not free to began cost-of-living increases and what you see is a collection of memoranda in which there are nearly zero increases in year one. in the fiscal year 13-14, we start with the first crossed of living negotiated since 2006. increases spread out over the year so that the this call impact is 1.75% as opposed to 3% -- in addition -- the 3% tracks the projected cost of living increases and it is the figure included in the five-year plan

proposed by the mayor and passed by the board last year. in addition to the wages, there are two notable items. we put a focus on premiums and we received some reform in the category of travel pay we have a rather archaic means dating back to before collective bargaining in the early '90s in which you had to be a resident of san francisco to be a city employee and we had some residents driving all the way down to san francisco international airport. it was felt that was worthy of a $5 a day premium. we have people commuting from farther away than san francisco

residents travel to get to the airport. we have reforms and a small number of contracts and we are trying to make a more transparent and make sure these assignments are in writing so that we are rewarding the value to the people leading fellow workers in daily tasks. that is the premium part. we see a modest step toward reforming our health program. we currently have for the employee-only category, we have 100% coverage for any of the three medical plans offered through the health service system. this year, we have made sure every employee has some incentive to choose a health plan that is right for his or her family. the model is we are supporting

90% of the two lowest plans. for the city plan, the city supports will be capped at the blue shield level. we encourage all employees to make intelligent choices about their health. >> that is for employee only? >> the dependent care benefits stay exactly the same. there is already an incentive to make intelligent choices there. we believe we have presented a package of contracts that are extremely fair to the city and to taxpayers which acknowledge labour's support and concessions in years past, which are modest -- almost no growth in year one and we recommend respectfully the committee approved them and send them to the full board.

supervisor elsbernd: was there must discussion about well mess? -- well mess? -- wellness? >> yes. council members, including most of the biggest unions in the city, we will be looking at models were we can save money in a number of ways, but we are looking at other jurisdictions, including chicago and los angeles were there has been a carrot and stick approach where you are looking at baseline treatments and rewarding people who are taking preventative care of their health. there are a number of places where we felt we did not quite have the time to craft a package centered on that.

supervisor farrell: could you throw king county into your analysis? >> yes. supervisor farrell: we had some talk of this about how -- what it means for retirement, calpers, health care -- >> we were given quite a task by the governor lays let -- late last year when the courts decided the agencies would be abolished and the work would be integrated into the city workforce. we have been required to absorb a certain number of employees and figure out how to mesh the classification position rubric

of the redevelopment agency and to our rather byzantine civil service rules. we have in doing our best to create a crosswalk between those classis. there are a number of benefits that do not line up. the retirement system, the retiree health care is contrary to the rules most of us live with. we have done our best to integrate them and some of the benefits the employees received above and beyond what employees have been addressed by this very amendment and the unions have agreed to drop the employer pick up of the retirement contributions so they will be harmonized where almost every

employee and this round -- there were only one or two that are not paid the full rate. >> that is the current opinion of the city attorney. we still have a lot of work to do. we have the contract being amended will officially expire on june 30 and we will be renegotiating that and we still have a lot of work to do. supervisor elsbernd: at this point, let's open it up to public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on items six through 36, excluding 28. anybody? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any further discussion?

supervisor chiu: i want to thank all of the parties and i know was a lot of work. good to see these issues resolved. with that, i am happy to make a motion to move these forward. we can do that without objection. madam car, can you call item no. 28 cluster >> or to its adopting and implementing the mou. >> motion to recuse because of my wife is a member. supervisor farrell: supervisor elsbernd is excused. >> we bring you a labor

contract which is very much in line with the city's ability to pay and in recognition of the role in past concessions. this contract has very little cost in the first year and it includes the 3% wage increases spread out over that year. these are very much in line with the other contracts and we respectfully request the committee approved the contract and move it to the full board. supervisor elsbernd: with that, we will open up the public comment. >> ♪ it was just my memorandum

of understanding running away with me this time. it was just my imagination with understanding municipal-bond. ♪ supervisor farrell: thank you. any other members of the public which to speak or sing? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor chiu: motion to move this forward. supervisor farrell: congratulations on getting through committee. madame clerk, can we call items #two and three together? >> item #2, ordnance calling for an election to be held for the purpose of submitting a proposition to encourage bond debt and the amount of $195 million for san francisco clean and safe in its parks. item #3, resolution determining and clearing public interest for

the safety and quality of favorite parks and waterfront open spaces across the city. supervisor farrell: thank you. we have supervisor wiener here with us in committee. supervisor wiener: we are attempting to work out a possible amendment to address some concerns around the natural areas program. we are not quite ready yet with the possible language, so i would ask if the committee would be willing to take a recess until 2:00? supervisor farrell: i think we can do that -- should we do that? quite good -- should be due to a clock 15? supervisor wiener:

>> welcome back, everyone to the june 14, 2012 of the government -- meeting of the government audits and oversight committee. we have items to an three. supervisor wiener: thank you. this is very exciting that the park spawned this year today. and number of this -- a number of us have been involved with formal wedding this bond. rec and park has billions of dollars worth of deferred capital maintenance. this bond will go along way in terms of renovating and replacing playgrounds, irrigation systems that are undermining our parks, fixing pools, and doing all the things that we need to have a vibrant and healthy community and to make san francisco as family-

friendly as possible. this bond will have enormous positive impact for our community. a very, very small percentage of the bond, $4 million is devoted to trail restoration. this has caused some concern among some folks and discussion around potential interactions between the park spawned and work in our natural areas in our park system. the natural areas plan will be presumably coming to the board at some point in the future. as part of an eir appeal and that will have its own discussion and there will be the debate and a decision made around that and it is my desire to delink the debate. the parks on this too important to the future of our city to get

caught up in that conversation that will be coming to the board on a sound at a later date. we have been in discussion about an amendment to the bond. just to clarify that that delinkage exists. i hope to bring language in the form of an amendment to make the amendment and continue and -- the item to next thursday. it is better to get it right then to be fast and so we're continuing to work out the language over the next week. we will be doing the necessary are reached to stakeholders. what i would request is after they've presentation and public comment to continue items two and thre until -- three until next tuesday.

ok. which item would it be -- two would be continued one week to next thursday. at which point michael would be to offer the amendment at that time. it would be continued and additional week with the goal of passing it out of committee on june 28 for consideration by the full board on july 10. so that would be my request at the conclusion of this item today. supervisor farrell: just to clarify. if we continue number two until next week, we would have to have another g-8 -- gao.

>> i do not believe there is any noticing issues. supervisor farrell: i decided to check. thank you. any other comments right now? don, from the rec and park department, take it away. -- dawn, from the rec and park department, take away. >> i am glad to be here to show the results of work with the port. developing a $195 million parks and open space bond proposal for the november 2012 ballot. san francisco law their parks. we have seen this over and over again in san francisco where we have been the beneficiary of bonds supported by voters in 2000 and 2008 and the renewal of the open space bond. there is clear commitment to ensuring our final network of open spaces which were deemed to be than that -- best network of

open spaces in the country and continues to stay that way. we have over 20 hundred 20 parks and 400 build structures. even with the investments we received, more is required. we need to continue to make investments in the system, much of which was built in the 1950's to make sure that it will continue to function for another 50 or 100 years. we have these needs of over $1 billion worth of capital needs in the recreational park system alone. it is because of those critical capital needs and those of other departments that we have the city's tenure capital plan. this was the first bond in that 10-year capital plan which attempts to address a critical infrastructure needs by sequencing bonds to do with public safety, disabled access,

and parks. the 2012 bond like the two basnight bond is part of that plan and also falls within the attacks constraint that governs the plan. we can continue to issue these bonds without taxpayers feeling an increase in the taxes associated with the repayment of this debt. the 2008 clean and save parks bond was approved in 2008 by 71.6% of voters and we were able to cross that threshold which is a difficult one by working cooperatively across the city to build a broad basis of support and that is still our intent. to develop a proposal that benefits all neighborhoods across the city. you can see that we were able to do that. the stars represent the parks and projects that have been funded. by the 2008 bond, including waterfront open spaces, neighborhood parks, and many smaller investments like

forestry, trails, playgrounds, and community opportunities on projects. all those projects have been delivered to date on or under budget. we expect 85% of the funds associated with the bond will be expended or encumbered by november 2012 and all the projects will be in construction by that time as well. we're making steady progress and we would like to sustain the momentum of that program with another bond in november. so we started with a list that was created in 2008 of park needs and we took that out to the community. that was our starting place for our our region we have done over 35 -- i am counting over 40 meetings that stayed -- included a wider bray of forms, whether it was open houses for which many of you were present, a neighborhood association presentations, meetings at the

advisory committee, the recreation and parks commission and the port commission as well. we have been able to go to every neighborhood or district of the city and solicit public feedback on our proposal and ideas. the broad feedback we have heard through that process is summarized on the slide. the bond continues to resonate with voters. a focus on landscapes rather than buildings, that we continue to achieve geographic balance across the city. a strong desire that we see some investment in our citywide parks, that we embrace the new 88 that was adopted by congress and came into effect a month ago. and that we continue to fund our other city would programs. we took those broad themes and

working with those broad themes, working with individual districts and hearing the specific feedback people had to provide around projects. there were cases where the community felt projects that we have proposed were no longer her as relevant as they were in 2008 and preferred substitutions and there were new projects that were identified whether they were new parks in district 6 or south park as well as a strong desire to seek increased funding for mclaren and the inclusion of to demaio. we've developed a proposal that responded to these themes and the feedback of individual districts to develop a list of neighborhood parks to see reflected on this map. the total budget for this parks measure is $195 million. you can see it spread out between neighborhood parks, citywide parks are a

continuation of city-wide programs and funding for waterfront parks and open space under the jurisdiction of the port. those funds for the recreation -- and park projects are broken out in the detail. you can see on the side which i will go through. we have $6 million from program contingencies which is part of a fiscal conservative practices we adopted in the last bond and have paid off for us as we continue to be on or under budget. supervisor farrell: if you could reiterate, projects are on budget or under budget. that probably has a lot to do with the construction climate and bids that we have seen. >> it does. it is good planning. we consider the fact -- we're going to use the contingency from the bond but we plan for that contingency and we're using it appropriately so we do not have projects that are not going

to be able to move forward because they lack funding. all the projects will be delivered. we continue, as i said, many of the practices we started in 2008 of conservative cost estimating. we worked with field staff and called in independent cost estimators and we looked at our project scope and -- we have individual 10% project contingencies built into each of the project and a $6 million program contingency because we did not feel confident we would continue to benefit from the current climate through the next six years of the bond. on top of that, one of the main critics of the 2008 bond was around are scheduled and we were focused on the fiscal accountability that we did not apply that same level of scrutiny to the scheduled

development. in this case we learned some important lessons and reflected them in the schedules that are before you as part of the bond proposal. we talk to the department of public works to make sure that had adequate staffing band was to deliver these proposals and wait inc. extended planning phases for sites that we know will require more complex when news, having learned from our previous lessons. with that combined with more permitting time lines as well, we should be able to hear to the schedule outlined and the bond report much more effectively. we have also incorporated the accountability measures in 2008 and those that are being used now for every bond in the 10- year capital plan. in addition to clearly identify projects and scope and budget, we have a variety of forms that -- forums that provide oversight.

and as a standard with our general obligation bonds, there is a set aside for the controllers office and to the office to [inaudible] >> another level of accountability is you need to come back to the board of supervisors. we're the ones who authorize and appropriate these dollars and those are open and public meetings. we have seen where people have had concerns that the sport has had the ability and has demanded the authorization legislation for the preparations of dollars. >> absolutely, supervisor. in addition to the neighborhood parks, we also wanted to continue our citywide programs that allows us to use the bond funds to really balance out the larger projects and make sure that as many parks as possible continued to benefit from the general obligation bond. we have created a number of programs that are not fully

defined yet. as a citywide program, there is a competitive process that will fall upon the -- follow upon the bond passage of these programs to set priorities for the expenditure of the funds and plans for the expenditure of the funds go back to the recreation and park commission. ago back to -- they go back and will end up before the board of supervisors. there is additional commodity process after the bond is passed and develop guidelines for the expenditure of each one of these programs. supervisor elsbernd: could you elaborate on some of those programs? maybe some examples. >> i have a slide on each one of these. starting with playground safety. $15.50 million. we have a number of playgrounds -- the san francisco had a lot of playgrounds.

over 180 place structures -- play structures. we still have some playgrounds that need to be improved, brought up to code, have improvements for disabled access and the like. this $15.50 million will be targeted at the worst playgrounds, playgrounds that have pressure treated lumber that needs to be mediated. -- reim mediated -- remediated. and golden gate heights. supervisor elsbernd: there is christopher but that falls under another category. >> christopher is pressure treated lumber.

that falls under another site. and here -- this map shows the spread of potentially -- playgrounds that are on the worst side of condition across the city. you can see that is spread or isolated to a neighborhood or district. we have the structures across the city so these funds would be eligible toward repeating -- remediating those playgrounds. this is another element. constituents and staff have had the frustrating experience of watching us water a sidewalk. this is a very small step in the right direction. we do feel like with the $5 million we should be able to address some of our highest water using parks and make them less water intensive and that includes parks like alamo square

and plaza and even parts of moscone where we have seen a lot of water loss. we plan on using these funds [unintelligible] we have been successful in the past in obtaining puc funds to address some of these most water inefficient parks. forestry. this is $4 million for the continuation of the forestry program. i want to be clear that this forestry program is about remediating has industries and pose a risk to the public. we have had injuries and fatalities in the recreation and parks system. plaza has seen unfortunate accidents due to trees that have not been adequately dealt with. an