>> i am from the controller's office. i have just two brief slides to explain the cost estimate contained in the budget and analyst reports and i am happy to talk about resources of the city. we want to explain our methodology. it is a large number. we want to give more detail what is included in that number. there are two pieces. we estimate the cost of increased wages for i hss workers separately from those increasing wages for nonprofit contractors under contract with the defendants including department of public health,

human services agency and other entities. there are state funding formulas we need to take into account. the estimate is just saying for the number of full-time equivalent workers raising the wage from the min to the proposed wage and in the case of ihss workers, there is an additional item we add which is that under the current minimum ordinance the value of paid time off counts toward the mvo wage. the time we are discussing at this moment 170538 would require the value of paid time off be in addition to the hourly wage. a $15 minimum wage plus the value per hour value of the paid time off. that is a little bit

of detail underneath for i hss workers. for other noncontract workers we assume the hourly wage. we think that is about approximately $2,200 ftes. we have included a small adjustment for wage compaction. if you increase wages for the lowest paid workers, you tend to want to maintain a wage differential for the next level up. we included a small differential to account for the cost of that that nonprofits would be under contract or in order to retain workers maintain the differential. it does not include any wage related benefit costs that the employers themselves would have to pay such as social security

taxes. this is just exactly what you have seen in the budget report. a total cost of the total wing is additional wage is $1.86 per hour that would be a total increase of $44 million to the city. then we provided for discussion at a prior time what the cost would be for various increments below that. that is what i have to explain our calculations. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor fewer. >> i would like to make a motion to accept the amendments that supervise sore sheehy has given to us and i think they are

nonsubstantive. is that correct, city attorney? >> city attorney's office. yes, the amendments are nonsubstantive. >> i would like to make a motion to accept these amendments. >> these are amendments to change the dates? >> that's correct. >> thank you for your presentation. i think supervisor stephanie had a question or two on your presentation. >> given the numbers presented, have revenue streams been explored how this can be funded? >> there are currently revenue raising measures on the upballot being contemplated and discussed for november. there is no explicit measure

tide to this ordinance that i am aware of. >> are we able to tie future revenue streams to legislation, county attorney? >> that would be something i would have to look into. you can't answer that question right now for you. >> from an accounting standpoint the way to do that would be to dedicate the revenue source when you authorize its creation. in the case of taxes you would create a special purpose talks and designate the purpose of that tax for this purpose or any other. it is typically how you would do it. >> what does that mean in every day language, please? this is not a purpose tax. we are talking about -- well, i guess it is. if it passes in june, are we able to -- what can we put in

the legislation? right now there is no revenue stream. or job is to balance the budget and balance programs as things move through the budget process. it is difficult. you just said that everything we have heard and we want to do is going to cost $44 million. we don't have an identified source. tell me how do we tie revenue to this? >> you would have to place a revenue measure on the november ballot as designated tax for this purpose. >> is there a opportunity to use revenue generating measure on the june ballot to this? or does it have to be forward? why november as opposed to june? >> if you want to dedicate a new revenue source to this particular purpose, the timeline for placing measures on the june ballot is pass. you need to wait for that. on the june ballot there are two

grocery seats competing, one for child care and one for homelessness and housing. the homelessness and housing measure -- i will enlist a little help. >> no problem. we want to get it right. both of those measures on the june ballot have a return, it is unusual drafting of the tax measure. they both are special purpose taxes to include a provision to send that revenue to the general fund. that is available for any legal purpose. >> thank you.

can you state for the record the estimation of how much that revenue would be? >> from the grocery seats tax measure dedicated to child care, return to the general fund after net would be approximately $18 million. under the second measure $1.5 million in the first year and $3 million in the second year of implementation. >> it sounds like when revenue tax measures are passed, what is the rate at which they come into the general fund? is it a lump sum? will we see revenue in january

of 2018? will be we see it by july 1st? if it is passed in june or november? what is the estimated time before we see the revenue. >> it depends on the tax. it is paid the tax year. that is the calendar year. the first tax year for which you can impose the increase in the grocery seats is 2019. we would receive two prepayments on that new rate in fiscal year 2018-2019, half a year's worth of revenue in the upcoming budget year. >> half of the revenue would be. if a measure passes in june, we can expect revenue by january? >> there is a timing difference.

actual cash. we could say we believe on a budget basis it would be available. cash in the door would probably be in the fourth quarter to after the year ends based on the timing of payments for business tax in particular. >> what i am not hearing is a clear start date. like the people in the office in the chamber. if we know we file our income taxes and know we will get those taxes back. i spent some of that tax money. what i'm trying to do is figure out when we will start to see some of that revenue come in to the general fund so that we can then begin to pay our workers? >> you would see it in the second half of fiscal year 2018-2019. >> that is july? >> no, you would see business

taxes for the largest taxpayers from whom the greatest share of revenue comes those are paid quarterly. we would have prepayment for the first and second quarter after the end of each quarter to count for fiscal year 2018-2019. >> thank you. i appreciate your time and expertise. i may come back to you with more questions. i want to welcome supervisor kim and give her the floor to talk about the mco. for the record she and supervisor sheehy are the cosponsors of the legislation we are discussing today. >> my apologies i and running back and forth where i it is as a member and budget committee today between items we have at tjpa. i want to acknowledge supervisor

sheehy whose office is playing a leadership role over the past year and i want to thank supervisor cohen. it has been stalled on you ho move this forward. i know there is no disagreement we should work to do everything we can to ensure equity for our lowest paid city workers. i am confident 11 members of the board agree that this very small raise should be granted to our lowest paid city workers. the biggest conversation piece is how we fund it. this is the right time to begin this conversation to ensure we figure out a solution before we pass the 2018-2019 budget. in terms of proposition c which

supervise yee and i offered understanding this is the top priority and respecting the fact that they refrain from placing a ballot measure for june 5, we did include 15% set aside of proposition c to go to the general fund to fund the minimum compensation ordinance. we have varied estimates from the controller's office it would raise 20 to $25 million per year to the general fund. it would not be again until january 1st. that might be one of the conversation pieces if we consider a smaller raise on july 1est or the full raise on january 1st as additional funds come in. i know there are three different pieces. the ihss worker who works to support seniors and individuals

with disabilities to stay in place in their community and really work to build the strength and resilience of san francisco. i know many of the members left. i want to thank you for your work. you make poverty wages in san francisco and continue care taking for our residents who want to stay in the communities and homes and do not go to the level of needing full-time care in hospitals or in nursing homes and how important that work is. we also have a cohort of folks the nonprofit workers contracted through the city. as many members of the public talked about they do incredibly important work providing services to the residents. they are struggling to live in san francisco or close to san francisco because of our crazy housing and real estate market.

this is incredibly urgent. i hope we can pass this as soon as possible. i want to acknowledge how we are going to practically do this. what i am hopeful for and i have spoken to the members of the budget committee. we prior ties funding this as soon as possible. i am hope to passing airport workers out immediately. we will raise wages on july 1st. i want to keep the workers together. i understand both side esof the argument. there is a part of me that wants to approve airport workers today so they can be sure they will get the raise immediately. i understand the concern from labor we won't take care of

everyone if we just take care of some workers. we have to involve hsn. we are not just talking about nonprofit workers in city contract but nonprofit workers are not covered. it would be unfair to not raise the wages of all workers. that has to be figured out it might raise the city's liability from $44 million to slightly above that dollar. we have to understand what that amount is. i really appreciate you are pushing this conversation. it has stagnated. bringing it to committee ensures that all of us are getting to a room and figure this out to make this happen for the workers. we don't want to say it is a back room deal. >> the room is the chamber.

we absolutely need to figure out. i am committing to making this happen in this budget cycle over the next couple weeks. having talked to supervisor sheehy, fewer and cohen we are committed. we probably did not get a chance to chat. i want to make sure we make something happen in the next couple weeks. i would like to work with the budget committee to make that happen. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your insight. a couple things i heard here. i am happy to begin the conversation about drafting some language to include an amendment that would be a trigger to help tie to legislation to a revenue stream. of course, that is all contingent if it passes in june. we have amendments that have

been proposed by supervisor fewer. proposed by sheehy and made by supervisor fewer not seconded. if we could address that, that would be helpful. i think those are to item which one? item 8, item 9. item 8 is the airport workers. >> would you restate the amendment. >> sure. on page 1 line five striking from 1586 to july 2017, on page 4 line 16 the entire line beginning and ending at 1586. online 7 -- he i mean page 7.

>> could you read the change of language so folks can follow along. >> page one line five. striking 15.86 per hour on july 1st of 2017. >> changing it to 16.86 per hour on july 1st of 2018? >> no, just striking that. >> i must have the wrong copy then. >> excuse me, supervisor. i wanted to clarify that. i see my amendment says you are striking other than nonprofit corporations or public entities. then you leave two but strike 15.86 per hour on july 1, to 17. that is what my copy says here? >> it is not highlighted. nonprofit corporations that was made in prior committee.

we are only changing the 2008s. >> you are striking 15.86 per hour on july 1, 2017? >> yes. on page 4 line 16. striking i begin on july 1, 2017. hourly gross compensation of $15.86. then on page 7. line 25. beginning on july 1, 2017. an hourly gross compensation of $14.39. continuing to page 8. beginning on july 1, 2018 an hourly gross compensation of $15.86. >> thank you. the motion is made. i will second that and we can take these amendments without

objection. thank you. supervisor sheehy? any other amendments? >> no. >> then the next major portion is the phasing in. we need to talk about revenue sources. since we don't have any language today, we should start the conversation. i would like to propose an amendment that we introduce a trigger that makes an assumption that there is a new revenue source that will be coming from the general fund we are able to tie it to funding the mco legislation. specifically the language before me says contingent upon general fund dollars available through new revenue measures as determined by the voters. any discussion or concerns?

>> yes, thank you very much, chair cohen. so i would not like the entire amount of money to be dependent slowly on a revenue measure on the june ballot. i would not be supporting an amendment -- that amendment. if the entire amount were dependent on one revenue source that is up to the voters in the june election, i would not be in fair o favor of that. >> can we remove airport workers from that amendment, supervisor cohen, or would that be -- the airport worker item is item 8. >> that is separate? >> we just amended item nine. we are discussing item nine. both items eight and nine were

called together. if you would like to start at item eight we can do that as well. >> i understand your desire to piggyback on supervisor kim. this discussion needs to be started in terms of a mandate. we have to pay for it. i want to agree with what supervisor kim said ther there s nobody on the board of superintendents that disagrees. this is a much needed increase. living wages are necessary. i want to find the revenue stream to fund enthusiasm so that we are responsible in our you can it during the budget season. i would definitely support that, i believe. to continue the conversation at least to try to find revenue

streams. there are taxes we talked about and measures on the ballot and there is also in my discussions with the mayor's budget office. i understand a cannabis tax may be looked at as well. i definitely think that we need to be very responsible about where we are getting the money from. that is something that i think at least to start the conversation in terms of revenue streams it is something i could support this. is a problem, too, we want this out as quickly as possible and be supportive. we need to be responsible for the funding. it is something we all believe in but something we need to be thoughtful of in terms of funding it. >> for the record i want to clarify something. item 8 is just the airport workers only. item nine has airport workers,

home healthcare and nonprofit workers. i understand that and i want to be respectful of labor piggybacking on supervisor kim and wanting that out for the airport workers. i am prepared to do that today. if that wants to be held back i will follow the lead of supervisor kim. >> i am prepared to vote out the airport workers. i want them to know we are trying to work with our labor partners. that will continue to it is on their wage increase until we have resolution around larger ordinance. i see supervisor kim on the roster. >> thank you.

i just want to be clear and affirm what supervisor fewer said. the mco passage should be contingent of passage of new revenue. i don't want the entire package contingent on c. we have to figure out what we can contribute that is not with paying our lowest workers. we negotiate with our labor unions and we are in collective bargaining. it gets a lot of press with the police officers today. we are not asking the police officers to go to the ballot to find revenue to raise wages. we ask our nonprofit workers to go to the ballot to find new revenue. there is exthat we need to be talking about among all of our workers herena san francisco. no one is more deserving than another. while it is a fairly large

liability i think we should be searching with new revenue which is what proposition c does. i don't think we should expect the workers to find the entire $44 million. what i would like to work on is i am comfortable to tieing it to proposition c to make sure it passes on june 5. we have work to do on budget committee to figure out how to fund the remaining portions through existing funds. >> that is why i calendared this. as the conversations were employing it was clear that it is a two class system when it comes to pay increases. i wanted to bring more equity to the conversation. that is why we got this scheduled and we are starting this conversation. i want to recognize supervisor

fewer. >> thank you very much, chair. i agree there is an inequity. i would like to give us time to continue this item. before i make that motion, i would like to say thank you for coming out. i among my colleagues here know what it is like for -- to live paycheck to paycheck. i was a cocktail waitress fond $2.35 an hour. i was a safe way checker at the 648 job. i know how hard that is to be on your feet. i was a local five member fitting bras for women at macy's. my father died when i was 14. i did a series of jobs. one thing i did learn is having

with many jobs in coffee shops, in chinatown to make extra money because m my mother was a low we earner. organized labor sets the standardtor living wages. i know people are suffering. i know low and moderate wage earners are taking the hardest brunt with the massive welts in -- wealth in san francisco. they work hard. i took care of my mother when she was dying. i know how hard and important that work is. i think you deserve and do need a raise. mr. de la cruise wh who is the husband of my best friend. you asked me do we know who 2015 home care providers are? yes, i know there are 20,000 hard working people. they are my neighbors, they are people taking care of my

neighbors. they are my friends. they are people we have relied on and rely on every single day so we can go to work and they are taking care of our loved ones. i understand that completely. this testimony is heart breaking. my husband is retired union worker. my daughter was a union worker until she went to law school for eight years. my father was a airplane mechanic for the government. i know what it is like to be working class. i will say that i think there needs to be more amendments made and this is the place where you make amendments. to say i have been somewhat disappointment in the leadership around this legislation is to be truthful. we are looking for some leadership around this legislation to find a revenue

source to come the agreement about how much the city should be expected to weigh in on this. even when i hear you today, i can't believe it was $1.86. for people making 14 and $15 an hour. i know that is so little relief. i also think we speak to the nonprofit providers. their concerns are serious. i am going to make a motion we continue this item to the next budget meeting next week and have a commitment that we work hard on this for the workers who are depending on this to come through and for us to come through for them that we work hard on this and come back next week with some real amendments what the committee and our sponsors have asked of us is to

look at funding streams and do soul searching around what we as the city should kick in. >> all right. supervisor kim. >> i don't have additional comments. i forgot to note that super visor cohen you came to talk about the inequity with which we treat our workers. we don't ask the labor unions to come up with additional revenue when they negotiate salary increases. that lit the fire for me that we need to make this happen before june 30th. i am committed to working with you and over the next week if we can host the meeting, get everyone at the table and let's hammer this out. >> thank you. i just want to support what supervisor fewer asked for in

terms of being collaborative. it is important to me to be collaborative. i have heard everyone. i want to work with labor and my colleagues and everyone that spoke today. i agree the stories are heart breaking, and i want to be able to do something about it. i want to be thought full and smart and hardworking. in the next week i will deathly commit to that with my colleagues as the brown act allows. i want to say these are things we have to have conversations about. it can't be last minute. this has gone on a long time. i have been here two months. supervisor cohen did a good job. i am committed to working on this and to looking at funding streams and to working with my

colleagues and labor. i want to be supportive. i don't know if yo you made a motion. >> i serve order the board of directors of a nonprofit for six year also, extremely incredible program. the executive director is one of my heroes. she cares about her workers. and their wages and the clients they serve. i am not going to just, you know, set aside what i heard from debbie and the hsn. it is real. i want to look at that, too. i am committed to working on this. i am committed if we have a week's continuance to figure out how to do this. thank you. >> i had a chance to look at the calendar. maybe we can make an amendment. if the committee would like a week, we can push things around

to make it happen. i don't know if we would get all of our workers to the table at thattism time. -- at that particular time we can schedule it. >> i would like it one week. if you would like two weeks, i think the committee can discuss that. >> well, we can keep it to one week. i want to show in good faith that there is conversation. it is not stalled and games aren't played here. above all of that. i came to the committee because i wanted to push something out. i am happy to support the motion for continuance. i want to direct the city attorney to put together language and give the city attorney an opportunity to opine on my proposal. i want to acknowledge.

i just realized the city attorney sent out a memo saying no amendments would be considered in committee if i am not mistaken. is that right? >> my colleague did advice members of the board to submit amendments by last friday. >> when was that letter sent out? >> sometimes last week i thursday or friday. >> that slipped by me. what the city attorney is saying for those in the chambers. the amendments that i am proposing today would automatically not be able to be considered because the city attorney has given advice they would not entertain the amendments. what we call on the floor. that we are to submit draft language. i didn't finish my ear reese of conversations until yesterday

with folecks. i don't have my amendment fully drafted. i would like to read some language in the record so there is work being done. to the city attorney if we could draft language to reflect this sentiment. contingent upon sufficient general fund dollars becoming available through new revenue measures as determined by the voters. we will use that as a place to begin the conversation. of course, being sensitive to supervisor kim and fewer what they said there is no desire of a full allocation of the 15% of dollars that is 20 to $25 which again is maybe a little over half of the $44 million ask is

what the workers are asking us today in this committee. let's get structure on this. a motion was made to tip. to continue. i want to get supervisor sheehy's voice on this. >> one question, chair, to the city attorney through the chair. i would like to know if we were to submit amendments for next week's budget and finance committee meeting, would we have to submit those amendments by this friday? >> i would need to contact my colleague to determine if he has time to do the amendments. in terms of whether the board can consider them next week, you could if it were substantive and there would need to be a hearing before the board could take the action on the substantive

amendments. if it were not available to the public by the time the meeting was noticed. >> for clarification you are telling me you don't know if the deadline would be this friday to submit any amendments at all if they be substantive or not? >> we would prefer the earlier the better, i'm sure. friday would be better. >> the end of the week is tomorrow. wondering if the deadline was tomorrow, i think it would be near impossible for us to get something together by tomorrow. >> it would be difficult for our office to manage that as well. we would prefer two weeks if possible. >> taking the recommendation from the city attorney to submit the amendments, i would like to amend my motion for two weeks to have this item heard in two

weeks. >> all right. let's take that motion to amend instead of one week continuance to two week continuance. that is without objection. also i would like to acknowledge i am withdrawing. we can't make amendments on the floor. i want to bring something else to the finer point to the attention of those still here. the city attorney that is here is stepping in for our regular city attorney who is absent because it is spring break. i want to recognize that our controller is not here because he is on spring break with his children. i want to recognize our budget director just delivered a beautiful baby boy. we are dealing with a wonderful team of folks that stepped up. they heeded my call to get this scheduled and moving. i didn't want to delay. i want to continue this so it

can continue to move forward. aall of you thanks for stepping in and thank you for being available for questions. is there any other -- any open items related to items 8 and 9. >> clarification you would like to continue both items 8 and 9 to the april 26th meeting? >> yes both items 8 and 9. if there is movement within labors representing the airport workers, we can move that. givgivegive us a signal. the vendors pay the salary increase. it is a different revenue stream. we have identified the stream for the workers. there the no drawn down on the general fund.

okay. supervisor fewer made a motion to continue items 8 and 9. it was taken without objection. could you please call item one. thank you ladies and gentlemen. we are moving with the rest of the agenda. >> clerk: resolution authorizing the department of public health to accept 30,000 grant from the state water resources control board to participate in the program public beach safety grant program. july 1, 2017 through june 30, 2018. >> he appreciate everyone's flexibility with the important conversation. this is a resolution to accept the grant to the department of public health from the state water resource board. it authorizes the granted of $30,000 to fund regular testing of our ocean and bay water for

cleanliness and infection. we have june winthrop to speak on the item. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon. i am june winthrop. i am manager of the water programs for the san francisco defendant of public health environmental health branch. this is a grant for $30,000 to support our beach monitoring program and if you have any questions about it i am happy to answer them. >> i believe there is snow report on this item. i would like to make a motion. >> weight we have to take public comment. >> any member of the comment -- the public to comment on this. now let's take the notion. >> all right. i willmation a motion to send to the full board with a positive

recommendation without objection. thank you. thank you very much. item two. >> clerk: hearing to consider release every served funds to adult probation department in 880,000 for the case management system. >> this concerns case management software system they have been using since 2003. this is a system they use to track criminal justice data and people in the system. i want to welcome diane limback to represent the department of adult probation. >> thank you. we are here to request the release on reserve of 8 $76,000 to fund the five year project for our new case management system. we through a rfp process to identify the most qualified vendor try bridge to carry out

the work to the system. if you have any questions i will be happy to respond. >> it is important to point out the system was created in 2003. the vendor are no longer supporting this technology. in 2017 the contract for the software vendor try bridge was approved by the body. that leaves $876,948 on reserve. today we are hearing to release the dollars. then use it to pay for the software licensing support and implementation costs. we are going to the budget ledge laytive analysts to hear her shots. >> members of the committee these funds of $876,948 were placed on reserve in the budget spending a plan for the case management system in adult

probation. this is an approved project. as you can see on page 3 the project budget is $3.5 million. the funding sources are 36,000 more than the project budget. therefore we recommend reducing the requested release from $876,948,000 to $840,000 that worry training 368480 reserves to be closed at the end of year. >> thank you very much. what i am going to do is public comment. any member of the public to comment? seeing none it is closed. i am making a motion to accept the amendment and i want to -- well, i make a motion to accept the amendment. second. that is without objection. thank you. >> can we release the requested

reserve fund and file the hearing? gluey, and make a motion to release the funds and file the hearing. thank you. we will take that without objection. thank you. >> item three to authorize the sheriff's department to enter an agreement to extend the contracted term to ma may 1, wih no change of the contract amount of 2 middle. >> we -- $2 million. >> we have a sheriff department representative with a cool name. the chair is yours. >> good i am chris pen holings. i am here to request approval to authorize the sheriff's department to enter the second amendment for the existing agreement for leaderrers and

community alternative esfor electronic monitoring services. this extends the term of the contract one year. no change in the original not to exceed contract amount. this formally submits for review program rules and regulations unchanged since the board approved this contract four years ago. finally, i would like to draw your attention on page three of the proposed resolution. the sheriff's department is proposing amendments to lines 2, 4, 5. this revises take clause to refer to the second amendment and not the first amendment. >> we will go to public comment. item three? all right. seeing none public comment the is closed. any questions for mr. chris pen holings?

seeing none why don't i make an amendment to approve and send to the full board and send this as a committee report, madam clerk with a positive recommendation. seeing no objection as amended to the full board as committee report without objection. thank you. items four, five six. he item four authorizing the issuissuance and sale of the gel obligation bond earthquake safety and emergency response bonds 2014 to 2018c. the issuance and sale of 146 mud principal amount of the general obligation bonds 2015 series, 2018. item six authorizing the issuance and sale not the exceed $52.5 million city tax ex

embonds. >> these three represent general obligation bond sales from the department of public works, mayor's office of housing which were approved by voters in 2014, 2015 and -- 2015. items four was approved in 2014. five and six were in 2015. is that right? >> i will go into that. >> item six is public health and safety was approved in 2016. >> what is your name? i am from the controller's office of public finance. thank you for hearing the items this afternoon, committee members. >> quick. i have charles and joe are going to be presenting. they are here ready to go.

>> as you made illusion to two-thirds of the voters approved prop possession a with the response bond esr to issue $400 million in genobligation bonds to improve fire, earthquake and replace unsafe facilities. of that total authorization 210,265,000 is issued leaving $189,735,000 remaining from the 2014 funds. we intend to sell those in this upcoming transaction. these bonds are to be sold on a tax-exempt basis. on november 3, 2015 the city approved the proposition a the general obligation bond authorizing up to $310 million

bonds to fund the projects for the affordable housing for vulnerable populations including seniors and disabled. it is through the proposed bond sale acquisition and preservation to prevent eviction. the provision of home ownership down payment assistance program for educator and middle income households. $75,130,000 to date leaving the money remain anything the authorization of which we will sell not to exceed $146 million in this transaction. based on the anticipated use of funds these housing bonds are to be sold as taxable general obligation bond also. in june of 2016, th the city vos approved the san francisco

general bond to issue $350 million in genobligation bonds to innovation and extend the fire safety and health care facilities for the more modern ambulance and fire stations and to build and improve facilities to better serve homeless individuals and families. the project funded include seismic improvements, upgrade also, in this same we are going to be using the funds to complete the ambulance facility and homeless necessary services service would be $29.3 million. over the 20 year life of the bonds that would result in a total of approximately $587,888,000,000 in debt service to create a property tax impact

of approximately $12.53 per $100,000 of assessed property. $600,000 home that would be approximately $74.30. city has a debt limit of 3% of the total assessed value of the city. currently of that 3% the city's outstanding bonds equal .99% of the assessed valuation. in the board approves the issuance and we sell the bonds the debt ratio increases 1.6%. it would still be within the 3% limit. additionally, the board has approved the 10 year capital plan to place a constraint on the bonds to ensure the property tax rates funding the bond program would not be

increased above the $12.01 per 100-dollars. the proposed sale would maintain the property tax rates for the bonds below that 200 of rate. we -- 2006 rate. if there are questions about the financing, i am happy to speak to that. next we have the two from the public works to speak to the projects to be funded. >> we will keep it short.

you will receive information packets. [please stand b

>> how many units of public

housing will be updated? do you have that number? >> i do not have that number off the top of my head. it is in the thousands. >> in the thousands? okay. >> i can get back to you. principally here through the bonds we have used the funding to support the hope sf program and that's if reenvisioning of the public housing site and also the sunny dale site. those are quite large, thousands of families. >> so this is across the entire public housing portfolio, not just on the east side? >> we have used other funding to support public housing and other locations. it just happening that the prop a funds are being used for these two locations. we have invested in more than 3,000 units through what we've called our rental instrumentation program and used over resources to pay for those. >> okay. >> so that's more than 3,000 units. >> my final question, how are

we going about priortizing work orders? it needs to be done, someone has to pay for