can participate in. that was the spirit of the legislation that supervisor mirkarimi worked on for many months when the campaign finance program was extended to mayors' races. i want to thank him for his work on taking it to the next step. the board of supervisors had harmonized the different programs between the board of supervisors public financing program and the mayor's public financing program. it gives us an entire package to work from. it gives us the context of the mayor's race. it is a bit complicated because we are working at three fiscal years for this program. it is looking at three fiscal

years for the financing program. for the 10-11, 11-12, and 12-13. look at the longevity of the program. i really feel that we have to have full funding for the program in the air. -- in there. we will still be very short of what the mandate for ordnance established in the fund provides, which would be far short of that. it would be close to the breaking point of whether we are going to have a fully funded program for the campaign that will be happening in the next few months. i hope that we can move forward on the entire amount for the public financing program. i say that knowing where our

budget is that. i think this is something that san franciscans will want and welcome based on a real concern about democracy in the level of civic participation. we have a form of government that involves many citizens, and i think it makes sense that we have this opportunity for many people that would consider running for mayor and the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: thnaank you for your conversation. we had the ehticthics commissios become the numbers. supervisor chiu: i want to thank the sponsor of this appropriation and stay that high, like you, have always supported public financing for the reasons you have laid out. given the budget analyst report that says that if our numbers

are off by 6%, we will hit the bottom of this fun. -- fund. a number of years ago, on the fund was depleted. what you're talking about makes sense. i asked my staff to ask about the act of appropriating money now versus later. if it's clear we need to replenish this fund, it would make sense to do it now versus later. >> we have, in our $380 million deficit, assumed that the general fund will repave $5 million to the male role campaign fund. $5 million of the deficit is

caused by that transfer. to the extent that we are appropriate funding in the current year, it reduces the necessary appropriation next year and is huge role in total to the general fund. the only caveat to would be the discussion you are having here. if, at the end of the day, the experience is the drop on the fund is not needed, we appropriate over and above the amount that has gone down by candidates. it will force the general fund to make additional reductions in order to make up that difference. that would be the only caveat. the other point i would like to mention is that we have a dynamic where there are a lot of big policy choices in front of us. we have several proposals to

draw on the general fund reserve that are not cost neutral. they are not designed to pay for items that we have already proposed to fund in next year's budget. that is not the case for all of the supplementals, all of the reductions and proposed revenues that we have been talking about in other cases. it will have a negative impact on the general fund. i throw that out there to distinguish between this proposal and some of the other proposals that are out there and might be before the committee. supervisor chu: a quick comment from me. in regards to the public comment that came forward, also thinking

about crafting this budget, we have heard very clearly from the ethics commission that the $4.7 million is a fairly conservative number. even though this is not how they get to the number, you would have the have five candidates fully raise the $575,000 and fully expand and drawdown in order to spend the $4.7 million. it is actually a very conservative number. even if we say that conservative member is one we are going to stick with, have $5 million in the bank at the moment. my problem with supporting this is that i don't think it is a supplemental that we need. we have $5 million in the bank to pay for an estimate of what the account holds in a very short while. we are going to see the budget before us.

at that point in time, given what the budget office has said, we anticipate another $2 million and putting another $5 million in repayment. i think that is a very secure place to be at the moment. if we were to look at the position one month from now to say that the campaign fund is being depleted at a lot faster rate than anticipated, we can bring this item backup and reconsider the supplemental. at this moment, i don't see that. with regards to the mutual comparison that the budget director made, from a planning point of view, you are correct. given the level of cuts that we have yet to see, it is not a comparison yet. they will be able to determine

if we want to make that decision. to the extent that we grant the supplemental, we have $1.3 million to really consider as it comes up with the budget process. i am not supportive of the supplemental. i don't think that we needed at this moment. it is a very conservative number. if we believe that we are expanding at a faster rate, i would like to reevaluate this proposal and bring it back to the budget committee. given where we are going to be in the coming year and given the trade-off, i don't think this is a prudent thing to do at the moment.

>> i agree with the chair's sentiment. it comes close to covering the very conservative estimates of what will be needed. we are all speculating in terms of what the actual experience will be. it is a lot of money for a lot of candidates to raise in a bad economy. maybe they will blow it out of the water, i don't know. they may or they may not. this money, we can appropriate it later. this money has to come from somewhere. we have been borrowing to pave our roads.

we are considering a supplemental appropriation to eliminate revenue from the rec and park department. i don't think this is the time to put $1.3 million when we don't know if we are going to need to do that. i move to continue this item to the call of the chair. supervisor chu: we have a motion, but let me go to supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i will not be supporting the motion that was just made, but i appreciate the thought behind in the conversation -- behind it. in the conversation that we have just had, they have been very reserved about the candidates that are in play. i asked a question about the drawdown because i think there

is a sort of under-assessment. it will apex pretty quickly where there will be a big draw on demands. we're already projecting the question of degrees. if anybody has been watching the budget cycle for the last three years, the mayor had pledged in the budget committee. i remember the famous letter that he signed that there will be a replenishment of the funds after the funds had been essentially pilfered. i wanted to make it clear that

now we are at this critical year, that those funds be replenished. it did not equivocate that it was in the public record, they said it did not happen to the degree that it should have based on other capacity needs. with evidence that is not just anecdotal but very clear and absolute, we should do the right public policy action. in to make sure that this fund is made as whole as ccaan be. it is deserving of our support. because of complexities and important and critical ones, we should not discount and dismissed the prior debates that took place over three years back at transferring the response and obligations to where we are

staring at today. this is the way to reconcile its. supervisor chu: supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: if the fund is that a very low about, it means a couple of things. some candidates that would consider running for mayor might think that they shouldn't because there is no funding. it also says something about what we value of about the financing program itself. if we keep it at a very low amount, we could have a very low fund that speaks to how we value what democracy is about. i think we can do better than that. there are tradeoffs about doing

it now vs. later. it makes sense to add value to the public financing program. supervisor chu: we have a motion on the floor to continue the item to the call of the chair. i will state my position that i don't support the supplemental at this time. the numbers are recurrent, you or conservative, and the supplementals are really meant for a shortfall. you can allow for a continuance and come back early enough to come and go with the problem. -- deal with the problem. we should watch and see how we are drawing down on the fund. we can always come back and reevaluate how we are going to put money into the bank. and certainly, one other comment i'd like to make.

from the perspective of an inclusive democracy, that is what the intent of public financing is meant to be. in observing the candidates that we have on the roster that will be drawing down $500,000, there are folks that can raise money. i know people will have comments about if this is really achieving the purpose, but i wanted to make a comment that all of the folks that are running our people that have raised tons of money before that able to raise money without benefit of public financing. it could encourage other folks to jump in, but currently, the roster candidates are not folks that are not able to raise. we can do roll call on that. supervisor mirkarimi: no.

supervisor kim: no. supervisor chiu: no. >> lost my place. sorry. mind if i start over? supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor kim: no. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor chiu: no. supervisor chu: aye. >> the motion fails. supervisor chu: do we have an alternative motion? supervisor mirkarimi: the

alternative motion is the ordinance itself. motion to advance the ordinance with recommendation. supervisor chu: motion to send this item forward with recommendation. i will be dissenting on this roll call. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. >> the motion passes. supervisor chu: do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda for today. supervisor chu: thank you very much, we are adjourned.

>> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil changes and sell it anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you

want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and used for other products. >> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor oil from customers. we have a 75-gallon tank that we used and we have someone take it from here to recycle. >> so far, we have 35 people. we have collected 78 gallons, if not more. these are other locations that you can go. it is absolutely free. you just need to have the

location open. you are set to go. >> tuesday, his february 26, 2007, meeting. please call the roll. clerk: [reading roll] commissioners joseph and benetti

are absent tonight. president newlin: public comment. item number one. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public battle within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to the agenda items, members of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes at the time such item is called. is there any public comment? seeing none, we will go to item number two. review and approve the minutes of february 8, so i believe we can now do that. no, we cannot. commissioner meko: i move to note continue that. clerk: same house, same call.

president bunewlin: i number three, et your title is now executive/legislative policy updates. >> no. good evening, commissioners. sorry you are late. i wanted to make sure we were being recorded. so i do not have anything to report in terms of legislation. there is, as you know, the board is getting their sea legs, so there will be more as we go forward, and we will keep you informed. i wanted to update you on our summit. with the help of commissioners meko and perez, we have this set

up. there is a flyer that commissioner perez put together, and it looks very good. we will work with the panel members, and its commissioner -- commissioner meko will help us with that, as well, and it is from about 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and we are working with the sfpuc and the commander, who is our entertainment liaison, as well as inspector falzon. that is a good thing, and the neighborhood in power of network will co-presenter with us to make sure we have good participation with the neighbors

who are involved with not like in any capacity. i wanted to refer, and at the end of the report, he will tell us about the entertainment liaison in training. i know that inspector falzon was here previously, talking about how they set up watches to make sure that they are aware of alcohol beverage control and how they are implemented in san francisco, as well as what we do, a little song and dance about the entertainment commission, and what they need when they are out in the st..

again, when i am done, i will have that person talk to you about what is on the docket. i would like to tell you guys about anything that is out of the ordinary that i get to do as director, so this month, i was asked to represent the commission as a chinese new year judge. that was fun for me. it was really cold and wet, and yet, it was so fun. we were in good company. the mayor was there, the grand marshal, the head of the recreation and parks department, the city administrator. we had a good cross-section of bureaucrats up their -- there. next month, i will be attending gay bar conference that takes place in vegas march 779, primarily to attend the sessions with the customer

service and liability. they are trying to beef up the part of the conference that is not about what your next promotion should be about how to operate within the kind of milieu we deal with, so i think that will be a good experience. when i come back from that, i will let you know what i learned. the joint hearing with the youth commission lives on, as they came before you, as you might know, and asked for a joint hearing, so we have schedule that for march 22, which is literally one month from today. it will be at 7:30 in this room. a regular meeting will be held at the regular time. we have the permits out for the regular business, and hopefully, we will be able to do the

regular business in approximately one hour, and we will hold a special order, if you will, and it will be around at 7:30 tie. we will do it in this room. we will ask you to shove over and make some room for some news commissioners on that day, and if any members need to leave for any particular reason, that is quite all right. it is not a mandatory meeting at all. i. attached an email that i received. regarding content, if you will. this is for reference. if you want to take a look at that earlier. the focus of that meeting is going to be that bill that fiona ma has introduced but has not moved on, so, obviously, we will be agendizing a more in-depth item, but if you are curious

about what the content is, take a look at what is attached. i wanted to go ahead and start looking way into the future about our next industries summit, so, again, in april, we are hopeful to do what i think is our fourth industries summit in may, before memorial day, so any input from the commission for time frames in made at work or do not work for in the commissioner's better interested in being involved re-deposited in may that work or do not work -- time frames in may that work or do not work for the commissioner that are interested in being involved. rincon, in response to continue

to permit violations, this one on 16th street, there was another seven-day suspension. more like a five-day suspension, beginning february 18, through february 24. mr. granelli and i spent some time working through things. we are hopeful that this time around, maybe they will understand what it means to be in compliance with their permit conditions. so, everybody, cross your fingers. and lastly, there are two appeals still pending. 181 eddy was issued a suspension last year,