in the street finance working group. we are keen on addressing this problem, so we urge you to give this your fullest consideration. we are also eager to continue working on finding those long- term sources of revenue. it is not right to pay for all of this with a bond, or even to try to get very far. we have to do something. of course, the bicycle coalition will continue to work with city agencies and you folks to find those longer-term sources of revenue. so again, we are taking this seriously and we hope that you will give it full consideration. thank you.

>> elizabeth stant. walk san francisco. you may have heard that yesterday at two pedestrians were hit in the city. one man was hit so badly, it was presumed that he was killed, but he is now on life-support. so pedestrian safety cannot wait. on tuesday, the national transportation for america released a report called " dangers by design." it highlighted the fact that in the last decade, 47,700 people were killed by being hit by cars, which the report points out, is the equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing every month but right now we are not seen the kind of public attention and

funding that would go to a catastrophe like that. the report also found a majority of deaths occurred on arterial streets, the wide, fast streets, like the ones south of market and elsewhere in the city, including lombard, where that young man was hit. here in california, the report also found seniors, people of color, low income communities are most at risk of pedestrian injury and death. this is true in san francisco and even more so, our pedestrian fatality rate -- the rate at which pedestrians are a percentage of all traffic fatalities. it is more than half year, which puts us at no. 3 in the country among counties. for all these reasons, this is an opportunity -- this bond

provides the opportunity to give funding to this issue that the report recommends and that we already know we need to create the complete and walkable streets. walk san francisco is supporting this bond. supervisor chu: thank you. >> you know those streets are older, older than the trees city roads, take me home take me home to the place i belong with those bonds, take me home city roads i hear the voice in the morning our call me the radio news reminds me the streets need to be paved writing down the road i see the

feeling that i should have had it fixed yesterday, yesterday city roads, fix it up in the place the city hears fix those pot holes today. supervisor chu: thank you. >> no vote exists on this bond measure. it is illegal. a no vote exists on it. it is a violation of the laws and ordinances, governing of bond measures. my name is james patrick carroll. i will not sing, i promise. supervisor chu: thank you. any other speakers that wish to comment on item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed.

supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. i move that we forward this to the full board with recommendations. i know that this kind of bond is always controversial because of this debate we have been having today about whether road resurfacing or reconstruction is an operating expense, expense -- capital expense. it is a spectrum. there are splisignificant aspecf our rowe that our capital, and the presentation accurately pointed out that we are not an anomaly. throughout the country, bonds are used to finance our roads and it is not something that is typically paid out of ongoing

general fund. whether that is a good thing or not, that is a debate we could have, but we have to look at the reality of our situation. our roads have deteriorated substantially in the last several decades. in the last five years, thankfully, we have managed to stop the deterioration but we are now in danger of allowing additional deterioration, which will then snowballed over time, by turning needed resurfacing into needed research -- reconstruction in. this is a very sensible bond that will allow us to max out dpw possibility to work on our roads and resurfaced roads that need it. will also allow us to make some significant pedestrian safety improvements, capital improvements, and some

significant public transportation capital improvements. i completely agree we now have a three-year window to really figure out what a long-term sustainable source of funding for our roads is. i am committed to participating in that conversation, but this bond is extremely important, and that is why i am moving that we move it forward with recommendations. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: i am happy to report that i want to support the spirit in 2009, we then convened a financing working group to propose a number of different ways to number of different ways to afford that.