city attorney. mr. city attorney if you could explain that in detail. >> city attorney john gibner and they upon recommended that the board amended the resolution to request that the committee include information about past bonds and potential future bonds anticipated by the capital plan. that kind of request would be inconsistent with the past practices of this board and unprecedented in my memory in terms of the board making request what should go into the ballot simplification ballot digest but the budget analyst's concern is that information should appear somewhere in the voter information pamphlet so to accomplish that goal the board could amend the ordinance by adding additional finding kate

it was adopted in the past and the plan anticipate it in the future. >> >> if the future chose to make that amendment today then you would have to continue the item for one week and consider it again at the next meeting because any amendment to the ordinance requires a continuance. >> okay. i guess i have two questions mr. strong. one in terms of the content of this and number two with timing with the june ballot. >> right, right. yeah, this is something that we thought about before and i think i communicated it an email we believe it's more appropriate for the board to place it in the ordinance than a recommendation to the ballot committee which is a completely separate process. i do -- so i don't know that i have a strong position on this one and one way or another and

i am worried if could create confusion and be misleading. i realize the budget analyst put it in without specifying an amount and general but the capital plan talks about having a future bond for this so again i'm not sure it will answer questions. i am worried it could create confusion. i believe there are other policies that we also don't have -- we talk for instance the tax policy of only issuing new bonds as old ones are retired. i would recommend if we do that we insert that language as well so it covers both. so that's my response to the first question. >> so let me dig on that a little bit. >> sure. >> because that was my concern as well and i don't mind more information. i think it's a great thing for the voters. as far as bonds go things could

change and i am skeptical talking about it being in the future. i understand the concept but my potential objection about it, where i might be scared about it there are a number of things to paint the complete picture here and one is the pack that we have with the residents of san francisco and only when old bonds roll off and not raise the taxes and consistent with our planning committee and you're saying that statement is not in there today? >> i don't believe a statement like that is in the ordinance looking at the city attorney. there are times when the committee has put that in to their legislative digest but it's not always consistent, and you know and often i know that involves various discussions. >> okay. let me get to your

timing question real quick. let me say to the members of the committee i don't mind having the language but i think it's important whether official finding of the tax policy of the capital planning committee. mr. rose. >> mr. chairman, i totally agree with that. in fact i think we should have put that in our recommendation and i agree with your statement. >> okay. sorry we have other questions but in terms of timing. we have a one week to amend and it's not a late entry. >> that's correct. i believe so. >> okay. a few questions. supervisor mar. >> yeah, just wanted to add i am support of the budget analyst, mr. rose's recommendation, full transparency. i don't think it's confusing that we had a 2010 bond and that we may go forward in the future as well. i don't think that is confusing to voters and i think if it's not going to be a harm kind of having this added is important

for transparency and public accountability. >> president chiu. >> so first of all i want to thank mr. rose and your team for the analysis and recommendation and when we're talking about these long-term requirements when we go out for parks bonds, or library bonlds or roads bonds and we don't necessarily indicate we're coming back years later and it's understood and because we didn't do it before i think it's fine to do it in the ordinance but strikes me odd to highlight that with the ballot simplification committee. >>i think that came well with mr. rose's comments as well. let's move on to public comment

and on items one and two. anyone wish to comment on these items? no customers. okay. public comment is closed. so i'm sorry was there public comment? >> [inaudible] >> please come on up. >> good morning chairman and members of the committee. i am rachel richmond, the policy director of professional engineers local 21 and this is kim carter who represents the people who work at the crime lab. we are in very, very strong support of this bond, particularly the portion that will build a new crime lab. most people think of the crime lab -- they think of the tv show csi but our crime lab doesn't look remotely like that. our

members who work at the crime lab have been working in intolerable conditions for a decade waiting for a new lab. it was supposed to be in a prior bond but at the last minute remove d. this bond and crime lab building will allow for full staffing and drug testing on site. it's currently contracted out and that will save the city money. i can't that a new building and staffing will mean like on csi that all crimes and dna and other things are solved in one hour but it will certainly happen faster and bring justice to people more quickly. kim is going to just mention quickly what we mean by intolerable conditions. >> good morning kim carter local 21. the current facility is over crowded. i don't know if you have been there but it's

desolate outa the shipyards and hunter's point. there are pot holes that cause damage to vehicles. there's no potable water and people have to drink bottled water. there are flooding and heating problems and it's next to a radioactive waste site. it's isolated and scary. we strongly support this bond because we believe that san francisco deserves a world class facility that can solve crime. thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. anybody else wish to publicly comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. [gavel] . okay. so we have the underlying items -- i think the discussion points around the budget analyst's recommendations

that i believe now are recommendations for the ordinance, not the ballot simplification committee. i think there's a discussion to be had around that. i don't know colleagues if you have questions or comments. president chiu? >> just one question to santa rosa. we considered many bond measures in the past and we know if you have a parks measure or another measure or likely have one in the future why did you decide to recommend for this one to include this language? >> mr. chairman as our office is always revolving i think we were remiss in prior issues where we knew there would be follow on bond measures. in this case it was very specific that there was -- when the 2010 ballot measure was submitted to the voters it was specific at that time there would be follow on measures and when we look at that ballot measure and then saw

specifically there would be an anticipated $290 million additional bond measure in 2021 we felt that we should make the recommendation. we totally agree in your comment and thinking about it and what mr. gibner stated to me this morning that going to the ballot simplification committee is not appropriate. it's more appropriate to amend the ordinance and that's why we changed the recommendation here today but with respect to other ballot managers i would say our office was remiss in not making a recommendation if we knew at that time there would be similar follow on bond measures and i think for transparency purposes as supervisor mar has stated it would be good for the voters to have the information. >>i definitely appreciate the sentiment. i guess my concern is that voters will look at it

and will it happen again and why is the emergency today? i am trying to understand it since we didn't have a chance before. >> the other thing which is i think is what we should have done is what chair farrell said and let them know and consistent with policy and just because there are future measures it wouldn't increase the taxes on individual homeowners because of the policy of bonded and indebtedness that is retired that would off set any increases in taxes and i think that would complete the full disclosure which we should have put it in the report. >> and i certainly agree. i think that would be helpful to balance out the picture. if i could ask the controller -- i know this is unprecedented but thinking about the impact on this. do you have a opinion on this. >> mr. chairman and supervisors

i am from the controller's office and the city's policy with bonds after others are retired so it doesn't impact on the tax rate includes other factors in what the total valuation is, what the interest rate is when we sell and retire bonds so that language would need to be crafted carefully so that it's inclusive and doesn't -- so that it fully explain to the public what is happening to insure that the property tax rate is not going up result of the bonds. as you know the property tax rate goes up with cost of living and whether or not the school district or college board puts geo bondos the ballot so the language has

to be crafted carefully. the committee looks at this on an annual basis and the department of finance looks at it on a annual basis and only recommends what is consistent with our policy so perhaps we would say that in the language if it were crafted and again the city's future policies can change in terms of what your priorities are and when you're putting go's on the ballot or other finances that would replace that so again saying what we're doing in the future doesn't bind the board from actually doing that but it does set some expectations. >> just a follow up comment on that. i certainly appreciate the importance of crafting the language carefully to assure the voters and the public how we're using the dollars. colleagues i know this is headed to the

board. it sounds unprecedented to put the language in and i suggest that we work out the language on future expectations and we don't know the value down the line and in that the language we should explain to the voters the needs are imperative. we need to do this today. we could push this off a number of years but an earthquake could hit in a few years and balance it out with language as the controller pointed out how we're managing the property rates. >> a few questions. you talk about the ballot simplification and the ordinance. is there any other place this should go, this language and what are other options out there and forgive me for not knowing that off the top of my head. >> john gibner. the board has

top placement in the official argument for the pamphlet after the board votes to place it on it and you have a total of the measure, a question which the city attorney draft it's i'm sorry, which is in the ordinance in this case. the ballot simplification committee has the digest and any member of the board or the public can attend the meetings and advocate for language and the controller as an analysis and official argument in favor and against the bond, and under the municipal elections code the board may place an official argument in favor of the bond and that is also a place where you could make these points. >> okay. okay. you know again i don't per se mind this

recommendation. i feel very strongly though as i talk to vote nerz my district a lot of people around the city at other times may not in favor of voting for bonds on principle let alone the urgency that president chiu talked about which i agree with and the fact that we don't put them on until the old ones retire and doesn't affect the tax rate and 99% are on board because of that and it's important for myself in terms of a policy perspective. again i am mindful that we would -- and have a discussion here about the specific language on that and i agree that we need to get it done right and i am mindful we have to do it at today's meeting to finalize the language so let's keep the discussion going. mr. city attorney. >> just one thing. all of the information mentioned appears

early in the voter information pamphlet. the ordinance itself that you're considering amending right now is at the end of the voter information pamphlet so the language we're talking about would be in the finding section of the ordinance which is at the back of the voter pamphlet so we're clear on where you're making the changes. >> so if we put it in our official argument that would appear higher up if there is assumption that people trail off after a number of pages and it's further up and the bond. >> right, and you have the controller and the measures and described that way then the legal text. >> okay. one other question sorry before mr. strong. as it relates to future bonds, as it relates to our policy is it

appropriate or not to reference a website or what have you that has the complete picture of it? i am also thinking -- whether we're missing something here that doesn't describe the complete picture. we may put future bonds on and our intention and consistent with this policy. i don't know if there is something i am missing and does the website have the complete picture and can we reference it and consistent with the committee and the bonds we support through that. i want to raise that type of referencing question as well. >> deputy city attorney john gibner again. i don't think there is a problem adding something that says it's consistent with the 10 year capital plan as described in the website and including that link. >> if i can jump in, brian strong with the capital plan program. the current website we have -- and we have a website

for the capital plan and it's clear and has a table that shows the bonds coming up in the next 10 years and see in phase one and phase two and so forth. the other place that we have done and we instituted this i guess in the past five years we have websites specific to these bonds, so there's a specific website to eser and it's sf safety -- earthquake safety .org that has this information in it. talks about both bonds and talks about what we know which is not so much but talks about the 2021 bond so that information is already there and we do try to make sure when we go to talk to folks in the community we're also being clear that this is a program -- >> so let me ask you. the website -- i guess i could look at it right now. does it talk about tax policy surrounding that 10 year plan as well?

does is it give a more holistic picture than just the two bullet points about that? >> yeah, i would have to look at it in more detail to tell you but it's not hard to add that and in the bond report we have a modification and that will be to you tomorrow and we have a section that talks about the impacts and the rate and has a graph showing the debt as we retire -- so in the bond report we think we give a pretty clear picture and speaking to the controller's comment we talk these are under the control of the city and county of san francisco recognizing that yeah we can't control what bart

does, or city college, or some of the entities. >> okay. colleagues any further comments? supervisor mar. >> actually because it's coming up in a hearing tomorrow i just wanted to ask about -- i know within the broader public safety capital plan the retrofit and rebuilding of the jail is another issue that we have to grapple with and i would kind of like to ask on the splitting of the medical examiner and other capital improvements what's the thinking of the other part of the safetiy plan of the plan? >> so while the jail and medical examiner and crime lab are all in the hall of justice they are completely treated separately. their source of funding for the jail is separate from the crime lab and medical examiner and not part of a general obligation

bond, so they're unrelated. they're not related aside from the fact they're in the same building and an objective of the capital plan is it's not a safe building and we need to get one out but whether one moves forward of the other -- they're completely separate. >> and just asking about the safety of the jail as well. i know that's a critical strategic goal is to retrofit and repair the jail but if you could talk about that -- i know we're not discussing that right now, but what -- how important is that for the public safety capital plan as well, the rebuild of the jail? >> oh it's at the top -- we have a lot of top priorities in the capital plan, no doubt and you saw some of the needs numbers here today and it's a separate

discussion but just like the other facilities if there's an earthquake those facilities will be unusable. we suspect the building will be red tagged and we will have to find other places to place inmates, staff and so forth and the same would be true for the medical examiners office and the components of the forensic services division and the police department that are there. >> is there a reason why the jail project wasn't included in this bond? >> well, and again this goes back several years, but in the 1990's there were attempts -- when we were replacing san bruno jail it was placed on the ballot twice and failed so that's part of the consideration here is that it -- we have an obligation to take care of the jail and we know we have that obligation and why we're using the certificate of participation funds for that, but we would have to expend

quite a bit of money -- at least four or 5% of the total project to get through eir certification before the ballot and all of the expense and have it fail we don't think is a good use of the funds. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you mr. strong so colleagues i think there are a number of options here. let me make a potential recommendation or let me ask our city attorney and controller as well if they have comments about this. i think there are two ways to approach this. that we talk about future bonds specifically or tax policy specifically and go to recess here and figure out language. alternatively i think there is an approach to reference the 10 year plan on the city's website that people can reference and evolving and to your point and

evolving about what that is and reference it and i think there's a question of where within the ballot simplifications proponents argument versus the ordinance. what about if we reference the 10 year capital plan -- i think one san francisco .org and within the ballot simplification committee up front? you had comments earlier -- sorry -- to the budget analyst's original recommendation with the ballot simplification committee. is that your opinion it's inconsistent and better in the proponent's ordinance and the ordinance. my concern like he said is nobody is going to read it. >> yeah, john gibner again. any directive to the committee about what should be in the digest coming from the board is inconsistent with past

practice. the board legally has the authority to constrain the ballot simplification committee's digest by adopting an ordinance but it's not consistent with any history. >> okay. so in terms of articulating this in the proponents argument is there anything that we should do to lock it in and action or something we're going to write together with a proponent as we agree upon later? >> there is nothing to do today. once the board places the measure on the ballot the clerk will agendize the proponents argument, discussion for a meeting. >> colleagues my suggestion is this i would like it to appear as high up as possible and my suggestion is to reference the 10 year capital plan but i don't want to be consistent or --

with the relationship with the ballot simplification committee and my recommendation pass it out and a public statement from me and perhaps everyone here and as part of the proponents argument and president chiu we will agree on who the proponent is that writes it that we articulate the plan and the future bonds and impacts policy and the like so that is my recommendation, so if there are any comments or a motion to move this item forward with that commentary as well? okay. so we have a motion by supervisor mar to move items one and two forward with recommendation as currently stated, and then again a commitment -- a side commitment from all of us to include the reference to the 10 year capital plan in the argument.

supervisor avalos, can we take that without objection? okay. so moved. thank you very much for that discussion. madam clerk do we have any other business in front of us? >> no mr. chair. >> okay. we are adjourned. thank you. [gavel] >> there are kids and families ever were. it is really an extraordinary playground. it has got a little something for everyone. it is aesthetically billion.

it is completely accessible. you can see how excited people are for this playground. it is very special. >> on opening day in the brand- new helen diller playground at north park, children can be seen swinging, gliding, swinging, exploring, digging, hanging, jumping, and even making drumming sounds. this major renovation was possible with the generous donation of more than $1.5 million from the mercer fund in honor of san francisco bay area philanthropist helen diller. together with the clean and safe neighborhood parks fund and the city's general fund. >> 4. 3. 2. 1. [applause] >> the playground is broken into three general areas. one for the preschool set, another for older children, and a sand area designed for kids of

all ages. unlike the old playground, the new one is accessible to people with disabilities. this brand-new playground has several unique and exciting features. two slides, including one 45- foot super slide with an elevation change of nearly 30 feet. climbing ropes and walls, including one made of granite. 88 suspension bridge. recycling, traditional swing, plus a therapeutics win for children with disabilities, and even a sand garden with chines and drums. >> it is a visionary $3.5 million world class playground in the heart of san francisco. this is just really a big, community win and a celebration for us all. >> to learn more about the helen diller playground in dolores park, go to sfrecpark.org.