of $5 million for next year, and you said that there is $1.4 million currently -- $1.3 million. let's assume $1.2 million by the end of the fiscal year. with that carry forward into the account? that would mean $3,000,000.10 $0.2 million, total of $4.2 million? >> that would be compared to the current year, they would have spent $3.8 million. supervisor wiener: for the folks coming to advocate for the increase, i would appreciate if folks could -- maybe some people could address that issue. in other words, if it is $3 million, plus the $1.2 million carryover, give or take, why would that be insufficient, given the current year's usage of $3.8 million?

i would appreciate the perspective on that. >> i think the final point on this item, and like, is that you're talking about a sustainable universe, the very first thing you do is you do energy conservation. you always do conservation and efficiency before you do additional production. you do not build another dam. you use less water. you do not build other production facilities. you use less power appear this program produces more power, and at the same time, we're cutting programs that reduce the need to have power by reducing the amount of money we're spending on energy efficiency programs. that is not the right way to be thinking about how to make this a better world. the last item is what is called the bureau's. there is one new program of community benefits. juliet ellis is our new assistant general manager for external affairs, and she is

starting a program for jobs, environmental stewardship, land use, and community benefits that will focus the efforts of the puc on the people we impact the most. as you know, we are planning on doing a major sewage system improvement program, particularly. we have major impacts on communities in the bay area, so we're focusing our efforts and increasing our efforts to make sure that as we impact these communities, there are also positive impact. you will find three new positions in the budget and additional funds to bring these programs into fruition. ms. ellis is here if you have any questions on this programs. the final discussion based on last year's -- a lot of discussion last year in terms of local hire, the puc has been extraordinarily supportive of the local hire legislation. we have been the ones spearheading the work, and we hope to get contracts out soon that have local hire requirements. we are increasing our capacity to make sure that we go out and

are able to get people, that we hire them and track them, and also, that these are not flag drop jobs in the field for a week or tilt wheel, but that these are real jobs for people. we also have a real interest in making sure that our regional partners are treated well in this. this is a regional program, especially for the water system improvement program. if you recall, last year, we added a substantial amount of money, so the budget now puts the mayor's office of economic workforce development at 15 $5 million. they were not able to spend all that the first year because of startup time in terms of hiring people, so we have taken advantage of that and recently signed mou's with three job training organizations in the area for $100,000 each to get more training and more jobs. we are now working with our partners on the project and

providing money so that they can additionally help us hire people and work on jobs. finally, in terms of a pilot work force program, there are programs that we do and projects that we do that it is often difficult to hire people. one of those tends to be tunneling. there is not normally in a tunneling work in the bay area to sustain the local work force, but we're doing a lot of tunneling in the next few years. we had a class three months ago, but we brought in by people from alameda, five from san francisco, five from san the tail county, and can ultimately passed, and they are working on projects during tunneling in the bay area pirie two started recently on the sunnyvale tunnel in the sunnyvale area. we're working closely with the laborers union and working with the 3 job training organizations, we are hiring people from getting people trained specifically in work for underground close containment work, and we are trying to place them and schedule the training so they can get real jobs as opposed to training people who

remain unemployed. supervisor chu: thank you very supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. director harrington, i would like to ask a couple questions regarding the go solar program and the city's approach. most of the solar installation does not go into the -- to our own system generated by san francisco, why isn't pg&e stepping up to the plate and providing more subsidy to the very people who should be benefiting so that the energy that is generated is going into the pg&e system? why is it that we are actually helping pg&e? >> that would be a pg&e question. i do not know that either,

supervisor. this is not the kind of money. supervisor mirkarimi: let's go to that point. i think it's a very important statement. i think you really know and no best that we are trying to advance something that the monopoly utility is not really on the level that we would like to see. isn't that correct? >> yes. supervisor mirkarimi: has there anythen any return comment from pg&e? i have looked at their profit statements. despite a series of strategies and misfortunes and costly endeavors, like bad campaigns, like prop 16, they seem to be doing pretty well in the profit margin.

>> good question, supervisor. not to speak for pg&e, but in many ways, they act as if locally generated solar is in competition with them because they cannot sell it. if you put in a solar installation on your house and you generate excess power, you don't get paid from that from pg&e. they're getting benefits from this and they provide no funding for it. the other point to keep in mind is that they do collect funds for a variety of different programs that we think are beneficial. we have been trying to get more control over those funds, also, so they're not able to spend money in that way. so that we have the authority to direct that money and spend and how we would like to. we have been unsuccessful at california puc so far in trying to do that.

supervisor mirkarimi: in the go solar program and san francisco's determination to be a leader on this front with regard to the green jobs phenom -- and i was on budget committee when this happened. there was a lot of enthusiasm for us to bring this program on line politic. lee speaking, the term "green jobs" became very much a mantra term. while i very much support the program, i think we should have a more honest discussion. i'm still not impressed by the term "green jobs" in san francisco or frankly, anywhere in california, because i do not think it has lived up to the term. i want to be careful. i think it's important that we continue to invest in the '80s

of advancing a work force connected to renewable energy infrastructure, it does not seem to be the way we would want. i want you to be able to sort of opine. >> i guess i would agree with you, supervisor. i think we all have that hope that we will have local jobs, jobs for disadvantaged workers, green jobs or otherwise. green was the thinking. it has not panned out in my mind, either. it does not mean we give up on it. this may not have been the best strategy. we have to keep looking for ones that create more jobs and better jobs for people that are low income people that are entry level into the work force. supervisor mirkarimi: should we be scaling down our expectations in some ways so it is a more intellectually honest discussion? when we talk about subsidizing

in low-income areas, like the southeast sector, which has been degraded by environmental impacts. it really felt like two or three years ago that we were on a promise that this was going to really deliver. it has not delivered. i do not think that anybody's fault, but i think we should be clear about how real this notion is of green jobs. >> again, supervisor, this has not worked out as much as we would like it to work out. i'm not willing to give up on the idea. if you recall, last year's budget had $8 million for l.e.d. streetlights. we are planning on replacing all

the lights in san francisco with more efficient, greener lights. we could have gone the old fashioned way. probably would have been an outside vendor. we would have fired the standard folks. instead, we chose to break down the job so that we are going to have one vendor supply us with the lights and then we are going to break into 10 micro-benderve. local people do that work. that's the benefit of doing it that way. i would rather try to change how we do it then give up on it. those people will end up being trained to do work related to lighting. they will be good jobs that last for a while. again, we tried different pilots. we tried different ways. if this does not work as well as

we would like, we try something else. supervisor mirkarimi: all right. i appreciate that. this is also a question for the leaders in the community, who i know will come up in public comment, to help answer this question. what needs to happen in order to really return back to the objective of having an accountable, and verifiable, robust go solar program in -- robust green jobs program in san francisco. supervisor chiu: is oewd here yet? supervisor chu: i believe they're not here yet. supervisor chiu: i understand they're going to come shortly. from my perspective, the numbers for economically disadvantaged workers are very low and quite troubling. there are ways for us to consider how this program can be changed or tweet -- that would

be an interesting conversation. mr. harrington, do you know how many solar panels have been installed as a part of the go solar program? >> i do not know the number of panels. there have been approximately 1300 installations. i could make a guess of what the average size would be. supervisor chiu: i know you had an op-ed yesterday where you talked about how energy efficient programs are much more efficient than the go solar program. can you explain that concept a little bit? >> sure. if we spend money to go to the police department or the fi re station and we change out their lighting, it means we will produce less power. we can sell the power and have of that money to programs we want to do. if you're looking of the need for a new heating and

ventilation and air-conditioning system in your library, and we can provide the money to do that, you end up saving taxpayer money that would go to the library, and you have a more efficient way of providing for heating ventilation at the library. if you're looking at the general goods for greenhouse gas emissions in san francisco, if you took the go solar money and you gave everyone who had a refrigerator that was more than 20 years old a new refrigerator, you would save a lot more money and you would impact more people. if you are a low income residents, you can get a solar installation and we will give you $10,000. we can affect a lot more people, with a lot more reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. supervisor chiu: is there a way to make sure we are hiring the types of workers that we want to hire and incense the green jobs growth?

>> i also would question whether hetch hetchy are the appropriate place to spend that. we're supposed to have a business place and a charter to spend hetch hetchy money. health clinics are really good things we want in the city. hetch hetchy is not able to spend money on those things. there would have to be a nexus for why hetch hetchy is able to spend money on these programs. supervisor chiu: ok. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor chiu. why don't we go to the budget analyst report? >> our recommendations begin or are summarized on page 7 of the report. recommendations are on pages eight through 19.

let me mention that we have worked with mr. harrington this morning at this meeting. my understanding is that we have reached agreement and we have made three changes. let me review the changes for you. on page 9 of our report, we have a recommendation for air travel -- a reduction of $3,500. we are revising that to increase to 45 under dollars, a $1,000 increase for what we had both in fiscal year 2011-2012 and 2012- 12013. we are withdrawing two recommendations. training of $9,000 in fiscal year 11-12 and training of

$15,000 in 12-13. we are withdrawing our recommendation on membership fees at $10,000 and that is for both fiscal year 2011-2012 and 2012-12013. on page 11, we are significantly reducing our recommendation with respect to power for resale. supervisors, this is based on documentation which he provided us this morning, which had not previously been provided. where we have a recommendation of $500,000 for power or resell and reduction, we are reducing that, in total, to $250,000. we are reducing our recommended

reduction. that is true in both 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. on page 18, the recommendation for equipment purchases, we are with strolling $100,000 on both. the bottom line is, supervisors, if you go back to our summary comment on page 7 of our report, where we previously recommended a reduction of $4 million, we are now recommending for your consideration, reductions of $2 million and 412-13, where we

previously recommended reductions for your consideration of -- we are now making recommendations for your consideration -- i would be happy to respond to any questions. supervisor chu: thank you, mr. rose. to confirm, the department is in agreement with the recommendations? yes. thank you. i believe the representative from the mayor's office, mr. elliott, has some information about work force. rhonda and jen cannot make it to the meeting. >> thank you, supervisor. apologies that i have to deliver this information. i can give you as much as i was able to ascertain. i understand there's some confusion. just to offer some clarity, the number of similar jobs in the

city is somewhere in the several hundreds -- 400 to 500 range. we do not have a total survey. we expect -- that is across all industries, not just funded by go solar. the number funded by go solar is 72 people who have been referred and placed in the program. you could make the argument that san francisco's leadership on go solar, including the proposed appropriation for next year, does represent leadership in creating a hub of sorts around solar technology and encouraging investment here in the city. supervisor chu: ok, so it sounds like the 400 number is really

related to the numbers -- you mentioned the several hundred number and that is related to general jobs overall and not necessarily tied to go solar? >> right. supervisor chu: is there anything different from what i see on the slide on page 11? >> no, that is the same 72 jobs created short-term and long- term. those are those placed directly through the go solar program. supervisor chu: ok. 23 still employed is still the number we have at this moment? >> yes. supervisor chu: thank you. public commsupervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: i need to understand where this money is going.

72 jobs created over the past few years with $11 million spent overall. a lot of this money, obviously, is going to these six companies, but not being used to create these jobs. supervisor chu: barbara, also, since you worked in conjunction -- if you can. >> yes, supervisor. i'm the assistant manager for power. where did -- the question is, what portion of the dollars went towards jobs? supervisor chiu: exactly. >> i don't have specific data on the portion that went toward jobs. the with the program works, we make payments to the installation. in our experience, most of the cost of solar installation is in the materials and in labor. i would expect that most of the

incentive payments that we make go toward those two areas. supervisor chiu: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor chiu. i believe we have agreement with the recommendations at this time with a few adjustments to it. if we could, colleagues, would you like to entertain a motion to accept these recommendations with the modifications? from the members of the committee, and seeing that they would like to go to public comment before that happens. we are doing public comment as a whole, actually. i could ask the department of environment to come up next and then we can take up all our public comment. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm the director of the san francisco department of the

environment. today we have brief remarks about our budget. of course, we would be happy to answer any questions. the department's proposed budget for the coming fiscal year is $ 17.1 million, which is up from $3.5 million for the current fiscal year. $1.1 million is from rate revenue. $100,000 is from fees or services. the department has not received general funds since 2003. our revenue comes from a combination of competitive grants, fees for service, and the california public goods charge, which is a portion of utility bills earmarked for energy efficiency and renewable energy products. through work orders to the department, such as the library, our department helps to contribute to the general fund. with the funds are referred to,

the department provides a wide range of services to residents, businesses, and city departments. for the next fiscal year, the majority of the increased revenue will come from grants for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. we have also received a major additional funding for a clean transportation programs, environmental justice projects, oil recycling, and bottle and can recycling. in total, the department will have 27 active grants for part or all of fiscal 2011-2012. i will name just a few of these grants. we have a $250,000 grant from the center for disease control to fund an indoor air quality program in order to promote environmental justice citywide. we also partnered to deliver a similar program in the western addition. $105,000 from the department of

energy to fund alternative fuel vehicle efforts. we have a $250,000 grant to develop a blueprint to get to 100% renewable energy for the san francisco city of. we have a state grant to increase oil recycling and keep oil out of the bay. a number of the grant will end in the next 18 months, especially those funded the through the american reinvestment and recovery act, which are federal dollars, the department anticipates it will be able to continue to present balanced budgets without any general fund support over the next five years. the department is fully in agreement with the but jusbudget analyst's recommendation. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor chiu, i see your name on the roster. no? why don't we go to the budget analyst's report?

>> madam chair and members of the committee, our recommendations are summarized on page 22. are recommended reductions to the proposed budget total, $263, 903, which would still allow in increase of 24.4% in the department's budget. i would be happy to respond to any questions. the details are on pages 23, 24, in 25 of the report. supervisor chu: thank you. it sounds like the department is in agreement with the budget analyst's report. do we have any questions from the committee on the department of environment's budget? if not, i would like to open it up for public comment. this is the day we are opening up public comment for all the enterprise departments we've

heard so far. i have a number of speaker cards that i will read. if you hear your name, please line up oin the center aisle. paulie, david, sarah, jacob bear arett, kenneth, angelo, monique washington, and melissa mcdermott. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is janine. i'm co-founder upof san francisco's solar install a.

we all work full time for the company. we have grown from about four to five employees to 20 since go solar started. of that, six jobs are for my colleagues that came to us through work-force development. we hired our first workforce development person in august of 2008. we have hired a total of seven and one individual has left us. it a third of our workforce is go solar sf, young community developers and the san francisco conservation corps. i'm going to talk to supervisor wiener's specificsu