comment and heard from the departments. are there further comments or questions? supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you, a chair. i appreciate the public comment. a question for the mta on the discussion of around complete streets and how we are ensuring that we are incorporating our policies at around complete streets into the road resurfacing/repaving bond? >> i would ask that john thomas, the project manager for the bond, start with that. he may be able to get the best context. >> thank you. project manager for the road safety improvement fund. supervisor avalos: there was a member of the public, actually the bart director, talked about how we are moving forward on issuing the bonds and appropriating, and we're not

quite clear how we're integrating on complete streets in better streets program into the bond. what steps can we make to ensure that we're doing that? >> there are several facets to the bond program, one of which is the capital renovation portion, and that is our pavement segment of the bond proceeds. overall, we will spend about $145 million over the next three or four years doing pavement renovation. we have $50 million with in this bond for streetscape improvements, which includes pedestrian safety improvements, bicycle safety, and bicycle routes. that process has begun. obviously, we just had the body approved in november, but we have reached out already to the bike coalition and alk san francisco. the process will continue over the next three to six months as we perform some outreach and

develop criteria for both the streetscape and for the ped and bike safety improvements geared to the extent that is possible, those will be integrated with pavement projects and that is feasible. to meet the constraints of the bond, we have an obligation to move forward with paving projects as soon as possible. we have allied with in the bond those streets that are intended to be paved with in the first year. so it is likely we will move forward with those as their listed so that we can move forward with raising our pavement condition index to the 70 score we're ultimately targeting here. supervisor avalos: we can proceed with understanding that there will be a dynamic process, making sure we hear from committee members to insure that our policies are and complete streets are being carried out as the bard is being carried out, so we can have an off line conversation about that. i want to make sure we're

working with our committee partners as well as our park directors to ensure we are fulfilling obligations in the city. >> absolutely. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor avalos. if there are no other questions, then this item is before us, colleagues. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: just a question about the park bond and our concerns around, you know, the play builds program environmental review going on, and we do not have a clear indication of all the different parts of the play play fields program. we had a recommendation from the public around about appropriating the money. i feel it makes sense to appropriate the money, because the appropriations for play fields as part of a larger appropriation for the rec and

park departments. i feel comfortable with moving the forward, but i feel we should proceed with caution about what is still left at the table in terms of the program and how the money will be spent on our different play fields in san francisco. it seems like a bolt of the money will be going towards minnie lovie rec center and the beach chalet soccer fields. it is important to see if there are other possibilities that funding around san francisco as well. since we do not have a real line-item appropriations or line-item sense of how that $7.7 million will be appropriated between those two projects as well as potentially other projects in the city, i feel most comfortable putting part of that money on research, pending a report from the rec and park

department about how the money will be spent and pending any environmental review process happening around those play fields. if we get a real sense of how that money will be allocated, we can make that decision as a committee to release those funds. that is my recommendation. part of it goes into reserve. i am trying to figure out how much should. i was told that some of the funds are going to be needed for doing environmental review, and i am not sure the amount. i think i heard $600,000 or $700,000. that could be part of the portion that i may allow to go forward or feel most comfortable with support from colleagues. wondering what your thoughts are. >supervisor chu: thank you. i will ask the department to respond to this question. >> i will start with your question, and i would like to meet two other points. in terms of the appropriate

amount of funds to place on reserve, i, myself, am unclear about that at this moment. while i know it will take about $700,000 to complete the environmental review process, we're not sure yet what the split between philanthropic partners and ourselves would be in the funding design and the advent -- even for construction work. to place a reserve, i think at this point in time, i think it will impact those conversations and in a potentially negative way to the passage of project. and we need to be able to freely decide what information we do not have at this moment on how much money we will need to put on the city side into the completion of the design of these products, assuming that environmental review goes forward. because we do need to spend some of that money to complete and refighting, i think, the

projects. supervisor avalos: actually, i understand your concern, but we're making a decision about providing a lump sum for the rec and park department to go into negotiations. i feel it is probably best that you can go into negotiations about what portion of rec and park bank well paid for the play fields and for philanthropic partners, you go into negotiations knowing you have this full amount of money. but you come back to us knowing what you're going to need, you ask for the from the committee, and we will make a decision on releasing that at that time. but your overall parameters of working with them in terms of what you have available for play fields is what is here in the bond. and you have that discretion to work with in terms of how you are going to do your analysis, negotiations, how you're going to work with what mix of funds you're going to use to cover these play fields. when you come back to us -- that

is my recommendation, you come back to us and sit with your actual costs are going to become and we will make a determination -- ok, that is great, and we can approve the funds to go out at that time. if that is what i feel most comfortable doing. >> i am sorry. i think they misunderstood. i thought you're asking about what additional funds on top of environmental review would need to be available to the department in the appropriate amount of reserves. if you're working position is we should have the amount of funds that have already been appropriated by the board -- already allocated for environmental review, then we can easily come up with that figure with the controller's office. that has been well-documented, and i think it is around $700,000, but i will need to check. my concern here is that it seems to me we're taking a pretty separate direction from how we have implemented every other program in the rest of the 2008

clean and safe parks' bond. it is a direction that i think, while it might seem like an animal step to come back to the board of supervisors to to just request the release of reserve, we have been under significant pressure and scrutiny to continue to deliver these projects in a timely fashion, and we're being watched on a that by the broader public and by the general obligation bond oversight committee, who is asking me for a memo on delays right now and the delay in spending funds. so this is creating an additional, and i think somewhat unnecessary, administrative step that, in contrast to the other programs that have been successfully delivered or in process, that is going to result in delays to the program. supervisor avalos: i hear your concern, but it is actually a process that we set up multiple times in any given year about how we appropriate funds.

even much larger amounts of money. that is how we actually release funds from this committee or have done so based on reporting about how those funds would be allocated and project be carried forward. i feel it is pretty consistent with what we do in this committee and would like to see if that is the way we would have your acceptance of the reserves. >> if i could just ask a question. were those reserves at around the ceqa completion or it duplicative completions? supervisor avalos: i am not sure. i believe we have received -- released reserves based on ceqa in the past, and we have released reserves based on getting more details about projects and how they would be carried out. supervisor chu: thank you. just to the department, from my understanding, in our last sale of bonds, the same 2008 bonds,

we have issued them in a different chunks in the past. in our second chunk when we issued, we also allocated an amount for the play fields program without the programmatic information, knowing we would have to come back for specific projects and environmental review on each of those. >> exactly. on the second bond sale, the full $8.5 million with -- was but issue, sold, and appropriate for the play fields program without any of the issues that have been raised in the past 24 hours, even coming forward as a decision. it is consistent with the rest of the bond and how it has been managed. we had issued and sold the funds for that $8.5 million, appropriated it to the play fields program. but in order to fund the palega contract, we brought a supplemental to the board of supervisors to reallocate the bond funds. and then we borrowed about $7.5

million from the play fields program to help us find that contract with the understanding that we would be able to come back today and replenish those funds without any further delay or challenges. so this whole process has actually already been carried out once without incident about a year ago. supervisor chu: and the projects were not acted upon -- you know, we continue to follow what we need to in terms of ceqa and environmental obligations, really. >> yes, supervisor. supervisor chu: colleagues, we have this item before us. i would like to take action on a few of the other ones that i think we do not have disagreement with. on items one and two, relating to the earthquake safety and emergency response bonds, these two items, i believe the budget analyst is recommended for approval. if there no question, do we have a motion on at them? ok, we have a motion to send

items one and two forward with recommendations. without objection. on items five, six, and seven, and these are related to the road repaving industry safety general obligation bonds, if there are any comments or motions, i would like to entertain them. ok, we have got a motion by supervisor avalos to send the items forward, with a second by supervisor kim. without objection. the last items are number three in four. what i am hearing from colleagues at this time is not necessarily an objection to the items, so the question is on the issue of a reserve, potentially, on the balance of roughly $7.7 million, i am assuming? supervisor avalos: that is my recommendation. i want to be clear, already, the funds that rec and park is working with to do environmental review is already in their

hands. so if we put this entire amount on its reserve pending report back, that would not affect the environmental review process. otherwise, i would be able to maybe put $7 million on reserve and $700,000 and go forward. supervisor chu: i do want to appreciate supervisor avalos' comments and concerns. there were a couple things i wanted to address from the public comment, general topic areas. it is important for this committee to address as we deliberate on the spirit a comment about whether we're being true to the voters in terms of issuing and authorizing these bonds to the play fields project, and i absolutely believe that we are. we advocated a certain amount that would go to the play fields program. according to the city attorney, there is no conflict. we're continuing to meet our obligations to completing environmental analysis. at this moment, as many of the

at the kids know, we're going through an in depth the environmental analysis on it the beach chalet program as well as minnie lovie in terms of the mitigated negative process. there's no question that we're still continuing to uphold the requirements that we have, not only to the voters, but according to the law to make sure we look at the of our mental impact. it is built into the process. should we approve this without any result -- any reserve at all? that is not the motion, but even if we did, the recreation and parks department and commission cannot move forward to appropriate and spend money to implement these projects without the completion of those environmental processes. there is in no way an ability for the city to say, never mind, we do not want to do the environmental process and we will move forward in a way. there is a built-in process. it is going to the city planning

department and welcome to the full board of supervisors should there be an appeal. i would imagine, given the nature of this conversation, that there will be an appeal and this full body, all 11 members, will be able to deliberate on that process. in my mind, i do not see any real danger in an appropriation. i think that we meet our obligations legally. and i think that this body has an ability to act on it when the eir comes forward, and there are safeguards built into place for a department not to be able to spend it. in terms of whether or not we would have a different level of comfort if we're able to put an additional reserve on to it, of course additional reserves are always an additional oversight, but i do not see the ines is a very -- do not see the necessity for it. i would prefer to put a controller's office reserve on it. that is an impartial body, and they can actually be one where we can request that they would release the reserve pending completion of an environmental

study. supervisor avalos mentioned wanting to know information about specific projects that came forward. we can request that the comptroller's office not release reserves until we have information from the department showing where that money would be spent. of course, today and this stock is not the only place in which the board of supervisors can put a reserve. in the future, even if we moved today on the money pending those items being committed, we can still say, you know what, this information is not adequate and we want more information, and put a reserve on it at that time. there's nothing that prohibits this body from being able to intervene in making sure that the environmental process is being followed strictly. i want to speak to one last item, the issue about interests. there was a member of the public who talked about the fact that, why would the city, from a financial point of view, want to

issue money so early and accrued interest on it? truthfully, we might have the authorization, but we might not be spending the money right away. the intent of the city is to make sure that we're issuing bonds in a timely manner so that we're not accruing to much interest. that has been the past practice of this body. so i do want to address that issue. so i would like to hear from other members of this committee, where their thoughts are on the reserved. i would prefer it goes to a controller's office reserve. but, again, this is a three- person committee, so we will see. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you. i appreciate your comments. in the stand having a controllers reserve in the field it is neutral and it can report back, but i feel that this committee has a role to play in doing oversight, and i like the idea of having a budget committee reserve and have the rec and park department come

back to us. they come to is probably once a month, at least, to talk about items that concern the department, and we weigh in on those. i do not see it as cumbersome for them to present to us what their plans are, not just about the ceqa process but also about how come overall, the play fields money and how it will be programmed and itemized. that is the essential role we can play, to make sure that is being done effectively, with our oversight. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor avalos. any other comments from the committee? supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. honestly, this is not something i have strong feelings about either way, whether we put it on reserve with the controller's office or with the budget committee. i know this will become to the full board, and i think that there are a lot of process that will protect the interests of many different viewpoints and

perspectives on this issue. i think i will fear towards the s -- verr towards the more restrictive and agreed to put the reserve on the budget committee. supervisor chu: ok, colleagues. we have got comments from the supervisors. any further comments from the department? we are good. why don't we take a roll call on the reserve? supervisor avalos: the motion, to be clear, the amount of the motion to put on reserve, the amount of reserve would be $7.7 million. supervisor chu: supervisor avalos made a motion to put on to the budget and finance committee reserve, $7.7 million that the preparation for the clean said park bond. we can to grow call on that. >> on that motion, supervisor avalos? >> aye.

>> aye. kim? >> aye. >> chu? >> no. >> the motion passes. supervisor chu: on items number three in four is amended, do we have a motion to send this forward as amended? we have a motion to send items three and four ford as amended last week, without objection. thank you. item number seven, please -- item number 8. >> item number 8, resolution authorizing the san francisco unified school district to issue and sale on behalf of its general obligation bond, approved by ed least 55% of the voters that the november 8, 2011 election. are there any other officer of the city and county of san francisco? supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor kim: it is my

pleasure to sponsor this resolution to authorize sfusd to issue and sell on its behalf. it is a third bond. as many of you know, this ballot measure passed with 71.1% of voters, which i think is truly extraordinary and speaks to the fate of our residents and our voters in our school district and their incredible responsibility and accountability on our last two bonds or we have always met our budgets. i want to congratulate sfusd for their immense amount of work in keeping the public trust. this money will go to repair and to rehabilitate school facilities to current execs ability, health and safety, and instructional standards. this is the third bond issuance of our districts 10-year capital improvement plan. a quick reminder, the voters

approved $745 million of bonds in 2003 and 2006, along with the parcel tax we passed in 2008. i believe we have a representative from the school district here. i see the deputy superintendent. if you like to say a few words and present this item -- supervisor chu: i also, of course, want to welcome the boys and girls who come to visit us. it is appropriate that we have this item now is they're visiting. >> thank you. i swear we did not plan this in advance as a show of public support for the resolution that is before you today. but it happens to work quite well. i am the deputy superintendent of operations for the san francisco unified school

district. we would like to thank you for taking this matter up. i would especially like to thank supervisor kim for your sponsorship of the resolution. as the supervisor mentioned, this is a matter that would allow the school district to issue bonds on its own behalf, and that is what has taken place with the two previous of voter approval is of general obligation bonds in 2003 and 2006. we are extremely proud of the track record that has been built since 2003 that has allowed so many schools to be modernized at rehabilitated in all parts of san francisco. and this third voter approval, which took place on november 8, 2011 will allow the district to complete all the rest of the schools, the modernization and repairs in the remaining schools in the district. so we have a lot of information that we can provide to you about the nature of the projects that have taken place in the last --

and the lasting measures and the projects that are listed for this upcoming set of work. but we also have worked with the budget analysts office and commend them for their fine work in preparing the report that i believe the committee members have received. in deference to your time, i know you have had a number of agenda items in this meeting, i will just address questions. i am joined by my colleague, our chief facilities officer and also our chief financial officer. supervisor chu: thank you very much. a quick question for you. i am wondering if you might be able to provide a list of some of the schools that receive funding in the last iteration of the bonds? we often have a number of projects happening in each of our present -- respected districts. there questions about which ones are in the pipeline or in progress. if you could provide that

information before the tuesday meeting, about some of the ones that have been fixed or in progress of being filled -- 6. >> absolutely. supervisor chu: thank you. budget analyst report. >> good morning, supervisors. under california education code, the board of supervisors may authorize the school district to issue the bonds on their own behalf, rather than having the city issued the bonds. the $531 million, the school district would plan to issue this over four different series. the first series in march of 2012, i believe $100 million. in terms of the tax impact for a single-family residence, a value of $500,000. the annual property tax impact would be $105.45 per year. however, this property tax impact would not occur until the entire $531 million had been

sold. the first tax impact would not be part of the for sale of the bond. we are recommending approval. supervisor chu: thank you for the report. let's open the item up for public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak on item number eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have got a motion by supervisor avalos to rescind the item forward with recommendations. we can do that without objection. item number nine, please. >> item number nine, transferred assets, obligations, and functions to the city as successor agency for the redevelopment agency upon its dissolution as required by state law. supervisor chu: thank you. this has a number of sponsors to it. the mayor, supervisor cohen,

supervisor olague. >> i think i stated this last week, but i want to thank the mayor's office, the redevelopment agency, mayor's office of housing, city administrator, the budget office. so many people have been involved since the california state court's decision came down prior to new year's, and i think it has been a tremendous amount of work. i have seen the level of stress and anxiety that has been going through many of our staff members and departments to quickly put this together in order for us to comply with ab 26. we have many incredibly important projects going on, and many processes -- promises we have made to our neighborhood, particularly district 6 and district and for affordable housing, small business

assistance, economic development, infrastructure, and this was an unfortunate outcome of a larger state budget side that we work an unfortunate victim of, but i want to thank the thoughtfulness of this in terms of how we trends for authority back to this city of san francisco. i >> we have kate howard from the mayor's budget office. we also have the city administrator to address any questions that come up specifically to their areas. >> think you to the chair and to supervisor kim for your comments and work on this issue. i thought that i would just briefly