tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 13, 2018 6:00am-7:01am PDT
>> mr. thomas, before you start, i think that my members and i have agreed that it would probably not be that meaningful for you to render your report to us today because many of us, myself included, we haven't really had access to the information. i believe based on what we have been told that the information that you were required to send to the controller's office was
at least one week late. and i just wanted to give you the opportunity to let us know what circumstances that may have been out of your control to render your report that much late. and i'm also reminded to remind you that this is not the first time that the reports from your department have, you know, have been late for several days or weeks. so, maybe you could, you know, update us on what circumstances that would beyond your control that prevented you from sending the materials. >> so, for this most recent, again, john thomas with public works, for the most recent submission, there was a mix-up. we have been switching to a new representative for this bond report. in future reporting meetings it will be edmund lee from our
department who will report in lieu of myself. having said that, the communication between the controller's office and my office was last. we didn't respond to it, didn't see it, and so we had to scramble to get it together for presenting it to moira. so, my apologies for that. we also seem to be missing a liaison, we have not been contacted to meet now in probably almost a year, so i would request from the committee that somebody is assigned and reaches out to us. i think that is key to our relationship with the committee. so, that should help us moving forward. >> well, good. and i think that i'm sorry that you came hoping to present and with my, permission of my fellow members and moira, could we reschedule this to, sneak it into next meeting?
and i think because of the timing our next meeting, i believe, is actually next month. >> toward the end of the month, yes. >> toward the end of the month. and if you could advise mr. thomas of the date, updating of your materials, you know, wouldn't be a big burden to you. because we are going to meet in i believe in about four weeks. an ok. yeah. that's fine. >> ok. >> thank you. >> thank you. public comment. seeing no public comment, can we go to the next item? >> item number 5, presentation from the sfmta about the 2014 transportation and road improvement bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.
>> good morning, committee members. timothy maganot, on behalf of monique webster who could not make it because of health reasons. co-presenting with my colleague. thank you for having us. so, in front of you is our first issuance jail bond presentation, going to slide number two, we are happy to report that the second issuance was issued recently, approved in february by the mayor, and the bond holders on march 20. knock on wood, we receive second issuance of the g.o. bond as early as tomorrow. great news for us, and a lot of presentation will focus on the
second issue of g.o. bond. unfortunately for sfmta, financials are not fully reviable in sfp in the financial system, so we are trying to clean things up, so the next reporting cycle we'll have better and more accurate financial data. a lot of our presentation will focus on the second issuance of the g.o. bond, so going through the first slide, you can see the different categories approved under the $500 million g.o. bond. first issuance, second column and the second is what we expect to receive tomorrow. some highlights from both the first and second issuance, last june there was 26.2 million supplemental approved by the board of supervisors. happy to report as of last week, the 26.2 million was moved in
the financial system and made available for the facilities projects, which is great. second, muni forward will get the bulk of the money. it says 177 million on the slides, 172 million for projects. actual bond was for 174 million, so a little cost savings with the cost of issuance. some other highlights to talk about for the second issuance of the g.o. bond, facilities category will be getting the remainder of the issuance for, the bond issuance due to them, 41.5 million, a small portion to m.m.e., pretty close to being done. muni forward, $50 million.
so the bulk of the money for 13 different projects, a variety of projects, and advancing forward. and the ped safety, large chunk of that with 7 million. the next two slides talk about the accomplishment for the first issuance of the g.o. bond and turn it over to michael rhodes from our muni forward team to elaborate a little more on these. >> hello, michael rhodes, transit division. want to highlight a few of the accomplishments and key dates on the first if you years of the g.o. bond first issuance here. one of the major ones we want to call out is that we started construction on chestnut street in 2017 and want to mention that's nearing completion of construction, that's one that
has come along since our last meeting. some other highlights, we have major safety upgrades on ter -- taravel street, and san bruno saw some important upgrades. and fulton between 6th avenue and market street, and also substantially complete, so very recently completed construction on that project. some other important upgrades, construction on inner irving, as well as we see later second issuance was approved in february, so, quite a few projects have broken ground over the last several years here and we are starting to see some of them reach the completion of construction and especially in the last several months.
>> thanks, michael. >> as you can see, we are very excited about our bond. we, a lot of our projects are either entering construction or completing construction. quite a bit of progress over the last few years, another reason why we have issued the second issuance of the g.o. bond. so moving on to the next slide, these slides have a little more detail about the second issuance of the g.o. bond, the first slide talks about some of the major categories that are receiving funding and more detailed projects. as mentioned earlier, muni forward is getting 50 million. about 20 million of that is going to the 22 fillmore project, in construction. seven haight project 6 million, 2 segments, and lower haight and upper haight, lower is in construction, and the upper in
bitter ward, correct me if i'm wrong. another 20 million to the cal train electrification, as mentioned earlier, muni facility upgrades the last money for the two projects for burke and m.m.e. and then major transit corridor, 21.6 billion. -- 21.6 million. ok. so, moving on, also part of the second issuance, the bar at canopies project, you can see the rendering, the canopy in front of the bart stations or the shared muni and bart stations, 3 million under accessible improvements, and three categories, ped safety 26.3, a large to phase one, lombard street also another
4.2 million, and signal group a large chunk of money, and there are several projects that will receive some chunks of money. and real quick, other two categories, all that funding is going to better market street for the traffic signals, and complete street category, in which the townsend and 7th street projects will be moving forward as part of that category. i believe this is the last slide, which shows a cash flow projection for the second issuance of the g.o. bond. a lot of the projects are either in active construction or will be entering active construction at some point during the second issuance of the g.o. bond. so, i believe it's by late 2020
we expect the full second issuance of the g.o. bond to be spent, 85% spent by the end of 2019, so it's a pretty aggressive cash flow. you can see on that chart. and with that, that is the transportation presentation for the g.o. bond. open up for any questions that you guys might have. >> thank you. mr. larkin, you want to make comments? >> well, we had a liaison meeting, fred and i did regarding this bond last wednesday, the 28th of march, and rather than me reporting on that, first, are there any other general questions from any other commissioners? you can go first, robert. >> yeah, ok, i have a few. start by the last schedule you showed, the second issuance,
spending projections. >> yep. >> if i may have this incorrect, you can correct me, but the first bond was 67.6 million and it's been three years since you had those funds and we don't have financial reports -- >> excuse me, commissioner. chair, at this time we do have a quorum so we can begin our meeting. >> ok. so, let's begin our meeting. shall we continue the rest of this presentation and then go back to other items that we have skipped? yes. continue on with this item. >> this meeting is called to order, call roll. [roll call taken]
we have five members present. >> ok. so just to address your question, sounds like -- >> i haven't got to the question yet. the first bond issue, it has not totally been spent, we don't know, we have not seen a financial report in nine months but three years since you had those funds, 67. now, you are going to get 100, what -- >> 172. >> 174 million. >> and projection spending in two and a half years. is there a bond accountability support you submitted to public finance for 174 in two and a half years and have not spent 67 in three?
>> i could talk a lot about that. to answer the first question, there was a bond accountability board submitted to the office of public finance as part of the second issuance. you are right in that we have not submitted updated financials, mainly because in our financial system, it's not ready yet. however, i can say the first issuance happened, i think june 2015, so three years, june 2018, so in a few months. our biggest, i guess our biggest thing with the first issuance of the g.o. bond was the 26.2 million approved back in june. one of our big challenges, when that supplemental appropriation was approved in june, also when we cut over to our new financial system. so, it was really -- that really paved the way for what we actually needed for a lot of the things that needed to move forward and s.f.p. and how we understood s.f.p.
not until last week did we actually process the supplemental appropriation. without going to the financial system and confirming when that supplemental appropriation was processed, 85 -- i believe it's 89% of the bond spent once it was processed, a lot was going to finishing the facility project. so, burke and m.m.e. in particular. we don't have financial data in the report, i'm confident in saying we are over the 85% mark, the three -- which is the, i guess, not the rule, but the guideline for ex pending bonds. so, we should be over the 85% mark before the three years, june 2018, because they are able to process the supplemental appropriation. so given that, and also given, i mean, and bond accountability report, you can see the projects that we are going in for. like mentioned earlier, a lot
are in active construction or answering active construction, so from the perspective, a lot of the projects need funding right away in order to keep these moving, and in order to get the projects delivered to the public. so. >> thank you. next question, last tuesday in "the chronicle" an editorial, quickly read, it's short. san francisco prop a funds voted upon in 2014 to make specific muni improvements have quietly squirrelled away to pay for anticipated central subway costs overruns. so my question is, is there currently any appropriations to pay these bond funds for the central subway overruns or any plans? any appropriations or any plans to use these funds for the central subway project? >> i saw is that article, too.
i can say with complete confidence that there aren't any appropriations for the bond, for the central subway project. neither are there any plans for us to use bonds for the central subway project. so, the ssmta is actually working on our five year capital improvement program and two year proposed capital budget is expected to be adopted by the board i believe tomorrow, and you can see in the five-year capital improvement program that the bonds don't have any appropriations scheduled for the central subway project, neither does the two-year proposed budget. to be completely honest with you, i'm not sure where that piece of information came from. as far as i know, it's false. we don't have any plans on appropriating any money to central subway. >> thank you, appreciate that. i did not want to ask -- in today's "chronicle," a story
about an overrun on the muni metro platform and track realignment up to 51 million and made reference to some bonds potentially being used for that. my question, do you know if there is any from the 2014 bond fund for the muni metro platform and track realignment project? >> again, to be completely honest with you, i have not read that article. and i can't say whether or not we have used bonds for that particular project. however, i can look into it and get back to you. >> 22 fillmore which ends down there, $67 million project out of these bond funds? so, i don't know if in that project scope of work was any of that 67 going to be spent, do you know, maybe you don't know. >> i can check in with the project manager and get back to you on that question. as a finance person, i'm not super deep into the projects but
i can look at that information and let you know. >> great. oh, one last question, the lack of the financial reports for the last nine months, how does muni project managers manage projects? >> great question. so, definitely a challenge for us right now. within the sfmta we have done some work arounds. the group developed the interim financial report, it takes a crosswalk, it looks at all the transactions in s.f.p. to give the managers an idea what they can expect for financials. it's not 100% accurate but probably 90, 95% accurate. allows our project manager the ability to go into the report and see what we think are the estimated financials. however, i mean, we still have a
lot of problems with an s.f.p., a lot of the funding getting work authorized to d.p.w. and so i know on the d.p.w. side we have to rely on them to actually clean up their data in order to be able to report financial data. accurate financial data. and so i mean, there's a lot of challenges and a lot of the projects are mapped incorrectly and including bonds, and so we are working very diligently to clean a lot of those things up. but we can't just do it in a box, other city departments, giving we do a lot of funding to other agencies. >> thank you very much. and that's the last of my questions. >> thank you, thank you very much for the report. a couple of quick questions. there are expenditures related to i think a shared jurisdiction, and so for cal
train, electrification, $20 million. is that -- is that shared corridor or -- how are bond dollars appropriately spent in these mixed use shared corridors? >> to be completely on northwest with you, cal train is probably my weakest areas of the bonds. our portion what we are contributing. i don't think it's necessarily the san francisco portion of the cal train tracks. however, i could -- i could look at that information and get you more information. >> ok. thank you. >> that would be helpful. and the next question, my last on this, also on a shared jurisdiction, so the canopies for the, for improved accessibility to subway, great idea, mechanical passenger lift
equipment, that's exposed to the rain, you know, has an increased failure rate. so the canopy will benefit everyone, i believe. and that's a mixed use passenger corridor, shared by bart and the sfmta. so, does bart pick up some of that? >> yeah. >> how does that work? >> yeah, sfmta and bart, given the four stations along market are shared stations, both the sfmta and bart contribute to those projects. i don't know what the fund share is, i want to say 50/50 but don't quote me on that. but sfmta has committed with bart to contributing funds for those projects, and so it is a joint project between our three agencies. >> shared use of accessibility
elevators, a lot of shared inventory there. >> that's right. we are working on the m.o.u. with part as part of the second issuance of the g.o. bond. i can't quote you the numbers, i know we are close to finalizing the m.o.u. with some of the details. >> and it's a shared expenditure, using the customer criteria of shared costs for those corridors. >> thank you. >> ok. as i said, brenda and i met with staff, here, today, on wednesday. you have heard the reports, there were two things that i wanted to comment on based on what i heard from them. first is the supplemental appropriation and that's, there had been complaints i think london breed as a member of the, government oversight committee of the board of supervisors made some comments, a hearing on it and you, not you, but staffers, including director griskin were
there to respond to that. brenda mcnulty and i also commented on things from liaison meetings. one of the things, not surprising to me but noticeable to me was this supplemental appropriation process. the reason that, and correct me if i'm wrong, the reason that there was the requirement to say to the board of soups, was some of the projects were spending money more quickly, but some others were not spending it as quickly as they might have. rather than in a clean way transfer money from the ones that weren't going very fast to the ones going too fast, there was a supplemental appropriation process that went as far as the board of supervisors, i'm guess
it's an staff intensive process. to what end. supposedly some language in the bond that says no, use it here but not over here, and otherwise watching the process pretty carefully. why would we not just trust staff to make that judgment? we, the taxpayers on whose behalf are here, are not getting any benefit from things being slow. we only get our projects delivered more slowly. so, i'm going to ask you to comment on what changes in the process you could recommend that could get to the board of supervisors to improve that on behalf of all of us. >> yes, great question, brian. i can tell you that, i guess i should first start off by saying i should watch what i say. i'm, charlie wu and i are the
ones working on processing the supplemental appropriation and for us it's an absolute headache. probably spend an hour of the day every day for the last nine months working on it and so we have learned a lot of lessons, and i feel our supplemental appropriation has not only forced sfmta to learn lessons, but it paved the way for how s.f.p. worked for a lot of processes that we have to work out of the controller's office. so, some of the details, things in s.f.p., the code, first time authority code was issued, and trio code, first time it was processed in the financial system so we had to figure out, do the supplemental how to do these things and procedures because of the supplemental. it's absolutely crazy. in terms of recommending things
for the go bot committee and the board of supervisors, the biggest thing that handcuffs the sfmta is the inability to move things freely between -- i need, i'm going into details, but move things freely between sub funds. for example, sfmta has two subfunds, the 5m transit subfund and the 5m street subfund and we can't move freely between those two, and it inhibits us to manage cash flow, and project delivery. every time we need to move things between those two categories, we have to go to the board of supervisors and that's a tough process. and in addition to that, go through the controllers office for various approvals, instead of being able to move things ourselves and just for these types of things, like 5 or 6 different levels of approval,
and constantly pinging like hey, bad, can you approve this. or can you approve this other thing. and it really handcuffs us. takes a long time. so the ability to have flexibility between subfund, they could have saved us a lot of time and we did learn our lesson somewhat with the second issuance, trying to make it easier for u but we still have the sub fund issue, and if there is any way we could get around it or make it streamlined it would save us so much more time and save the taxpayer administratively. >> that's what i'm going to request to the extent i have the authority to request, which i believe is limited, that you guys at least come up with some kind of recommendation that you
could get to the board of supervisoris that they might act on. speaking as a citizen, i see a lot of down side to this being so process intensive, but limited, if any up side. because of the process it's taking more money and longer for the projects to be delivered. what the up side is i'm not seeing. two separate funds, i'm a taxpayer. that's trans parent to me. i don't care. i care how much of a check i write at the end of the year. and speak generally for the people of san francisco. so, if you could recommend a process by which the process could be streamlined without losing whatever small benefit from maintaining it the way it is, i think that would be in the best interests of all concerned. >> can i comment, sorry, commissioner.
peg stevenson from the controller's office. not my area of expertise, i don't work a lot on budget processes right now, but the controls are budget control appropriation controls are often at the project level and requirements how large a percentage change is required to move funds between projects and in general, the reasons for it are to general keep with the accounting rules and voter approval of the bond terms and there may be covenants as well in the debt issuance. so, i will certainly look into this and i'm sure the controller office staff are working with m.t.a. to try to smooth some of the processes and make it quicker. but there are government accounting rules, subfunds in particular. we hope it would not interfere
with something that would not go well and smoothly like cash flow, but usually a reason in the bond covenant that requires subfund separation. but we'll look into it and work with m.t.a. >> and i appreciate there are requirements perhaps at the federal level to which you have to adhere, but the board of supervisors, london breed, held the hearing and complaining we are not spending the money quickly enough. here is one of the reasons. and another reason, the need to coordinate between the departments. doing work you guys are trying to coordinate and often times they are the scheduled driver. like their permit process is more time intensive as your process is. but we have directed you to try to coordinate among agencies, which is a good thing. but if in doing that coordination you guys are not the project driver, your
projects may get delayed. i won't say necessarily delayed, but you won't be spending your money as quickly as you otherwise thought. and i think that's something that we should just be aware of, if nothing else. if it happens, it happens. down side we have to countenance. the final thing i wanted to mention was we heard in our last liaison meeting that sometimes you are having trouble getting bidders in the current climate to present bids on some of the packages you have on the street. among the problems is the l.b.e. goal, local business enterprise and now speaking as a member of the l.b.a. community and always open and close i am a member of that community. with the way the bidding climate is now, overwhelming the capacity of the l.b.e. community to respond to some jobs, and the
contracting community in general. but the fact that the bidding climate is tough in general, we have little control over. but the l.b.e. goal we do have control over, and i don't see there is any flexibility in that. the l.b.e. goal is not responsive of the current bidding climate. if we are at the edge of the community to respond, capacity to respond to bids, then we have to lower the goal a little bit. because otherwise we are just going to have this problem over and over again, you know, if we say the l.b.e. goal is 20% and there aren't but 5% of them available to do work at a given time we know we would have trouble. i would also recommend in the capacity to whatever capacity i have to ask for that, you work with i think the office of contract compliance to build some flexibility into their
l.b.e. goal. i understand it's a community-wide problem, contractor community-wide problem, and they are busy now and contracts on the street, they bid on the ones they can do and if they can't do it, they don't show up. but we have some control over this, so i ask you work with them to come up with a flexible schedule. one that the climate is slow, and that happens, we saw that back in 2008, sure, make the goal whatever, a lot of l.b.a. sitting around with nothing to do. that's not the case right now. that's as much as i had to say about that. >> sure, i'll take it back to sfmta and we'll follow up with you. >> if i may, i have a few questions i wanted to ask based on my late arrival, which is partly due to the problem of getting around the streets of the city. among the issues that brought to
my attention, coordination between the street improvements and m.t.a. and the fire department, and particularly things like putting speed bumps in so soften the speeding on streets now used, whereas they were not used before. and there has not been a coordinated effort between d.p.w., m.t.a. and the fire department. i understand now m.t.a. is going to pay for a person at the fire department to try to provide some coordination. i can speak in my community, we are having almost monthly car collisions of cars speeding down diamond street and hitting parked cars. we also have an elementary school at the end of the block and daycare center at the upper end of the block.
so a concern about children's safety and the safety for pets. the fire department is trying to be responsive, but it has taken over a year just to get people to talk to each other. does your system create some coordination between the city departments on these issues? >> i can tell you the speed limits are by the street department and a lot of the work time is guided by vision 0, and so i -- i mean, i'm assuming that that street, that diamond street would be on the vision 0 plan and the high injury network. and so assuming it is, it should be on our streets plan to address those issues. i'll check with that. >> i can tell you it's been on the list for a year and the problem is that the fire department's emergency vehicles hit a bump and the firefighters
in the cabinet hit the roof of the car and lose control of the vehicle. that's one thing that happens. the second thing is it slows ambulances. so, understandably there is a problem there. the problem can only be addressed if people talk to each other and as i look through the bonds' priorities, one of them is safer moving around the city and also better speed for people. so, that was a concern that i wanted to raise that we start addressing in some way, whether or not the bond funds can be used to help assist coordinated set, i don't know if it's allowed. also, when you look at the bond, it says it's designed to prioritize those neighborhoods where there is increased density for housing and jobs.
and i'm not sure what your map looks like, and to what extent it is flexible, and maybe peg knows whether or not the city has looked at the stress on streets if some of the state legislative measures move forward to increase heights on, in residential areas to a level far beyond what currently exists. i think that's an important issue. we have to plan for the future, not just correct the problems as they have emerged in the past. >> definitely agree with that. speak on the actual projects and how they address that in particular, but i could say a lot of our projects are guided by various plans that look into land use, that look into density, residents in san francisco. but i could follow up with you
with some more details and we can discuss some of our projects. >> thank you. >> any other comments? public comments? on the presentation? >> good morning. the mission of -- oversight, did not see any information in the m.t.a. materials or oral presentation that discussed the amount of bond expenditures that have been made and where individual projects are relative to the budgeted $500 million cost and as noted, three years into the project. seagull block has discussed the cost of future presentations and appears none of the presentation objectives have been achieved
today. for example, there's no information on budgeted and actual preexpenditure costs. i have serious concerns regarding the physical management of the m.t.a. project and the current situation sounds very similar to the park and rec financial mismanagement that occurred years ago. it appears seagull block has not learned from the park and rec fiasco, and maybe costs are in excess of budget and need to be reviewed. i recommend that the m.t.a. bond financial statements be included in the next seagull block meeti meeting -- cgoboc, and how m.t.a. is managing the project
without financial reports. moving funds between some funds and existing financial controls, there is a purpose for having financial controls and it appears in the absence of accurate financial reports, existing financial controls be maintained and not weakened. thank you. >> thank you. should we go on to resume the original agenda items that have been set out? we have done roll call, go to the second item on the original agenda. >> item 2, opportunity for the public to comment on any matters in the committee's jurisdiction that are not on the agenda.
>> seeing none, go to the next item. >> item 3, approval, with possible modification minutes of the january 2018 meeting. >> motion to approve. >> i do have a comment. it's really just, it's not substantive, but page two, it appears the content being reported under page -- item 4, and item 5 are related. relates to health bonds. so, my suggestion is just incorporate the two into one item. and subsequently renumber the subsequent item numbers following. >> with that, i withdraw the motion but move to approve the minutes as amended.
>> item number 6, presentation from the capital planning program of the updated capital plan and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. >> hi, good morning, everyone. heather green, director ever capital planning for the city of san francisco. many of you may know my boss brian strong, promoted to the chief resilience officer and we
are now one office, office of resilience and capital planning so i have taken over the director role, he's involved. talk about to talk with the capital plan, we do it once a year. here is the most recent capital plan, and we have no formal update to the plan this year. this is mostly review, but happy to be here and offer you all the opportunity to ask any questions or comment as you like. so, a little background on our capital plan itself. so, this may be familiar to many of you, but the most recent capital plan was published in draft form on january 1st of 2017, and then worked through to final and approval may 1 by the board and the mayor. no formal update, but the plan
en -- you know san francisco is responsible for a broad array of situation, it's both a city and a county, and the capital plan does its best to collect efforts across the geography of san francisco in one document. that includes city departments, general fund and enterprise, and mta, puc, and external agencies, like the school district, city college and so on where we are not exactly responsible for what they do but what they do affects us we want to see et in one place. the goal, to implement a sustainable plan for the long-term safety sustainable and for the infrastructure and facilities. both horizontal and vertical. fiscally constrained plan, means that we do our best each time this plan comes up to identify all of the known funding sources
that can support our infrastructure. and then identify projects that we would like to do but for which we do not have funds. and those projects that are scoped, to say they have some kind of a budget, sense of what they are with you don't have budgets for them, those are deferred. and the projects we see on the horizon but do not have a firm budget or a sense of what the project might totally entail, those are the emerging projects. capital planning committee is the governing body for this document, shared by our city administrator. monthly, sometimes more often, especially during plan development season so it's hot and heavy these days. mayor budget director, controller, president of the board of supervisors office, city administrator chairs, and the planning director.
the plan articulates policies statements for the capital planning and spending as a city. the plan talks about three major sources in detail. the first, pay as you go program, the capital budget from the general fund cash. it recommends 7% growth rate in the pay as you go program. this used to be 10% back in the day when the plan was first established and the capital budget was much, much smaller. now it has grown to five year plans ago, they established that it should be a 7% growth rate for sustainability. and $140 million, this year we are in the midst of setting general fund budget scenarios now, and the high scenarios are the capital plan recommended scenario. the plan also has a party target for our streets, pavement condition index of 70. we -- pavement condition index
criteria have recently changed so our streets jumped in score from 69 to 74. of course the streets themselves are still the same streets and so we are working with public works and will revisit this in the next capital plan in the fall. the pay as you go program, $10 million for enhancements, things that change the city for the better and make it more beautiful and amazing but you know, we have to balance that with our renewal needs and so we try to cap that each year at 10 million to varying levels of success. and then last time that we did the plan, two major changes in the general fund budget that we had to accommodate in the general fund capital budget, that was the rec park set aside, a voter measure, pegged the funding level and committed to $15 million each year in
continued capital spending, the level it was at when the set-eye side was passed and the streets set aside, we looked at the capital budget to find how much was going to street trees and pegged that in place. we also have the g.o. bond program and the general fund debt or certificates of participation program. those are both constrained programs as well. i'll get, you'll see the programs in more detail in a second in the presentation, but those are both -- the general bond program says that basically the city will only issue muni debt as it retires old debt, those won't go above fiscal 2006 levels, when the capital plan started. i'll be able to show you visualization in a second and then the general fund debt
program, this states the city's annual debt payments will not exceed 3.25% of discretionary revenue. trying to constrain how much we spend beyond our means. although debt is cheap these days. so, this is the break down of how we think about the pay as you go program. but really, all of what we do, so there is routine maintenance facilities maintenance, and then we have our a.d.a. facilities and right-of-way projects, street resurfacing, critical enhancements, i talked about that, the things that go above and beyond to do something more or build something new. commitment, street trees and taken care of all of those things to the policy directed levels, we look at what is left in the butt and try to address the facilities and right-of-way renewal needs. renewal how one might think of
repairs extending or preserving the useful life of an asset. here is what's new. as i mentioned at the outset, our office fused about a year and a half ago now, when the former chief resilience officer stepped away, brian was promoted and the office fused with what was the office of resilience and recovery to be the office of resilience and capital planning and san francisco has been doing so much infrastructure planning for so long, it's very familiar to us to be thinking about the future and to be thinking about how we can be a strong and resilient city. so it fuses with the capital planning and more emergent but familiar world of san francisco with resilience planning. and this is a cover of the strategy, published in the spring of 2016, the resilience team at the time identified the six key resilience challenges
listed here as the guiding concerns of the document. they include earthquakes, climate change, sea level rise, aging infrastructure, social iniquity and unaffordable. they cover almost everything we think about on a daily basis but our office is thinking about is this the right set of challenges that we want to be thinking about, might we cover some more. the goals of the plan are four. the first is to plan and prepare for tomorrow, the second to mitigate, adapt and retrofit, so taking care of our infrastructure and making sure it can stand to ensure housing for san francisco today and in the wake of disaster and to empower neighborhoods. so resilience as defined as part of this effort and resilience
san francisco part of a national network, 100 resilient cities, rockefeller initiative and set up around the world, definition of resilience is not just thinking about the acute shocks that might level a city like saw in mexico city or the fires like up in napa, but the slower moving chronic stresses that affect a community and a place, so then we get into a more humanistic view and think more broadly what the infrastructure needs to do and the programming as well, and how we can be strong today and into the future. to reflect the city's, continuing but enhanced focus, we modified the funding
principles, and they are tiered. number one regulatory and local mandate, second, life, health, safety and resilience. third, asset preservation and sustainability. saying we want to do what we need do do, and we want to do, same things i tell my toddlers every day. taking care of the things we need to do and then formal programs or objectives, elected bodies, officials, and economic vitality and acknowledging that we are growing and we need to support that growth. this is a break down of the plan funds from last go around. you can see the service areas how we think of the funds, public safety, recreation, streets, economic and
neighborhood development, not really a general fund under taking so much, really where we see more of our growth areas and partner agencies, that inclusion support and transportation is where we see the airport and the m.t.a., as well as external agencies like bart and cal train. this pie chart is special for goboc, how important the bond program is for the general fund department. on the right, you see the funding sources for all departments, g.o. bonds are just 12% of that pie. when you look at what supports the general fund, 36%. it's a very important source for us, concerned with the continued integrity and the oversight work you do, we are appreciative of it, it helps us make the case to voters to pass bonds and do more
for the city. a few slides about our cash program for contests. historical funding of the pay as you go program, which shows how the city is putting up its own cash to complement the heavy spending in the bond program, the last four, now entering the fifth year, fiscal 19 was year two of the budget and you will fully funded, that's shown here, and still proposed and to be finalized. the four years before that, hit the planned recommended level, able to take care of what we own, but not completely. the next slide shows how the cash program's dollars result in funding outcomes by the categories i mentioned, so you can see that we are fully
funding maintenance and a.d.a. and street resurfacing and enhancements and our commitments from set asides at the planned recommended level, but not leave us enough to get to all of our renewal. so the infrastructure in the right-of-way and our facilities are funded between 55 and 59%. this just gives you have the quantification of the planned recommended funding levels, we are at 147 million in fiscal 19. hear about that in the weeks to come. and then this shows, unfortunately, how far we still have to go. so, you know, there were some decades there of under investment in the capital portfolio, resulting in a substantial backlog with the increased general fund spending, closer to meeting the annual need, the graph shows the one on top where the lines cross, that
shows that our annual allocation, if we follow the plan, will address our annual need in fiscal 2032. so, it's coming up. but the backlog is so huge we only slow the growth of the backlog at this rate. so -- we have to keep investing. it's the take away from that slide. highlights of high profile projects that we are planning to fund up top. everything from the seawall to exiting one of the most seismically buildings across the street here, 101 grove, expanding at the southeast health center, auxiliary water supply system, rebuilding an ambulance deployment facility, continuing with the a.d.a. curb ramps program, bridge program, k