supervisor mirkarimi: very quotable. i agree. i want to follow on our discussion, talking with the mayor's office. it is good to line up what the all looks are. i do not think any of us would disagree that this is sacramento's mess we are having to shoulder. however, in this case, it is the people of san francisco's mess and harm that is being caused that we have to shoulder, and i think we are trying to figure out the options. it sounds like there are very few if none. >> at the moment, the department are working to transition as many of these needy families and kids on to the available slots in some other way. that would minimize the impact on those families. i certainly could get back to you next week at the beginning of the week about the specific details of what a plan might look like, but i do not have numbers in front of me today or

a systemic outlined. but i think it is a conversation that will be happening over the next several days and would be happy to work with you on it. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, thank you. >> i am going to continue on slide 7, where i just have a few comments on the property tax. i think we have basically covered that the year and was about $18 million before the projection because of some late fundamental assessments. the secured growth was 5% higher than anticipated as a result of those late assessments that were impact enrolled. as i mentioned, we are projecting an $18 million surplus after setting aside a certain amount for appeals. we do not yet have the total number for 2010. the assessment appeals board is still entering the appeals into

their database. i hope that in a few weeks we will have a better picture of the universe, although we will not know until we get decisions and know how much people are receiving. chairperson avalos: last year, the appeals board hired additional staff or transferred staff. is that happening again this year, because there has been a high volume of appeals that came in? >> i believe they are hiring additional temporary staff, perhaps not as severely year, which is why we are getting a letter result on this. going over the department to results -- departmental results, the most significant is the shortfall in the hospital fee, the new state program that assesses fees on private hospitals and allows the state to draw down additional federal funds and return some of those revenues to the public as well

as the private hospitals. there is still -- there have been developments on that that reduce the retroactivity, which is why the department has said there is at least a shortfall of $26.50 million. more of those funds remain uncertain, as we will mention in another slide. on the fmap, the federal medical assistance percentage, that was reduced somewhat. they did in have some of their funds, and their estimate was met. from our uncertain revenues, the mental health state plan amendment, the department is telling us, is still not complete, but is likely to have reduced retroactivity. the one departmental expenditure item that was reported was staffing at the sheriff's department. at this stage, we are anticipating a $4 million shortfall there and potential

need for something in that area if no other measures are taken in that area to reduce the shortfall. finally, there is an item related to federal policy around the human services agency employment and training program, resulting in a $1.70 million shortfall. on the plus side, we have refinancing savings on our debt service, resulting in $2.70 million to the good. that will make that $38 million category. the next slide is a summary on our uncertain revenues. the largest items were the hospital fee and the federal medical assistance percentage and the mental health state plan amendment. of these, we have strong confidence on the final number of the enhanced federal medical assistance percentage, because that was approved by congress. the hospital fees still requires final approval. it is looking good, according to

the department, but there is uncertainty about formulas, uncertainty about the total amount of money we will get, which we are estimating a $13 million range in what we might receive there. on the mental health state plan amendment, that is delayed in terms of its process. there is a lot more uncertainty around it. i think it is likely it will be less than the maximum that was assumed. the remaining $8.60 million is still regarded as uncertain. supervisor elsbernd, you mentioned the hotel tax revenues. there was $6 million assume from that. we are regarding that as uncertain until next week. we will see what happens. there are a few small items, as with the impound account and the cigarette lighter abatement fee which is still in litigation. -- the cigarette litter abatement fee which is still in litigation. chairperson avalos: there is a

pending -- i will talk to you about it off line, actually. >> there have been questions about the rainy day reserve. i added a table that was not in the report to summarize how we get to the $33 million level. you can see here that at the start of last year we were looking at $98 million and the budget withdrew half of that, $49 million, for the city, and a quarter of the preschool district. that would have left $24.60 million. thanks to higher than anticipated year-end revenues, which rose so we could only withdraw $50 million, we did not withdraw $15 million we thought we would. we budgeted this year $6.10 million to the school district and $12.30 million to the city. according to current revenue projections, we are right at the

withdrawal limit of the reserves. if we have exactly what is forecast, we will not be eligible to withdraw. we are assuming that $3.20 million will not be withdrawn from the reserves for next year. if in fact our revenues are reduced this year, then that would again allow for the trigger of withdrawal from the reserve in this year. if we have bad revenue news, the order would be that first you could withdraw up to the $12.30 million that was budgeted from rainy day reserves, and if it was more than that, you could look at general reserves to cover that if there were not other measures to be taken. if you get bad expenditure news, that would not allow withdrawal from the rainy day fund, though the general fund could be used. finally, the bottom line from this is that the current year budget remains balanced as it is now, given these cautions.

if the $30 million in uncertain revenues are received and there are no other major developments, the $25 million general fund remains intact and the rainy day fund is not needed. but as you well know, with the school year budget shortfall, it remains a major challenge. supervisor mirkarimi: that was slightly adjusted a few weeks ago. can you repeat the number again of the deficit? >> the's -- the controller's office has not done a final projection. i prefer to leave that to the mayor's office if they would like to provide an updated number. supervisor mirkarimi: go ahead. >> through the chair, i think our current estimate is that the budget shortfall is in neighborhood of $450 million. however, we have not finalized

the budget deficit number for fiscal year 11-12 and will be revising that estimate over the last month. we cannot agree at the end of november or the beginning of december with budget instruction and a projected deficit. our hope is that the positive, slightly positive, revenue trends we are seeing in this report will carry forward into the budget year, and that might reduce the deficit somewhat, but i think we are still cautious with the numbers. supervisor elsbernd: and the budget office and controller's office are aware of the demographic changes to the actuarial analysis that more than likely will take the employer cost higher? >> i think the short answer is yes. supervisor elsbernd: good, ok. chairperson avalos: mr.

levenson, thank you very much. we can open this up for public comment. we will close public comment. this we will continue to the call of the chair without objection. and i believe that was our last item. we are adjourned.

supervisor chu: good morning. welcome to the regular meeting of the city operations and neighborhood services committee. madam clerk, are there any announcements today? >> yes, all persons attending this meeting and requested to town of cell phones and pagers. if you wish to submit speaker cards, please put them by the container in front of you by the rail to your left. if you submit copies of materials of to members of the committee, please submit an extra copy to the file. items recommended out of committee today will be considered by the full board of supervisors tuesday of next week, november 2, unless another date is indicated.

supervisor chu: thank you very much. please read item one. >> item 1, a hearing to consider the issuance of a tight 48 on- sale general public premises liquor license to pomchai hutachinda located at 2367-2371 market street, will serve the convenience of the people of the city and county of san francisco. >> good morning. san francisco police department. what is before us this morning is actually a pre-existing licensed business. the business is currently licensed and operated. what is before us today is what we call a formal premise expansion, and they are trying to add to the premises approximately a back space of 12 feet by 24 feet. it is completely enclosed and some fruit. i would also point out that the premises has done significant innovation. i would even say that it sets the standard for many of our

premises in san francisco. the entire place has been renovated to address noise issues and limit impact on the community. we are recommending this for approval. their hours of operation are 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. daily -- 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. i would point out that there are some letters of protest, which will ultimately get resolved at the abc if the petitioners do not result in -- withdraw in advance of that. we recommend the following conditions -- condition one, no noise shall the allowable beyond the area of the control licensee. the petition shall not make structure changes in the premise and interior without prior written approval from the department. condition three, the sale of alcoholic beverages of -- for offset premises consumption is strictly for have it. consumption of on sell alcohol beverages shall be restricted to the conference of the premises. there shall be no consumption of alcoholic beverages on the sidewalk area in front of or

adjacent to the premises. four, loitering, defined as standing idly about, lingering aimlessly without lawful business, is prohibited on any side will for property adjacent to the premises under control of the licensee. all doors and windows shall be kept closed at all times during the operation of the premises except in case of an emergency and to permit deliveries, said your is not to consist solely of screen or ventilated doors. with these conditions, we recommend the license for approval, or i should say the premises expansion. supervisor chu: thank you. some of the conditions that existed with the existing premise would also apply to the space? >> absolutely. supervisor chu: just a quick question for you -- it looks like in the material we have before us, there were three police calls from february. can you describe the nature of those calls and whether some of

the issues we set forth in conditions have addressed those issues? >> correct. one condition was a miscellaneous call, so i have no specific details. another was a suspicious person. the last one was 8 threats case. the good news is i was looking for noise complaints, and we had no record of that. supervisor chu: with some of the existing cases with noises, it is not within the complaints that were called in, but for the other issues, with those the issues that would be followed up by abc? >> correct, and suspicious persons one, our loitering would address that, putting more onus on the licensee. the licensee is here if you have questions for him, and he does support these conditions. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other questions from the committee? why don't we open this item up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item 1? seeing none, public comment is

closed. >> thank you. this is in my district, and i would like to make a motion to send this item forward with recommendation for approval facility conditions that have been described by [inaudible] supervisor chu: great. any objections? without objection. item two, please. >> hearing to consider the issuance of a tight 48 on-sale general public premises look a license to luisa hanson for delays bar, located at 2241 chestnut street, will serve the convenience of the people of the city and county of san francisco. supervisor chu: thank you. i understand this is an item you are requesting we continue. >> correct. it will need conditional use authorization from the planning department, so we ask that it be set to the call of the chair. supervisor chu: why don't we open this item up? it needs to receive additional approval, but are there any

members of the public who wish to speak on item two at this time? again, the item will be before the committee again in the future. seeing none, public comment is closed. can we continue this to the call of the chair? without objection. item three please. >> item 3, a resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept a gift of equipment and furnishings valued at $155,013 from the san francisco parks trust gear up campaign to be used at hamilton recreation center, midtown terrace playground, harvey milk center for the recreational arts, sunnyside conservatory, sunnyside clubhouse, and other recreation and park department facilities. supervisor chu: thank you. we have the general manager before us. i want to say congratulations to you on a wonderful event that scare growth. we saw lots of kids and lots of families there. >> it was a terrific event, and

the rain did not scare everyone away. this is the first of two give resolutions before you. this one was a kid from san francisco parks trust in the amount of $155,000, and this was really significant in our eyes. the parks trust supported us, and as you know, through our 2000 and 2008 parks funds, we have been able to renovate a number of facilities, but they did not contemplate putting anything in those facilities. we are extremely challenged with respect to materials and supplies to deliver quality and effective programming. during the last budget season, we pointed out that based on our current budget, the average, we have 25 full-service recreation centers, each one given approximately $16,000 in materials and supplies, and the national recreation and parks standards, so we are operating at a significant deficit, and

the parks trust has done a fabulous job in raising money for a number of our facilities. we have actually got a few others in this packet has a gift, for example, of $11,000 worth of six equipment for the mission that center, and it is a terrific gift, and we ask that you accept it -- if equipment for the mission rec center. supervisor chu: is anyone here speaking from the parks trust? >> the san francisco parts trust had a conflict this morning, so i'm speaking on their behalf. supervisor chu: great, thank you. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to approve? without objection. thank you. thank you very much. item four plays. >> item four, resolution authorizing the san francisco department of public health to

retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $25,331 from the university of california, san francisco, to fund the screening, a brief intervention, and referral to treatment project and to enter into an agreement for the use of these funds for period of september 30, 2009, through september 29, 2010. >> good morning. i'm a physician with the san francisco department of public health and an investigator on the grant. i will be speaking a few words about it this morning. sbir stands for screening, a brief intervention, and referral to trigger projects. it was found that if officials took a few minutes to speak with patients about alcohol and drug use, it had an impact on their level of drinking and drug use, a positive impact, so actually internationally, this has been

recognized, and grants have been awarded to sites to teach this technique, and such a grant was awarded to us, to ucsf, to teach residents who are training at san francisco general hospital. my focus has actually been around teaching the referral to treatment, which involves city programs specifically. the grant has become a platform to teach not just residents about substance use but also attending social workers, nurses, and it has become a platform to not only teach, but also changed attitudes, and i think whenever we bring teaching to our clinical services, we enhance those services on a number levels. so there you go. supervisor chu: thank you for your presentation. i just wanted to clarify, the

grant would provide for 10% funding for existing positions on your staff, which would involve not creating any new positions? >> that is right. i am that senior physician. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to move the adam forward with recommendations. without objection. thank you very much. item five, please. >> item 5, resolution authorizing the san francisco recreation and park department to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $165,000 to support the san francisco recreation and park department's you still wish to program for october 1, 2010, through october 1, 2015 -- recreation and park department's youth stewardship

program. >> good morning, supervisors. in the brand manager for the recreation and parks capital division -- i'm the brand manager -- find the -- i'm teh he grant manager. the program is fully funded by gifts and grants. last year, they served 635 students who contributed 2710 hours of habitat restoration in 9 of our recreation and park natural areas. 20 classes participated in this program, which involves three to five visits to our parks. the following schools participated -- betsy carmichael, bryant elementary, e.r. taylor, guadalupe

elementary, west portal, and the bay area gifted home schoolers. parts that received this benefit included bayview hill,buena vista, flynn canyon, corona heights, online park, the late park, and pine ridge. in closing, i would like to recommend that the committee make a recommendation to the board of supervisors to accept and expend this grant. supervisor chu: thank you very much. any questions from the committee? why don't we open this item up for public comment? are there members of the public who wish to speak on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> [inaudible] supervisor chu: we have a motion to move the item forward with recommendation to the full board. without objection. thank you very much. next, call item 6 please.

>> item 6, resolution authorizing the director of the department of public works to apply, accept, and expend a grant in the amount of up to but not to exceed $350,000 from the solid waste disposal cleanup site trust fund for cleanup of illegal dumping sites in san francisco. supervisor chu: thank you very much. i think we have a representative from the department of public works. >> good morning. the cal recycled grant before you would allow the city to target 25 chronic in legal dumping sites in the southeast portion of the city -- chronic illegal dumping sites in the southeast portion of the city. it would allow us mitigation and clean up as well as public out reach -- out reach -- outreach. the 25 sites were chosen on the

criteria of public access, visibility to thoroughfare and proximity to residential homes. the goal of the program has been to improve livability and the health and safety conditions for those neighborhoods through these efforts. we will evaluate daly site data to determine which combination mitigation efforts are most effective, and this information could be applied to our overall illegal dumping activities -- we will evaluate daily site data. supervisor chu: thank you for your quick presentation. you spoke about 25 hot spots, and i know they are in the appendix d c u. the utilize any of the data collected by 311 that typically has folks call in about illegal dumping, or is it primarily due to the experience of your dpw folks going out there and picking up after illegal

dumping? >> it is my experience that [inaudible] were used in coming up with a list. they were sent out to gather the data and determine which were the most appropriate sites to gather the data. we will have someone here soon to talk about the information and how exactly they identify these 25 sites, but these are the most chronic sites in that area that they felt would benefit the most from this activity at this time. supervisor chu: should we wait for mohammad to get here? we could pass through for another item first, but i have questions about what specifically would be some of the strategies that would be used for the hot spots. >> i think it might make sense to wait for muhammed, since he was intimately involved in the decision. supervisor avalos: just a question on -- it looks like all these are in district 10.

i would not at all say that there is a huge problem in district 10 with illegal dumping. certainly there is. are there any size with there is a great deal of illegal dumping happening elsewhere that is also as high as any of these spots? >> i think that i would have to defer to mohammad on that as well, but i want to point out that as we move forward to this grant, if the application is granted, and we have determined that our efforts are effective, it would be within these original 25 sites, we may, through approval from cal recycled, switch to a different site if it is proven that we need to concentrate activities in other areas. supervisor avalos: so then, it is likely there are other places in san francisco that have an equal amount of dumping that