monies -- anything else we are missing? >> americorps this up. there may be others. i'm happy to provide details on programs that benefit san franciscans but do not flow directly through san francisco's budget. supervisor chu: that would be great. i know we have item 3 also, which is a resolution. would you like to present that item as well? >> i think mr. chu from the mayor's office of housing is here to address that issue. >> good afternoon, director of community development from the mayor's office of housing. i think you have heard the description of the possible cuts. let me give you a little bit of

the latest update we have from our partners, the national community development association. they have been working, trying to have meetings with each and every senator because that is where we feel we may have to focus to save this program. in their meetings with the senators, they had discovered that many of the newest senators were unaware that cdbg supported any services in their state. the educational process, i think, was useful. however, while many of the senate republicans have met with the support cdbg, they are so far united in their desire to see more federal cuts and are united in not supporting any program over any other. there was an attempt by ncda to draft a letter signed by all the members of the u.s. senate, which would support maintaining

the current level of fiscal year 2010 funding. unfortunately, republicans all stock to say we are not able to sign on to that, and some of the democratic senators felt as if it might be a conflict to support one program over another. both the california senators did sign on to that letter, asking the president to hold the line and actually increased his budget. in terms of how it might affect san francisco, we did our initial projections at a 30% cut. we know other jurisdictions that have a contingency scenario anticipating a 60% cut. we felt that that is not likely to be at that rate. again, the latest news we have

from washington was that vice- president biden and other senate democrats were planning to offer up perhaps $30 billion in cuts for fiscal year 2011, including cuts that have been made in the past including the continuing resolution. conservative republicans were asking for $60 billion, so this would be meeting them half way, which matches up with our projection for 30% cuts. the petition to maintain level funding has been supported by the u.s. conference of mayors. we're doing all we can to preserve the funding, but we did want to offer this resolution so that the mayor and board could be on record to work with the city's congressional delegation and other partners to preserve as much as possible for cdbg.

the national committee development association did say that they -- the national community development association did say that the fiscal year 2012 budget negotiations may be even more difficult than the fiscal year 2011 discussions in terms of cdbg. \ that is one thing to keep in mind. in the past, when we had this, we needed to go back up, but we do not anticipate this reduction. if anything, it may go down. that is a little bit more the background, and we do ask your support in passing this resolution. supervisor chiu: -- supervisor chu: thank you. quick question in terms of your timeline -- i know that the cdbg money is go out for your rgp process in a bit -- for your rp

fp process in advance of our budget. what dates are looking at, and will your department's work basically be centered around an assumption of a 30% cut production? and are you going forward with a potential contingency, or are you going to leave it at the 30%? >> that is an excellent question. we are going forward with our 30% projection. as of now, hud requested we stay on the same time line, which required us to submit our action plan by may 15. we usually come to the board through this committee at the end of april for and accept and expend resolution. there may be a possibility that we come to your not with it will accept and expend if we do not have the actual allocation, but instead, we come to you with a request to approve the submission of the action plan with this contingency budget, which will allow us to satisfy

the hud requirements. we would come back to you, perhaps in may, for the true accept and expend, and we would amend the action plan. does mean that there is, unfortunately, a degree of uncertainty with the cbo's. we would be discussing with each of you individually your suggestions. in the best case scenario, we do have some contingencies. we do have some contingencies if it is worse than 30%. it will be a very difficult discussion if it is greater than 30%, but we intend to see you at the end of april for either and accept and expend for an approval to submit the action plan with this contingency. supervisor chu: thank you. and the question for ms. howard, with regards to the budget, again, the federal fiscal year,

right now, they are operating under a continuing resolution with extensions that occur periodically. when have we received with the federal budget would look like, and when do we think that will be? >> apologies, supervisor. i'm not sure what the typical timeline is. in just checking around. do you happen to know? and in the past, i think that the budget has tended to be approved in february or march. we get our allocations as early as february, sometimes march. right now, we have gotten mixed messages as to whether or not congress will be able to come to an agreement. at the end of this continuing resolution. which, as ms. howard said,

expires april 8. we may be able to get to you before that time, but it can go either way. supervisor chu: thank you. if we do not have questions from the committee, and going to open up for public comment -- i'm going to open up for public comment. >> ♪ federal cuts budget day by day cuts day-by-day 0, city and state why did you take the money away you promised us so dearly and the budget yearly and i hope you hear me budget cuts day-by-day

bring it back away if you hear me bring the budget back and near me we need the budget clearly budget yearly day-by-day ♪ thanks. supervisor chu: any other members of the public who wish to comment on these items? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the chinatown community development center. i'm here today on behalf of a network of asia/pacific islanders serving community- based organizations. it is a network of about seven coalitions that actually span roughly 25 to 30 organizations and provide services to the entire city in terms of our

geographic scope. first of all, i wanted to thank supervisor chu for putting this hearing on. one of the things that is not well understood in our communities is just how much the federal budget impacts the services we are able to provide, and i do not think folks in our community really have an understanding of how these cuts are going to hurt us and potentially change the face of our communities. we have been trying to gather some data on just how deep these cuts are going to go, and even though our network is about 25 or 30 organizations, we are beginning the process, and we have gathered some data on cuts to about six organizations right now. just based on those six, we found out that federal funding helps fund services to about 5000 clients, so it's 60% cut -- a 60% cut would mean a loss of about 3000 or so low-income

clients in the city. i also wanted to point out something else. i do not know of it is mentioned, i walked in a little bit late, but one of the cuts being proposed by the republican congress right now is a complete cut to hud's section 202 budget, which is one of the sole federal sources for senior affordable housing. that program has created about 1000 units of senior affordable housing in san francisco. if that is cut out, you can understand what the impact will be. thank you very much for your time. i urge you to support the resolution and work closer with the community on protecting these cuts. supervisor chu: thank you. question for you with regards to the section 20 to funding cuts, can you explain that in more detail for me? >> hud has a program to fund

development for housing developers doing senior units. the units are structured somewhat similar to section 8 where seniors who do qualify a actually only have to pay up to 30% of income as rent. it is really an incredibly vital program for seniors. chinatown community development center completed in roughly 2007 a building in chinatown called the international hotel. a beautiful new project on the corner of jackson street. 101 units. even though there was only 101 units in the building, whenever we opened up the application, on the first day, there was a line spanning about to reveal a blocks, and we ultimately ended up getting 10,000 applications for 100 spots. i think that really speaks to the need and demand for affordable senior housing. these types of draconian cuts

are not just going to impact senior housing and cdbg. they are going across the board, and i think the kind of devastation they could bring to volatile communities in the city and across the country are really profound. i really applaud the city and supervisor chu for bringing up this issue. supervisor chu: what was the impact, do you think, from that potential cut? >> this was proposing to zero of that program. i think for me, the impact would be that it would be near impossible, i think, to create that kind of deeply affordable senior housing if those cuts are actually imposed. given the state of the universe and be right now in terms of affordable housing financing, i'm sure that has been discussed here, or if not, it probably should be discussed here.

unfortunately, any cuts to that degree, so i would be concerned that we would not ever be able to get deeply affordable units in this or any other city again. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> i am with self-help for the elderly. i want to underscore what was repeatedly stated, that the federal funding that the cbo's are receiving for our service, and any cut would have a really adverse impact on the lives of all of our clients. i want to highlight this by just sharing with you, i send out a survey to all of our components, and we have 12 programs stretching from nutrition to home-delivered meals to very

vulnerable, disabled home-bound seniors, to case management, and all of our employment training programs. these are job creation, job training, and job placement programs. altogether, 12 federal programs. we are receiving close to about $4.8 million right now for all these 12 programs. in a fitting over 3000 seniors -- benefiting over 3000 seniors from affordable housing to affordable health care to training and also naturalization citizenship program. if we follow the recommended cuts right now, the number of these programs will be zero out, and i do not know how our community and seniors will be able to take these cuts. on top of these millions of dollars of cuts coming down from the federal government, we already have reported back to you earlier that $1.6 million,

about the health care center, will be eliminated. unless the state legislature has a continuing recommendation, how to continue the program. many of the seniors are so vulnerable that almost immediately, we will see an increase in nursing home placement. i hope that you will work with us [inaudible] supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon. executive director of japanese community council. i came here today specifically to raise some awareness on what the impact is going to be of the loss of federal stimulus funds, particularly on youth employment opportunities. the san francisco youth survey

has been ministered to thousands of young people over the last few years. consistently, the activity that young people request in the city are job opportunities. i raise this because we are involved in a number of the community programs, and i realize there are a lot of impact on some of the current proposals, but what i'm here to talk about are what is already going to happen as a result of the loss of stimulus funds. i realize that it is -- a lot has been said about our inability to offset reductions from the federal level, but what i'm here to raise awareness about is the fact that it is actually the stimulus fund that mitigated cuts at the local level. what is going to happen this year is as a result of the fact that we have budgeted, based on the fact that we have funds available, this coming year, we're looking at probably at least 1000 less youth employment

opportunities for this city alone. that is only taking into account some of the larger programs in the city, and i think we can all agree that among some of the smaller programs, we are only going to see even additional declines. i have here a summary of what i'm talking about. i think it is imperative that as we continue to have -- as this budget process moves forward, we think about what reductions were already made. i have this year to leave for you all today. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public like to speak on this item? why don't we close public comment? we have two items before us. supervisor chiu. supervisor chiu: i want to thank

our chairwoman as well as members of the public that have come up to testify on behalf of this resolution. i have spoken to many service providers around the community, and the cuts we are facing this year i think are nothing like what we have faced in prior years. i've often said that in recent years with the budget, we have had to cut to the bone. this year, we are going to have to be cutting bone. the news we are getting from the federal government is incredibly bleak. i have a feeling that all of us will be supporting this resolution. i certainly urge that and i urge all of us to work with community members, particularly the folks that came here today, to get the word out to folks that these cuts are unacceptable and hopefully asked representatives in congress to fight for what we need to have happen here. supervisor chu: thank you. do we have a motion -- supervisor kim? supervisor kim: if we are taking

co-sponsor ships from supervisors, i would love to [no audio] supervisor chiu: i would be happy to be added as well. supervisor chu: do we have a motion to file item two and 2 cents item 3 forward with recommendation? okay, without objection. thank you. item four please. >> item four, a hearing on monthly overtime reports discussing the five city departments using the most overtime in the preceding month. supervisor chu: thank you very much. this item -- we will be scheduling overtime reports for current year expenses in the subcommittee. i apologize. this will be at our subcommittee meetings in the future. the controller will give a presentation on this item. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

each month we issued an overtime report on the highest earning city departments in terms of overtime use and then slice the year we issue a more comprehensive report. we issued to the most recent report on march 1st and i can provide a couple of snapshots from it. generally speaking, the city overtime spending and the current year is projected to remain below the peak from several years ago but has inched up in the last year. we project overtime spending of $132 million across all departments. this is $12 million up from the actual from last year. to provide some longer-term

context, three years ago the city at its peak spent $167 million in overtime. we have seen a significant increase in overtime spending. we are still projecting to spend approximately $25 million less on overtime for a reduction of about 17% from peak. we have had a significant drop- off for two years and we have seeing a modest increase during the current year. in terms of hours, which is not necessarily the same thing given what is going on with wages, we project that 5.6% of our salary hours will be paid as overtime and that is down from 6.6% three years ago. again, up modestly in the

current year. as we have talked about before in this committee, we are really talking about five city departments which accounts for about 80% of spending across the city. the five largest city department's account for 88% of overtime spending. within those departments, we see increases in three and decreases in two verses there actuals from the prior year. the mta is projected to spend approximately $5 billion more. public health is under $2 million more and that the fire department, approximately $6 million more. those account for the majority of the increase that i talked about that is a $12 million increase, those three departments.

the other two large overtime using departments show a decline during the current year versus actual spending last year. the police department is expected to spend a million and a half less than this year. the sheriff's office to spending approximately 1.5 million less on overtime than they did last year at this time. we have seen a mix of trends that consume the overtime expenses for the city. the mta, fire and police are all a absorbing their overtime expenditures within budget. dph and the sheriff's department are anticipating meeting a supplemental to cover some of their costs. some are overspending but

absorbing this within their budget. that is the case for three of the five. the board placed a cap of 624 hours per individual per year on overtime use. this has an exemption in it. as of this point of the year, 74 employees have exceeded that cap. 70 have exceeded it -- have received an exemption. the majority of the employees are in the fire department or the mta with a three and the sheriff's office. i'm happy to answer any questions that the committee might have. >> just a couple of points of

clarification, you mentioned the five overtime departments, the mta, fire, police, they will be able to cover the overtime budget within their overall budget? >> that is correct. >> we're not expecting any supplementals? >> that is correct. >> these are two departments that are not -- observing anything within their salary line. >> correct. >> do you know when they will be coming forward with a supplemental and what those values might be? >> i don't have the values with me right at the moment but the supplementals will be coming forward within the next couple of weeks. they are currently being drafted. sheriffs are about 6 million. the health department is in the teens. the supplemental general fund

will be backed by hospital revenues as we have seen for the last couple of years. >> given the actions that this board has taken, what is in our general fund reserve? >> a good question. i don't have that number off the top of my head. there is a budget $25 billion fund in the current year. i believe the board approved a supplemental corp. -- appropriation. these accounts for about $5 million leaving the balance of approximately $20 million in the current fiscal year. >> we have spent about $5

million of the 25. one last item, on the numbers that are currently exceeding the 24 hours, there are 74 that exceeded but only 70 that received exemptions. what happened to the other four? did they not need exemptions? >> anyone that exceeds requires an exemption and this will be a new process. there are occasions where someone pushes over the cap and an exemption is not sought or received in advance of that happening. >> thank you. why don't we open this up for public comment. are the members of the public that wish to speak on item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed. if there are no further comments or questions, can be taken

action to file the item? without objection. mr. clark, do we have any other items before us? and you, we are adjourned.