so the budget before you proposes about $12.6 million in spending above and beyond the level required in that amendment. that continues a trend for many years now were the city has opted to spend more on these services than the voter initiative requires. it is driven heavily by about an $8 million allocation of the rainy day fund to the school district. and that $12 million, roughly $8 million of it is driven by the rainy day fund allocation to the schools. in terms of -- the the thing to note here is that the proposed budget that is before you is likely, over the course of the budget year, not to meet the required staffing level for police, required by prop d. currently, if the police chief or to authorize civilianization that has previously occurred and that the mayor and board have

approved, the required number of officers to be funded in the budget is just under 1900. 1894 -- 1894, down from the p 1971 prop d. the budget before you funds 2100 officers, and adjusting for leeds and over * and other factors that go into the calculation, we're left with about 1874 funded officers -- suggesting for leaves and overtime. the challenge will likely to face during the coming year is that the budget assumes approximately 100 retirements of police officers and assumes no backfills. so it is likely to become imbalanced over the course of the year in terms of this one voter requirement. lastly, the charter requires the

controller to place reserves on the budget on certain items until revenues are received. we have placed $87 million in reserves on the budget before you, pending the receipt of actual cash. the majority of these are related to capital-funded projects in the budget before you, where we have not yet issued the debt that is assumed. our long standing practice is to not let the department began expending into the debt issuance has been approved and proceeds proceed. we have placed two reserves within the mta's budget, pending continued information and actual receipts from the sales that the mta has been pursuing, which remains an issue that we're monitoring within the mta's budget. very high level and a quick summary. thank you for the attention. i am available to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you.

let's go to any comments the budget analyst may want to make. >> madam chair, members, i do not have any specific comments on the presentations that were made. however, if the chair wants, i can summarize the interim budget report that we prepared. would you like me to do that, madam chair? as you know, supervisors, the annual budget process for the city and county requires that the board of supervisors approved an interim appropriation ordinance and annual salary ordinance. that is for fiscal year 2011- 2012, on or before june 30, 2011. as the chair indicated, the purpose of these interim ordinances is to provide expenditure authorization for various departments during the time that the budget and finance

committee is reviewing the mayor's recommended budget for 2011-2012. on page 7 of our report, regarding the revisions that have been proposed, the administrative provisions of the interim manual -- and from the annual appropriation ordinance and salary ordinance, those revisions are described on pages two through six. there are two items that we consider to be policy items. one is section 8.3 of the administrative revisions, the appropriation ordinance, and that would delete an existing requirement that the comptroller report to the board of supervisors on the revenue impact on the state budget on the general fund. it up -- it would also delete the provision that the board hold hearings on the mayor's plan and alternative proposals

to address any revenue shortfall. we also consider approval of section 15 of the administrative provisions of the interim annual appropriation ordinance and a section 2.6 of the administrative provisions of the interim annual salary ordinance to be a policy matter, because these sections create a new employee monthly stipend without specifying the amount payable to employees to use their personal cell phones for work-related duties. as a general policy, i believe you know the board has not approved capital and equipment during the interim budget period without a detailed review unless the budget and finance committee and full board authorizes receptions requested by the -- exceptions requested by the mayor's office. it is the position not to

certify the funds during the interim budget process between july 1 and july 31. if an exception is approved by the board of supervisors, new positions can be filled effective july 1, 2011. otherwise, new positions will generally not be filled until october 1 of each fiscal year. in certain cases, specific exceptions requested by the mayor's office to the interim budget general policies have been approved by the board of supervisors. exceptions have been based on such factors as new positions and programs that produce revenue or cost savings or prevent major service efficiencies will -- which will result from delays in filling positions or starting new programs. yesterday, supervisors, we received various requests for exceptions to the interim budget submitted by the mayor's office. we are presently analyzing such requests, and we will report to the committee on such exceptions during the forthcoming budget review process, which, as you

know, i believe, begins next monday. except for the two policy matters pertaining to the administrative provisions of the ordinance, which i just mentioned, and except for the budget exception requests, just received by the budget and legislative analyst's office, we recommend that you approve the fiscal year 2011-2012, it -- interim annual appropriation ordnance, interim annual salary ordinance, and treasure island development authority budget, and i will be happy to respond to any questions. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> mayor's budget director. my apologies to budget and legislative analyst for not getting them the interim -- proposed interim exceptions far enough in advance. i know they had asked for them a while ago and we got them to them as he said, just a couple of days ago, but i do have a copy of our proposed interim

exceptions that i will distribute to you and the clerk, and we will be working with the budget and legislative analyst to make sure they have the information that they need. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we open these items up for public comment at this time? if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on these items, again, these are all items pertaining to the overview of the revenue letter and the budget that has been proposed. on top of that, we have the four items that are simply interim budgets for the month of july. >> my name is francisco da costa. let me begin by saying both the controller and budget director have done a pretty good job, considering that nowhere in the explanation mention was made of unfunded resources pertaining to our pensions and benefits and so forth.

i would also like to commend mr. rose for the many years that you have evaluated our budget and for your evaluation. having said that, i spent two weeks in washington, d.c., visiting the many departments, and as you noted, on august 2, there is going to be some determination made on our debt ceiling that is going to affect us. having said that, i have been monitoring the budgets, link to quality of life issues because i am the director of environmental justice advocacy. you know and most of you should know that because of our economic crisis, this city is not doing sufficient to address our poor and those that need

help most. so i am asking the controller and the director of the mayor's office of the budget, as i spoke to you when you first assumed this position, you are a good man. do not allow the politicians to rule you. think outside the box and did a service to the people of san francisco. thank you very much. >> supervisors, members of the public, people of san francisco, i am here to speak as a home care worker. i am an elected executive board member of the united health care workers west. we represent the 20,000 workers in the program. we would like to address you on

this budget and across the board 10% and give you a perspective of how our members are looking at this, how it is affecting us. following the will be other speakers representing some of our communities within the ihss workers community. of course, the funding comes from federal, state, and county, the county being the smallest component of this. our work that crosses over contributes to the work of our health services and health department. it is a key component of our city pose a health program because we are the ones that help keep our community is at home, healing, living vibrantly. please do not undercut our ability to contribute to this work. right now, we are looking at across the board 10%, when you look at the costs at home care

workers have faced, the cost of living figures -- there is some question as to whether they are even on his right now. we have not had a wage increase since 2008. we are not asking for any sort of cost of living high. we have already made -- we have lost ground there. we are not asking for additional benefits, but what we're asking today is that the one benefit that we do have, our health premium costs, not go up 300% for our members. it looks like a very small figure for people who are making different amounts of money, had different incomes, but for home care workers, this is a wall that is very difficult to scale. this year, we took a 3.6% cut.

this year, we contributed to our security as well. supervisor chu: thank you. >> [speaking foreign language] >> just to translate, hi, board of supervisors. he is from ihhss home care.

home care workers are one of the lowest paid people in the community, but they have really important and -- important roles in the community because they take care of the seniors, the disabled people, etc.

he has been a home care worker for four years, and he as well as all the other home care workers have not had a wage increase in the past four years. they have been living at $11.54 per hour. there was an increase of $7, and they do not have other benefits, so that $7 essentially are lots of other home care workers. there is really no way to afford the increase. the reduction that was implemented in february, they already shared the cut. in order to make the, you know,

important people as home care workers -- it is just not, you know, not [inaudible] to have the increase because they have a special role in the community, to make the community and city and country better. thank you very much. >> [speaking foreign language] >> hi -- supervisor chu: the other microphone. we only have one that works.

>> she is working 10 years as a home care worker. she is working for clients that are all very ill. in february, it was cut 3.6%, and i lost some money and also clients lost. hours.

i'm working 24 hours a day, and i am like a clock, going around and around. these people, they can do anything. i don't have any benefits like vacation days, sick days, and even for four years, we do not have any penny raised in our wages. i even do not know who i am. i am a doctor. i am a cleaner. i am housekeeping. i am doing everything.

everything. this is something about myself and about home care workers. i am looking at them and doing this work, and i see them like this is my family. like this is my parents. i want to ask you a question -- why when a baby is born, we can

give to them the best choice, everything for them, but why we can get for our clients to give something good, we have taken from them, not given to them. please think about this -- these people for whom we are caring, and you should think about them because they do not have a long way to go, and we should do the best for them what we can. me and all of you guys will be

also old. you should think about this. old people for their last years -- they should have a good life. please help us. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i am also a home care worker and executive board member for seiu uhw. i am here on behalf of myself and also my members. we are here so you can hear us about the increase of our premium. our members have mentioned that we have had cut spirit we have had 3.6% of our hours cut. we have had cuts to money, too. we also want you to realize the

economic holidays. we have had our water raised, our garbage raised, our muni raised. there have not been other it -- there have another increases. we have not had a raise in wages since 2008. we take care of low-income seniors and disabled, and they would like to live in their home and dignity, but we also need our insurance, affordable insurance, like every citizen here in san francisco. county workers -- they have the good health insurance also. we have already put into about $2 million into the budget with the cuts that happened in february, so i'm hoping you will also take that into consideration, that we have already put our part in there, and i know that $7 seems not a lot to a lot of people, but it is a lot to some of our members,

which we are already living in low income. we do not want to take that step that we would -- some of us, we still like to provide, but we are already in the low income bracket. we do not want to be a burden to the city and county of san francisco, which we would have to go into -- the city would have to pay for insurance 100%. we are hoping you can take that into consideration also. we would like to help out, but we also do not want that increase, even at $3. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good morning. i have been a home caretaker for nine years. i have gone through the lady having hit surgery. i have also gone through with

her knees and stuff. we work more hours than what we are giving. we get paid for so many hours, but we do more hours. like they said, we have been cut. it is not fair for us, but we are trying to still continue to pass on the health care to read these people can live at home, be able to take them out for a walk or anything, and mostly, they have some -- summed up everything that i was going to say. we hope you take into consideration. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other speakers who wish to comment on items two, three, four, five, or six? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to note, we also have with us the director of island

operations, so thank you for being here. can we entertain a motion for these items? i imagine we continue items 6 to the call of the chair for hearings on the proposed budget, and items two through five, if we could entertain a motion to send these items forward with recommendation. great. we can do that without objection? thank you. ok, items seven please. >> item 7, resolution authorizing the acceptance and expenditure of state grant funds by the sanfords is good about a public health for fiscal year 2011-2012. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have ann santos from the department of public health here. >> i am an epidemiologist from

the department of public health, and i would like to read some technical amendments. the reason is because the word "attachment" was used in the resolution, and technically, the board cannot certify something that they did not create. therefore, on page one, line 22, please strike out the phrase "is attached to this resolution" and replace. then, on page two, line 12, please strike out the phrase "attached document" and online 15, please try gaap "attached document" and replace it with "recurring fiscal year 2011-2012 state grant, grant8 -- state

grad, attachment 8." supervisor chu: can you provide a quick overview of the item? >> yes, these are recurring state grants given to several departments in the department of public health. we need these past in order to continue getting funds from these grants. supervisor chu: these are items that are recurring grants. we have had them budgeted in previous years, and they are simply continuing grants we have to support our operations, correct? and there are no significant changes in personnel or the grant levels? >> correct. supervisor chu: i know this is an item we do not have a hard report for. before we take action on the request to do the technical amendments, why don't we go to public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to comment on items seven? seeing none, public comment is

closed. ok, we had a request to make an amendment to the legislation. the copies are before you. again on page one, as read into the file, it refers to referring to file 110488. on page two, slight amendment on line 15 to talk about instead of the attached document, referring fiscal year 2011-2012 state grants. can we take that motion without objection? thank you. on the underlining item as amended, can we do that without objection? before we do that, these are not substantive changes. we will do that without objection. thank you. can we call item eight, please? >> item 8, resolution adopting the city's five-year information and communication technology plan for fiscal years 2011-2012