their project benefits and financial impact and where there's savings available. we evaluate the regulatory impact and cyber security concerns and architecture and development plan so we're not creating inefficiencies and the last cry tear is looking at the -- criteria so look at the department capacity to make sure we have enough capacity to be implemented. breaking down the annual allocation and major i.t. allocation more in detail in terms of requests. for the annual allocation we received 58 different requests nor next coming fiscal year for $42 million of general fund support. the allocation is only $14.1 million leaving us with a shortfall and we see a similar shortfall in years two. in years three to five we expect this shortfall continue to happen as more needs are

realized. this makes the scoring criteria need to be considered. and each project take considerable effort to implement. and the property and tax system left by the tax collector and the controllers office is similarly a large project estimated $72.5 million and the project will be imlemented over the next three years and the telecom project being led by the department of technology is transitioning our current phone system to a new internet-based voice system which will be ongoing over the next several years. finally, we have an upcoming project the replacement project

which supports 9-1-1 and the public safety agencies just beginning with an earl estimate of $37 million going forward. we also have an electronic health records project and for the five projects we do have sufficient capacity to meet the needs for the five projects. we'll look to see if they'll be considered as a major i.t. allocation and it's time to think of recommendations where to go in the future with technology. at the end we provide a variety of recommendations of the direction of technology in the city. to the first recommend is to continue to grow the two allocations by 10% to meet the

need for a variety of projects each year. second recommendation relates more to the maintenance and support for technology projects in the city. out -- we review upcoming projects but there's support needed for existing technology. we need more analysis to understand what the cost is is to support existing technology and we need to condition duct the analysis to understand what those costs are. recommendation is more around the project grchovernance. we see there's a certain type of structure that ensures project successful. it states we should have a strong governance for the large projects to make sure stakeholders at the table and decisions are being made for the project going forward. the recommendation forward is around cyber security and incident management where we made a lot of progress through the department of technology to

establish a cyber security office and so recommendation we work closely with the department of emergency management to coordinate emergency response and then using technology for digital services and thinking about what services we want to put on the website and online. and this is something we can expand and get a full list of city services to start strategizing and prioritizing which should be on the website and do the service design work. recommendation five is for full inventory and six is to reduce our use of paper in day to day

operations and as we're able to make more digital services we make them more accessible to the public and available and easy to use. it's very a very important recommendation we reduce paper wherever possible. that is the five-year plan. and the plan itself, i also want to highlight the back has an appendix of all the budgets with estimated costs and we're in the middle of budget season so we're evaluating each project individually as there's requests for funding for them. happy to answer questions. >> thank you very much, president yee. >> president yee: i think you mention mentioned zwris -- justice and i didn't see anything that mentioned that and how it fits in the plan.

>> justice is a large technology project in thinking of data sharing. if you turn to page 14, there is a brief overview of where we are with the project. there's a request to reimagine how we share public safety data. >> in terms of worth it's in the budget when you took a high-level budget you didn't have i believe you had public safety in one of those slides about the it was for something else so we're where is this on the budget? >> in the back in the appendix you can see what the requests are. we received two requests in the budget cycle. one for additional staffing nor justice team and for the main frame replacement the public safety agencies currently use.

>> president yee: where is it? >> if you go on the last page. there's the justice road map. >> president yee: i just wanted to make sure it's in here because it's an important project for me and other people in the neighborhoods. as well as hopefully the justice departments involved in coordinating information. >> thank you, very much.

supervisor ronen. >> following up on page 14 and to supervisor yee's question, i'm not sure if you're paying attention to the latest news, but we introduced a piece of legislation yesterday that creates a working group to close down juvenile hall by december 2021. one of the jobs of the working group is to review the current data of the children currently in juvenile hall and many are there because they're waiting placements postadjudication in the courts. others because they committed low-level misdemeanors or probation violations and we want to give this work group access to enough data deidentified person by person. so they can understand what

types of facilities we need to build in the community so there's accurate, appropriate alternative placement. we're running into a state law problem around the access to these files but i'm learning for the first time here that all of these different departments, many of which will be on the work group have access to these files. could anybody from the city administrator's office can review the filed of all the children being held in juvenile hall right now. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the deputy city administrator. the juvenile probation is a member of the justice work group however, their data is currently separate from the environment.

all the criminal justice departments that do share data, share data through a series of data sharing agreements. our role have been as executive sponsors and we have no access to the data because we are not a criminal justice organization. we just help facilitate the data sharing agreements, structure and mechanism for that. and we do not have juvenile probation data within the hub. as juvenile probation is redoing their case management system, that's a future item for that connection to happen and agreements to be made. >> so we're currently not a source for that data. >> i see. so page 14 would seem to indicate you are but you're just not getting that detailed? >> there's no current agreements between the departments to share that data through the justice hub. >> but for adult probation you do? >> yes. >> that could be because state

law intervenes when it comes access to juvenile data. >> yes. >> commissioner: thank you. >> commissioner: any other comments or questions? i have a few questions. one, this is the fifth iteration of the i.c.t. plan. have we always had the committee or is this something we developed after a couple of our plans? >> i believe it's been around several years but it was put into city administrative code in 2010. >> i know this sounds like a question we're approving the plan but not the expenditures within the plan. those expenditures will still have to come back to the board? >> we'll make recommendations to the mayor's office for inclusion in their bucket -- budget and

that will come back to the commission. >> commissioner: and in the appendix in the small line items i think it would be help fol have more information on what these are. one thing on the smaller line items that there's no real description of them but about the funding because this is the budget and finance committee when we see fund from year one to year two and three and four. it doesn't tell us whether or not that is ongoing funding that will be required continuously to implement this or is it funding where the full implement of it take a series of years to fully fund. that's actually not included in the information. i think that would be super helpful because we can then see

what is ongoing funding but what is funding needed to complete the whole project. >> and if have you specific questions i'm happy to follow-up and share that information with you. >> just a little feedback. also, i think you're aware we currently have legislation pending at the board regarding surveillance technology. it would be help fol -- helpful with flags under the definition we have and i know it's pretty broad. i'm wondering can you just speak about that. >> right now the plan in the budget process looks at all technology projects with the projected cost over $100,000. so anything there goes through our review and approval process. so we do va have a couple projects identified and the i.c.

plan is a tool to understand that's coming down the pipeline and begin the process of evaluating going forward. >> commissioner: thank you very much. there's no b.l.a. report. supervisor stefani, my apologies. >> i just have a few more questions on the justice system and where we're at with that because i know president yee requested a hearing last year and i believe we're waiting for a status update or -- i'm not sure where we're at with that in terms of what is happening around we haven't achieved what we wanted to in the system and want to make sure we're on track to do so. >> i'm deputy city administrator. we worked to develop a five-year

road map or strategic plan to identify what are the things we need to work together on to accomplish our goals in the next five years. that process has now been completed recently. yesterday city administrator kelly convened first meeting of the executive board talking about the road map and looking forward. talking about the request made next year for a little over $3 million to support the work around main frame retirement and justice work going forward. that was the amount identified in the first year of the five-year road map work with the consultants and city departments. so we have made a great deal of progress in terms of setting up the infrastructure and data hub that departments use and can use. one of the things that has been holding back the project has been waiting for the court system which technically

referred to as the case management system on the main frame is the court system. they have been working through a number of iterations over a number of years and they're now at the point where they believe within the next year they'll be ready to transition off. so that then puts a strong focus on the city side as well and now we're ready. the courts will be off. we set up our infrastructure on our end, now we need to make sure everything's ready. the focus is how we get off the main frame and we have funding to support the plan once it gets through the budget process. >> commissioner: president yee.

>> president yee: supervisor stefani, always know i'm following the activities. i went to yesterday's meeting. one of the things i'm planning to do is have a hearing on this issue. just bring back information for the rest of us because they have been working on it and the original thought when we first started was how can we extradite what was going on that's been taking place over 15 years and seems like we weren't getting anywhere. in a nutshell, there's been a decision not to continue with the same thing they've been doing but to step back and say, well, it's better at this point rather than trying to update an old system to move to a newer system in a quicker way and set

up the structure with the governance and everything else learning the past what didn't work and what might work. yesterday i started seeing most of the department heads show up for the meeting because it was important for them to make decisions and hopefully they'll be able to do that on the regular basis. not necessarily monthly but on a regular basis where they can do high-level decisions. which seems what was missing before they would have staff come in and they're not necessarily in position to make high-level decisions. >> thank you for that president yee. i'm interesting in this topic having start mid career as a prosecutor and hearing from my constituents all the time about the lack of data they're able to

glean from our city departments whether it's the district attorney office or police department to understand what we're trying to do which is understand our criminal justice system, whether it's working or improve it and for me i feel like we still have a long way to go. i want to participate in the conversations and make sure we're on track. it sounds like i know president yee has been participating in the conversations. i'd very much like to as well. like i said, it's something that continues to come up in all my neighborhood meetings and something i haven't been able to wrap my head around in terms of getting enough information to make decisions on what hearings to call and what information to ask to continue to ask for from the d.a.'s office. if we're having a system where all the depends are supposed to be participating and we're still not getting help us make long-term decisions i think it's a problem. i'd just ask to be involved in

those conversations going forward and look forward to the hearing you'll be calling, president yee. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. seeing no other comments, let's open this up for public comment. are there members of the public that would like to speak on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> commissioner: i'd like to make a motion for a positive recommendation. >> seconded. without objection, thank you very much. madam clerk police call item 3 -- please call item number 3. >> clerk: [reading item 3] >> commissioner: we have nay --

naomi kelly the city administrator. >> in recent years the bay area's economic growth has given a historic number of capital investments. the plan maps the city's infrastructure with an eye on fiscal responsibility and whale it while it details their approach the plan captures healthy infrastructure programs to meet the resiliency facing our city and it continues commit total good government and building the infrastructure for visitors and workers and residents for years to come and it's part of the story we tell rating agencies and keep capital low. the plan captures $39 billion in

investments over the next 10 years for a mult tude of projects including the seismic resilience of san francisco building and improving an keeping utility systems sound and keeping streets safe and some are highly complex facilities like the seawall and the fire fighting system. while others are less glamorous but vital ike hvac and elevators. no matter the size, they're essential for the safety and vitality of our residents and workers and visitors. as the plan guides infrastructure investment it also builds the public's trust in our ability to do smart, long-term planning and help deliver on our promise in a fiscally responsible way. the recommendations would not increase the tax rate and leverage investments for

delivering projects. however, there will always be challenging. our existing aging infrastructure must be cared for while we invest in new development. high construction costs in a competitive market and continued efforts to uphold and increase san francisco's resiliency when natural disasters occur and compounding on unaffordability adding pressure to communities of concern. i believe despite the challenges we have positioned well in order to respond to the challenges ahead. a great example of this success is our seawall bond. a ballot measure last year in november's election voters past with nearly 82% in favor. though it was just a down payment on this important work, it represent what's good government looks like and the trust the public has in us to deliver important work. now, i'd like to turn it over to heather green the department of capital planning. >> commissioner: thank you.

>> thank you city administrator kelly. thank you. heather green capital plan director. thank you for having me. at a present here walking through the capital plan. to begin an overview what we're talking about here for the 10-year capital plan for fiscal year '20 through '29. we try to understand as best we can all the funding sources available and acknowledge where we have deferred needs and do not yet have funding for and register emerging needs projects about which we do not even yet fully understand the exact scope and budget but we know it's the direction in which we want to move. all these things are presented in the capital plan and that's the best practice of fiscal management. we include our funding principles which i'll talk about shortly. our plan now is the largest ever, $39 million of planned

infrastructure investment represented. that's more than double the first plan and we are excited about all of the activity ahead and also acknowledge there's still much we strive to do. there are three main programs that are covered in the plan that pay as you go program which is our cash program. that's what you see at budget time. and then two major debt programs for the general fund apartments our bonds and funds debt and the revenue bonds that are discussed with regards to our enterprise departments an external agencies have their own sources but those are the general programs for the primary funds departments. this gets updated every other year and seek approval no later than may 1 in compliance with the admin code. let me talk about how we think about our capital. our public infrastructure is a vast set of needs. one lens we use to think about this is our resilience challenge.

we're the office of resilience and capital planning led by our lead resilience officer and these are laid out in our resilience s.f. strategy. earthquakes, sea-level rise and social equity and the problems are growing and glaring. they're not going away and we need to acknowledge that they come in packages. we talk about these in our building our future chapter. this began in talking about hazardous resilience and the hazards analysis to understand why the earthquake risks are in

our public portfolio. we also have long-standing plans where to direct funding and try to prioritize the things we need to do before the things we want to do. we address a legal and regulatory mandate, protect life safety and take care of the things we own and ensure as best we can. we also acknowledge we want to support the needs of our elected officials and leaders and look for projects that support economic development though all construction projects are in their own way economic development for the jobs they support. this year in the capital plan we added not as one of our tiered funding principles where we say equity on the list but added to our principles language so we

remember it's a guiding principle for the projects and we see that in the department's strategic plans to that effect. there are specific policies we're carrying forward and are being approved today. the recommendation to maintain the cash program. we are adding sb1 street repaving dollars in addition to the general fund to help hit our targets. we have a target condition payment indexed and the scoring changed so we adjusted so our qualitative target remains the same though the number system changed. we prioritize a.d.a. related projects for barrier access removes and acknowledge $10 million a year for enhancements in the pago program. this is our backlog.

one thing we know for sure is we have a lot of needs. the general department backlog at the start so fiscal planning is $9,998,000 and we need to continue to invest in capital in the one-time needs in flush times like these if we're going make a dent. this gives a little bit of context. so the blue line there is the recommended funding level and the red line is our annual funding need. can see in the plan for the first time we are getting to a place where we address our annual need in fiscal '27. that's where when you look below the backlog chart begins to tilt

downward. we can begin to chip away but we need to keep our commitment high. so what's in the plan? this is the overview. we represent general fund and ex turning term external agencies and this falls in our safety and streets and agriculture and recreation and human services and general government and all that totals $5 billion. the enterprise departments are the big pockets. they have $8 billion the p.u.c. water and waste water and the economic development is where we have tried to consolidate affordable housing and also the

ports we we try to give a sense of what's coming down the pike for our partner agencies. the split of funding sources here. you can see how reliant our general fund departments are on a couple of primary sources. one being general fund and the other our bond program. other departments including enterprise have greater sources when it comes to federal and state dollars and have their own debt and bonds and general fund are a smaller piece of the pie for them.

this shows a little bit more about what's in the pay as you go program. i mentioned we're not quite hitting our annual need until fiscal '27. there's some things funded at 100%. routine maintenance is carried forward, the a.d.a. and barrier removes and street resurfacing. the facility renewal, repairs and asset preservation taking care of what we have and right-of-way renewals are funded with the balance of things not fully funded and you can see we're at less than two-thirds of where we'd like to be. i'll move to our debt program. there's two major debt programs represented in the capital fund and the first is the general fund debt program or certificates of participation. the total for that program and the capital plan is $963 million.

the includes the exit from 101 grove one of our seismically worse buildings. it's a seismic hazard rating of 4 which means it's a collapse hazard and need to get staff. these funds will not fund the retrofit but horizontal infrastructure and up to $50 million to support a family services center. that's the relocation of staff out of 170 ottis and potentially consolidating with other city offices depending on the site identified. there's three hollow justices participation projects. the first is fiscal '20 with tenant improvements and site

acquisition and construction is needed on one of those sites in order to relocate city staff out of the hall of justice as described in the justice facilities improvement program. there's two years of $60 million critical repairs for allowance recommended by the controller in our last plan and extended here to preserve general fund capacity in the event of an economic downturn or slow down. if we're able to successfully relocate everybody out of the bryant street hall we'll be able to demolish the bryant street side and close the remainor so courts can continue to operate. there's a need to consolidate the public works yards and hall

of justice project and the idea is to bring back the die aspo aspore -- diaspora of offices relocated. and the c.o.p. program is constrained. we're not to spend more than 3.2% of our discretionary revenue on debt and the red line at the top of this chart shows that constraint. you can see the pre opposed c.o.p.s filling in. the general obligation bond program is the second major debt program discussed in the capital plan. have you here the program as proposed in the plan from february 25. this is what the capital

planning committee has reviewed and sent here for approval since the publication controller has identified additional capacity and i think there's a memo circulated but the controller's office found in additional $2 million of capacity by assessing and looking at updated numbers in the forecast. we know there's $2.725 million of capacity in the program but as proposed we have $2.525 and there's affordable housing at the next election for $300 million. $600 million for the emergency response bond for neighborhood fire stations an district fire stations and replacement of the fire training facilities being displaced due to development at treasure island.

retrofit dollars for emergency response where we know we have seismic vulnerabilities and the renovation of the 9-1-1 call center which needs to expand for the next generation of technology coming. bonds of the future include the parks and open space bond and our transportation bond at $500 million. this was pulled forward and the last capital plan had a transportation bond in 2024. however, we know there's a cash flow need for the facilities side of m.t.a.'s capital program and june 22 is when we expect to need the dollars so we brought it forward. the next public health bond at $220 million where we tackle remaining needs on the zuckerberg campus and clinic. a water fund bond program that

cycles through the needs and we had the seawall bond in 2018 and that was a need we know lies ahead when it comes to seismic safety and sea level rise adaptation and build the bond to begin the long-term need. then we return to parks and open space in the future. >> commissioner: excuse me one second. supervisor mandelman has a question. >> commissioner: when you say there's a need is that the downtown extension or what's the thought on what it's for? >> the city procured new light rail vehicles and they're larger than the ones before. if we act quickly and are able to fund facility improvements at the existing yards, we'll have enough swing space until they are delivered to be able to use the land that we have if we

delay and aren't able to avail ourselves we'll run out of room so we want to not have that happen. and maintenance. they do a lot of work at the yard. there's a lot of work that happens there not just storage but where the busses and vehicles get maintained. >> i'll conclude here noting this program also has a long standing policy constraint not to raise property tax rates due to bonds the city controls so you see that constraint represents at the top of the graph here. we also got when i presented the plan the general obligation bond oversight committee they requested through the controller

to have as part of the plan a proposal the controller's team who produced the bond report provided context so i'll hand it over to the representative from the controller's office and will go over the notes from that report and then i'll be happy to take any questions ob -- on what was discussed here. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the city performance unit of the controller's office. my colleague and i in collaboration with the general obligation bond program staff complied this overview of scope schedule and budget for the general obligation bond programs. thank you for the opportunity to present our work to you here today. so last month we published an annual report of the citizens

general obligation bond to the committee and they represent an 18-month reporting period and represent changes to the scope, schedule and budget since the prior year's record. up to end of fiscal year '18. we started in summer of 2018. our project was that first bond program managers provided financial data and we conducted inviews with about 40 -- interviews with about 40 different program mangers and staff and combined it with other sources including the quarterly bond program reports, office of public finance and for this presentation we one, updated the bonds. here are the nine general obligation bond programs that are actively issuing bonds in

our reporting period. along with the expected completion dates. these are grouped by program areas such as public health, parks, affordable housing. this slide just quiv -- gives an overview of the bonds. first voters will thaurs -- authorize the bonds and they're sold in issuances over a period of time and programs then set aside funds for designated uses then the bond proceeds are spent and for instance, through reimbursements to contractors for project delivery. go back and the controller's office provides accountability and oversight after the bonds are sold and during project delivery. this chart is an overview of spending at the bond level for

all nine programs as of june 30, 2018. the bright blue line is expended and this is data after our report was published. as you would expect earlier bonds have spent almost all their authorized proceeds so the orange bar is at or near the gray line which is the issue to date amount. the later bonds have the lighter blue bar and have not issued all their funds and the bright blue shows spending has progressed for all programs since the last fiscal year. i'll provide highlights and priority for the upcoming months. in the public health program area, the 2008sfg rebuild bond funded the hospital and trauma center which opened in may 2016

and delivered under budget. the cost savings for follow-on projects and of them only one is remaining to be complete. the 2016 public health and safety bond has six projects being delivered in partnership with the department of public health, homelessness and supportive housing and the fire department. the math authority bonds in the program 63% are for building five the 1970s era building the main hospital until the new trauma center was built and delivered in 2016. most project projects were in the design phase and so in the next year the program is moving into phases for most projects and by mid next fiscal year, most projects rebou will be in construction. the 2008 and 120 2012 clean and

safe neighborhood parks bond crud four components managed by the park and rec they have include improvements to city wide parks and programs and clean code park on the water front is the final major deliverable in the 2008 bond. in the last nine months the 2012 program had over 24 million for the pool and playground and expects to encumber $36 million for other major improvements including the george christopher park and golden gate parks and others. the 2010 earthquake safety and emergency respond bonds have a total of six unique components. the program include three stand alone facilities, the public building and office of the chief

medical examiner and other component the emergency fire fighting systems and police facilities. in the program the remaining work is valued at $232 million will be on two major projects so the fire department's fire boat headquarters at pier 22½ and forensic services division completing in 2020 and 2021. the small and medium projects and the compon s will continue in the next two fiscal years and the projects will be complete this year. in the transportation program area 2011 was a repaving streets bond, rode repaving managed by public works and five components with accessibility and lights

and structures is nearly complete. the road improvement bond includes accessibility and the conditions of streets and make roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. the sfmta has encumbered 66% of the $238 million issued to date. the sfmta has several projects and have over $37 million programmed for the 22 fillmore, and 7 haight. these are muni-forward projects. the unissued amount includes larger projects that have gone through planning and review and legislation and design including better market street and caltrain electrification.

about 1400 housing units are expected to be produced in the 2015 affordable housing bond. they fund developers for the construction of low and middle-income housing project and expedited development an two sites and the program schedule is on track and in fact three of the four components shortened their schedule by a year and the program is slate completion in september 2022. in the last mine -- nine months they spent $43 million in the low income housing and $10 million in the low income and $4 million in the down payment assistance loan program. so we heard about these challenge and successes in our interviews with bond managers and staff. the high cost driven by the

recent construction boom are significant challenges managers are needing to adjust to in their scope and schedule expectation. for instance, in the police facilities component the lowest bitd -- bid project came in 40% higher than original estimates and unforeseen conditions impacted project, budgets and schedule. the practices we heard about showed creativity and resiliency and the program's capacity to be in the bid environment. flexibility in the construction project and contracting method one way we heard about managers flexing. for instance, using a design model for the fire boat and general contractor method for the facility help the program

better manage delivery. interdepartmental coordination and community engagement were pointed to for ensuring project success. for example, staff minimized disruption with meeting with the sfmta. and this stems from the successes we heard about and the bid environment is a factor for current and future bonds and should be actively planned for assuming market conditions. program managers mentioned several types of projects where pre-bond planning would alleviate more precise conditions and projects and over water or significant builds.

the ambulance deployment facilities are examples where it would have provided better insight to the full scope and seismic needs and interdepartmental coordination are important practices but require skill and schedule accommodations. thank you very much. >> happy it take questions. >> commissioner: supervisor mandelman. >> i have questions on page or slide 19, geobond program status and the 2011 road repaving and transportation. the 2011 road repaving, with the increases in the pay-go program we should never need another bond like that ever again or no? this is controller's planning

project but i disagree not to saying it needs to go in the geobond program but there's a large lump sum investment in our streets would make a big difference. right now we're meeting our p.c.i. target funding level to get up to 75 by 2025. that's something we believe we can achieve and is responsible in getting us to a better place. where we want to be is pavement condition index in the low 80s. that would achieve a better condition across the board so the streets become less expensive to keep up. so improving streets in bad condition so if we can ever get ourselves up to that level we will be in a better place. and we won't get there without a lump sum in infusion. we can keep crawling up but it will take a long time.

>> are we planning -- >> no plan for streets at this time. so the source, there's nothing on the horizon, however, the need for a lump sum >> commissioner: is continuing? >> yes. >> commissioner: on the 2014 bond, at first plush this is troubling -- blush this is troubling given the city's significant transportation needs alar a large bond was provided for in 2014 and here we are and $73 million was spent. can you talk about it? i know you touched on some of the projects. is is it fully allocated and is the project taking long or what's going on? >> add capital planning we're not responsible for implementation but we have a representative here from the mta to speak to that bond.

>> thank you. so if you look at the chart when we started a number of the projects moving forward, market street, these were large significant projects we cleared. we have since spent the first issuance of the bond, the $73 million. what you'll see on the chart is between the june period and the period february we've doubled our spending. last year we moved the funds to projects on active construction. facilities was a good example where we have significant projects moving forward. and those things and projects muni forward specifically that required a greater amount of outreach that would be extended we moved to future issuances. knowing we were performing slow with regard to spending and getting projects out, we have done supplemental and doubled the spending since the supplemental was completed and the projects that were next were significantly large projects

like 16th street have all been legislated by the mta board and will be moving into construction. based on that we expect to fully expend that bond in the 2022 period and market street is an example where we still expect between $75 million and $90 million going in the construction of that project. >> >> then you expect another infusion of bond? >> that bond was moved forward from 2024 to this period. the reason being is the mta last year went through a process to look at all of its bus yard facilities and rail facilities across san francisco. we have two over 100 years old that need to be replaced. we're in the process of doing the upfront planning and outreach on that. the bond moving to the 2022 window provides the cash flow

needed for the reconstruction of the yard project and we need to meet cash flow and lessons learned how to have projects ready for construction up front and asked to me of the bond forward and the update of the yards is $1.2 million to the bond will move the construction projects forward. >> >> commissioner: thank you. so on page 13, the bond schedule, the thing that strikes me about this page and i mentioned this is that in kind of area after area, this seems like nowhere near what my sense

is we need to spend in any of these areas. so affordable housing bond i know later on president yee is going to be helping us raise that number to $500 million which seems like a better number. but as you go of course i think a lot of us would like to see a $1 billion affordable housing bond but millions for parks and open space by 2020 where i think many of us heard the need is like $500 million and that's not that's to do a small handful of projects around the city. it wouldn't even touch every district. this spread that out and the $500 million comes in over a decade. transportation and we have billions in unfunded not

withstanding the m.t.a.'s relative slowness in spending the money and they need a whole lot more. and water front safety, the $158 million given the multi-billion cost of the seawall seems most laughable. how do we think about how these anticipated bonds like how they fit in the overall need within the entirety of the capital of the capital plan? >> a few thoughts. i'll try to be concise. one thing to remember is geobonds are not the only source available to the city. if we look back a few slides to slide 9, we see geobonds are just a piece of the pie. i participated in the seawall

financing working group and looked at four dozen strategies. some big, some small and looking broadly and holistically so the burden doesn't fall on any one source completely when something's that big. and it also take time to deliver a project. we can identify all the need we want but something we just heard from the controller's report is it take time to spend and we see that across the bond programs. it can take six, seven, eight year to spend down and we'd like to hurry up but also we need to proceed and follow all of our codes and get the community on board and make sure we have buy-in and we're doing things in the right way and that doesn't happen overnight. so piecing things out is a good idea. spreading across programs is a good idea so we continue to meet the most urgent needs across our portfolio as we go. [stand by]