working with the department of public works who i would like to thank and acknowledge for all of their hard work to culminating the 85 projects. in the 2,000 bond there was little in the way of the kind of accountability measures for 2008-2012. you have literally pennies under the couch trying to gather up. some of those projects are small, there would be a $5,000 and some medium $275,000 and another project for a little over $800,000. we try to gather those funds up and put them in one master project. they remove things from smaller projects which makes them difficult to spend because we have to come to the board every time we go to an

appropriation authority and they can propagate for the purposes. we have we have had about $5 million left in the bond but through the requisition reconciliation there is about $5.6 million. there is money that has been locked in smaller appropriations over the years that we are trying to gather into one master project. with those funds we would like to work with our stakeholdersers and would like to work with a menu of those options with the

january or february meeting. there is a couple of criteria that we have to be aware of when we think about spending these funds. one of the funds generally are constrained and they can only be used through capital expenditures. we want to focus on closing our existing funding gaps. i think many of you are aware that the bidding climate has turned from being 2 years ago extremely beneficial for city capital projects to being very competitive, we are seeing bids coming in 20 percent higher than we originally thought. we would like to use these funds that close project gaps caused by this. i want to point out a number of life preservation needs coming up. one example is a civic elevator project allocating funding for this past year. as we started do that elevator project, we thought that there would be some water intrusion but there may be a stream underneath that

we stumbled into and we saw just like thousands of gallons coming in and we have to do an emergency contract and now we have to rethis i that project. things like that. landslide is going to require more funding than was appropriated and a number of other projects that we like to use these funds for. third, these are old bond dollars. this bond was approved in 2000. for us to be contemplating $5 million is not enough. we can incur arbitrage fees which is levied by outside agencies when an entity has taken too long to spend their go bond dollars. so because are that we are focusing on

projects that are shovel ready and trying to get into contract a sap and for construction cost. part of that is for their approval. in appropriation do not prevent us from spending any money from any eligible capital expense but in allows us to have the expect ability in how we manage the funds. from the 2008 bond, we have both been lucky and good, i think. we have been very good in our over all management of the go bond program and that has resulted in project savings from many projects particularly again from the first half of the bond implementation when there were bid savings and also the recent project where again just there have been minimal change orders and we manage to come right in before the

bidding climate turned to our disadvantage. we have $3 million and interest accrued on the bond. that is about $6.8 million that we need. we need those funds to be able to move those projects forward as they are currently scoped. >> so as i said we want to address the unforeseen escalation of regulatory requirements and the overall commitment of the clean and safe neighborhoods bonds that we would deliver those 12 neighborhood parks that we call by name and ordinance. this is consistent with the ordinance language. lastly we need staff to deliver

these projects. there was voted funds and we'll have basically added another 60 percent to the financial value of our portfolio and also increased our work load by another 25 percent in projects. right now i have a staff of nine and they are already managing 8 projects each. ths they already have a full plate. you can do that but you can see what happened in the beginning of the 2008 bond program where there were delays for getting that program off the ground because it wasn't staffed appropriately. we are trying to learn from those lessons. the staffing shortages were affecting our impact to get these projects going. we are asking for a project manager

one position, permanent exempt positions. no general fund impact and they are even off budget. if we were to wait to do these positions to do the budget process, i wouldn't have anybody on hand until october of 2014. that would be a full year after we passed the bond. i think in a 5-year bond program, that is an extraordinary delay. that is the basis of our request today. so with that, i am happy to answer any questions from the committee. >> colleagues, any questions, supervisor wiener? okay. that was remaining. >> okay. colleagues if no questions at this time. why don't we go to our budget analyst report, mr. rhodes if you will. >> mr. chairman, supervisor winner, the sources of the

proposed $10 million appropriation are summarized in table 3. that's on page 20 of our report. on page 21 of our report we note that of park improvement funds of the capital committee that these funds would potentially be used for 1 $1.8 million leaving remaining unidentified projects under the proposed supplemental would be appropriated to the 2008 project to be allocated by the parks and commission. below on page 21 we say on 6.8 are to

be reported to the capital planning committee that these funds would be used for approval for 4.3 million for dolores park. 800 thousand for the playground and for the beach los angeles. supervisors i would note if you appropriate these funds today it would be strictly up to the department of recs to make the allocations. with regard to the dispositions being requested for the department manager 1 position and each in fiscal year 13-146789 for the additional annual salary $238,000 for both positions. the total on going salary and benefit cost is approximately $321,000. all the positions

would be taken from bond funds and they current have eight project managers and 110 projects to manage which rpd indicates is not sufficient. however, as of our report, rpd does not provide enough information, existing staff assignments, comparison with other bond projects, staffing and the need for the requested two new positions to meet this work load. the bottom line is these position had not been justified. we are not negative on the positions but anytime the department requests positions we need the information to report to you to determine whether or not that has been justified. our recommendation are that you an approved the supplemental ordinance and continue the proposed annual salary. we didn't say continue to the budget. all that we are saying

is continue it until we are provided with the information that will justify these positions. specifically, continue the proposed annual salary ordinance filed 13-1141 for the pending rfpd existing staff assignments comparison with other bond projects and staffing for the new positions to meet this work load. in fact, as soon as, if they give us the information this week, we'll be prepared for the next or maybe two weeks2 weeks. well, in january, that's right. the next meeting would be in january. we are certainly prepared to report within the six 6 months of the budget. debra newman who prepared this report, i will be happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you. on the information of the two salary

positions. i guess i was hoping to get it resold -- resolved in the last 2 days. >> i think there is a little bit of a disconnect from the timing of where the material, the budgeting analyst office was given notice which i think is very appreciative of the work of that because of the supplemental and reappropriation the funds is a critical item. i think we can provide the information that mr. rhodes is asking for. it's not much different than what i just verbally relate to you but we can provide that information to the budget analyst. >> given this is an ordinance it won't be approved until january. we are not going to have a massive holiday timeline here. colleagues, any questions or comments? supervisor avalos? >> it's not for mr. rose, but

thank you for your report. i have comments or questions about one of the sources of funding, the appropriation of the car born and it's actually that it's not on here is actually a pretty important moment in the car born history. we have many of the documents that we've been trying to get together to assure that the car born is ready for the capital project and raising money for the car bar and we have to raise all of those documents have to be ready. we have done the review and potential tax credits for new market tax credits and we have a new executive director who has

great experience. tim who is here and has great experience and capital financing. so we are really excited about how we can move this project forward. i have concerns about there being the appropriation from this project and i know that the rec's and parks commission can decide that the uses side of this appropriation can cover the car barn but i would feel we are most comfortable to keep fund for the car barn for the projects. i think there is some work remediation work that is in the soil. i think there is some work on the roof that needs to get done and some design work that i know is eligible for the original park bond that is for uses sides of these funds. i would like to see if we can we have could

actual put on reserve an equivalent amount of what we are deappropriating for the car barn for the carbon that is determined by the recollection and park and car born staff and help looking with my office of course, but that can be on community refrj for a later decision to be released when the plans are in place for the car barn. i want to make sure what that is for those funds. >> supervisor, i think it is a policy decision for the committee. i think our request is that, our preference would be the controllers office reserve, whatever allows us the most flexibility and the quickest turn around. it's taken us a while to get here. we want to make sure we get this done as soon as possible. i think we have been working

very closely with geneva car barn and to identify some linkagible. there is a leak k roof that we need to think about in terms of preserving the acid over all and remediation work and again va carbon has services so if we were to use gee oh bonds fund we would need to do an ordinance to provide us with the ordinance. those are the three eligible types of spnd turs that we are talking about with them right. no they are working to price those two items and if we have that our hope to be able to prethose all the together with the items we are thinking about. it is a decision for the committee, i think one of the thing we would like to previous is the ability

to present altogether the different tradeoffs associated with these $5.6 million. while these funds were in geneva car bonds and the city does have a number of upcoming unknown life safety projects. the rim fire has left us with unknown capital liability. we have as we said the land slide and other projects we are continuing to price. i think the reserve is better for us than to continue the full appropriation appropriated with car barn. >> i was considering just the appropriating or deleting the deappropriation of the $838,000. so i feel like budget committee reserve does make sense and, you know, i want to see this project go forward. i have made a commit about geneva car barn and keeping the money

for the geneva car barn is as well. we have staffing in place now help with the campaign. it's a great amount of money to raise for that. what we have in place is already here and makes so much sense that we keep the reserve there for the car barn pending further plan. i would like to keep it in budget committee reserve. when it comes to possible ordinance that waves the requirements, i think in this case that we have a designer that's done a lot of work in the car barn and that current designer and continuity, that project makes a lot of sense to me. i'm willing to support and get my colleagues to support to get that kind of waiver as well. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. colleagues, any questions. okay. at this time we'll open up to public comment. is there anybody from the public that wish to comment

on items 3 or 4? please come up and step you the to the microphone. >> good afternoon, my name is tim worth and i'm the new executive director of the car barn. i appreciate you taking this up and i want to acknowledge and thank supervisor avalos for his continued leadership on the car barn. it's a project that most of you know about that's been around for a long time and ready to go and there has been significant progress which has positioned it to move forward. what's contemplated with the car barn is an opportunity to take an empty resource that happen in a relocation to across from the bart station and convert it to a community art center. if these funds can be directed to the car barn at this time. there is an

excellent leverage opportunity. this is a step in the direction but an important step. so i want to thank you all for your consideration on this. and look forward to it continuing the progress updates. >> tim, could you say what are some of the immediate capital needs that we have that potentially this amount of money $838,000 can go towards? >> happy to. i have been working cooperatively and collaboratively with the parks and recreation staff as to how to distribute funds to the car barn project. the list you summarized pretty well. our highest priority is to move forward with the design set. we have 8 designs. we have a couple of hundred thousands of

dollars to work the schematic designs. the total cost for the design works to move forward is $1.3 million of which the architectural fees are $653,000. so, again we would be able to use these funds if we moved forward in our capital campaign to match and leverage with private sources. we've also been looking at potential immediate capital needs to be done out of scope and one of those is replacing the powerhouse roof which is the attachment on the northern end of the building where the power supply for the electric train systems was located. as you mentioned the roof is leaking. so we've talked to the architects and there is a possibility of replacing that roof right now and the benefit of ceiling the buildings and the elements of the capital

part of the budget. that is estimated to be $250,000, but again we need to update those numbers that we are in the process there. and in addition there is asbestos and led abatement in the billion -- building and we are trying to fine tune that. >> we appreciate that and welcome on board and thank you for your work on this big task of the capital campaign. >> thank you very much. are there any other members wishing to speak on this item? seeing none, public item is closed. >> i think what would be do we appropriate the source or do we do a blank kind of 800,000.

>> deputy attorney jon gibner what i believe is you want to deappropriate the funds and the reappropriation on reserve and direct supervisor avalos concern the condition on the reserve that parks and recreation report back about the geneva car barn to that effect. it would be ultimately up to the committee how to spend that reserve. it wouldn't to have go to that project. but you could add in that reporting element to make sure the committee discusses that project when you consider the reserve. >> thank you, that would be what i'm most comfortable with so we would go ahead with the appropriation. part of that appropriation in the end would

be $838,000 budget committee reserve pending release on reports from parks and recreation and how it will be spent ideally i want to be able to maintain it's being used for geneva car barn and is that for reserve. i just want to make sure that we keep the specific use source for the specific use. >> john gibner. what i suggested would not be for that specific use because you would be adopting the reappropriation and putting the reappropriation on reserve. the control about whether there is, whether you can simply not appropriate and maintain it on reserve. >> that wasn't what i said. i

said we can go ahead and do the appropriation. but instead of releasing the full amount we'll release the full amount minus $838,000 with the committee reserve. with the condition of the budget reserve will be a report from how it's used from the parks and recreation whether we can actually keep it on budget reserve specific to the parks and recreation depending on the report for how it would be spent. >> the intent to just constrain the use of the funds to the geneva car barn. right now i can't spend those funds on anything but the geneva car barn. that constraint is there, if you want to be able to have a broader conversation about other potential projects and have us report back to you and

have the board weigh in on that conversation, then it's the most appropriate tool. >> i was wondering by making the appropriation and deappropriation for the money that made it available for a wider range of products used within the the geneva car barn. we'll just delete the appropriation. we'll keep the source. >> okay. >> quick question for you. if we do that, the proposed deappropriation, what bond is that from. is that a bond we are going to run into time limits from use of those funds? >> yes, supervisor, it's a good question, this is 2000 bond funds. the funds are already 13 years old. there is not a calendar on when arbitrage fees are assessed but just as an example 2 years 2 years ago we

had measures from the bond and it was decided on and we were ready to go and we got a letter that said in 14 days we needed to pay that money in full amount in arbitrage fees i think it's back to the bond of trustees. the department of public finances would have a better understanding. i don't know when the charges can be assessed which is why we are trying to get as many shovel ready projects to start. >> i fully support what supervisor avalos is doing here but i want to be smart about it. we are not at the end of the day -- i don't want to see

penalties accrue. >> i will make the appropriation to the geneva car barn source of $800,000. that will make changes decreasing that amount $838,000. >> okay, we have a motion by supervisor avalos on item nor 3. can we take that without objection? it's moved. and can we take that without objection? okay. so moved. and item no. 4, continued to the call of the

chair and why don't we do that and get that to the committee meeting in january and get that handled. if we can do that. so moved also. we are starting to have people with child care questions here. so i'm going to call another out of order. >> i have a doctors appointment so i have to leave now. >> let's call item 8. prevailing wage rates various workers performing work under city contracts. >> various administrators require established of the

prevailing wage rates required of city employers under city contracts including janitorial services, workers performing work in public off street parking lots, garnls, storage facilities, it's required to provide the board with data on prevailing wage rates. the board of supervisors has discretionary and not necessarily to adopt what is being put forth. as is with the commission of it's prevailing wage rates. that's based on the data collected by the data labor enforcement. should you have questions with respect to the data points with methodologies with the surveys we have representative available to answer any questions. >> thank