the central part of san francisco. >> the final point i want to make about local artists is we have a granting program of which only san francisco artists receive those grants. over $2 million in grants we generate, that we allocate to the local arts community and many individual artists. that is a portion i would love to see increased in years to come. one of the things many people don't realize is san francisco is one of the few government agencies in the country that still gives individual grants to individual artists. the federal government, because of controversy and censorship pullback from that almost a decade ago. that has hurt our artists and artists nationally. that is a point the city can take a lot of pride in.

supervisor kim: to follow-up on this, i'm interested in this issue of how we support local artists. there are many ways to look at it, whether we are holding workshops for training programs for artists in san francisco were looking at the cultural centers that we sponsor and showcase local artists and ensure local artists exhibitions. there are multiple ways of looking at it, not just in terms of a local lands. but we do have to find a way to support our artists. many of the move to new york or los angeles because they feel like there is not enough support for the arts here. even minnesota has amazing state infrastructure supporting their artists. i'm interested as to how other cities and states support artists and we might want to look at so we did not go down what you are warning about, which is it could hurt our artists if we start to establish

some sort of percentage. >> now that we are on this topic, one of the areas that has been a great concern to me since i arrived three and a half years ago is the expense of having a space to create in san francisco is higher than just about everywhere else. the effect of that has driven artists out of the city, and to many surrounding areas, sometimes across the country. i would love to see an initiative that would help encourage the creation of some parts incubators were simple, affordable spaces could be made available to artists so they can rehearse, they can perform, they can create, and it is affordable. there are models out there for creating these affordable, creative work spaces and arts incubators.

i would love to see if the city could not make an initiative in this area. supervisor kim: i know we have looking at that for local manufacturing because of the cost of rent in the city. i would be very interested in that. >> finally, you had some questions about the pounding of the cultural centers. the staff went through great lengths to give the a comprehensive picture of the to the cultural centers, both physical and virtual, and what the sources of that funding is. it is hard because there are different city agencies that do support the cultural centers. we are the closest to becoming a central gathering place for this information. we're giving a total picture of the past few years of the cultural centers, with their sources are, and what the total far. i hope that can help eliminate

the questions you were concerned about four. -- you were concerned about before. supervisor chiu: i was told the asian cultural center and the queerer center was not receiving the same funding for other places and it has been difficult to get the data of exactly how much money is being provided to the centers. but we now have the data in front of us. in fiscal year 2011, the other centers i was referring to receive anywhere from 600 to a million dollars apiece. compare that to the clear center and the -- the queer center, the numbers are going down. what these other centers, the numbers are going up.

in some arts, you almost have it $100,000 increase. in my mind, this is exactly reflective of the anecdotal information i've received and we need to think about all little bit more equity to ensure all our communities are being served. >> if the arts commission can play a role in this area, we are thrilled to do so. supervisor chiu: you appear to have made decisions that continue to reinforce the differences in funding. tell me about that. >> this is a historical pattern of funding. i'm going to let the director of the program has been with the program for about a decade explain it. >> thank you. i will do my best to answer your question. the funding for the cultural centers -- it was 1997 when

legislation was passed to fund the cultural centers. at that time, there had been hope and anticipation that was referred to as a virtual centers would in time, over the years, be able to move into permanent basis. for various economic reasons, it's obvious why that was not able to happen. we have tried to maintain consistent funding threat the years. as the cultural centers take a reduction, it is spread equally between the buildings as well as the cultural centers we referred to as virtual. i want to remind to the four buildings we have, these are very large buildings ranging from 14,000 square feet, which is the bayview opera house, to 32,000 square feet of the african-american art and culture complex.

the discrepancies see is based on capacity. the virtual centers to not have physical spaces and historically, they did more festival programming unless year-round programming. so the allocation that goes to the four buildings includes all of their staffing, additional costs of maintaining a building. the numbers we gave you do not include any additional revenue for facilities. we just showed to the operational budget without any facility. supervisor chiu: i thought of the facility costs were included, it might make sense, but these numbers are just operational? >> there are required to the lease agreement and grant agreement, the four buildings must maintain a full-time facility manager as part of our lease agreement. and the staffing costs are included, but we did not include any capital.

supervisor chiu: that seems troubling to me. if this is just based on operating expenses -- the asian- american community only gets 6% of your total funding. i'm still trying to understand why is it -- how do you and at justifying that given the community that we serve and wanting to make sure we are fairly funding the various diverse communities we have in the city? >> i think it is a fair question. the pattern of the allocation is a historical pattern of allocation. i think it's within the purview of both the mayor's office and the supervisors to look at the city's policy at the way these funds are allocated. that's a fair question. the arts commission has launched two studies to look at the needs

of the asian american cultural community and the need of the latino cultural community. the studies were launched in response to the demographic information the census has given us. we anticipate being able to provide the supervisors and other public officials with the results of these studies in the months to come. based on the information you have in your hands, a very thorough analysis of capacity, needs, and opportunities, i think it's time for the city to sit and think about its allocation policy. supervisor chiu: i just want to say to our colleagues that we ought to think about whether there are minor budget changes we to make to reflect more

fairness in the process and to our director's point, i think the legislation from 1997, 14 years later, feels a bit outdated. certainly with regards to the asian-pacific islander cultural center as well as the queer cultural center which serves a very significant part of our city. we need to do a bit of work there to revise the legislation are changeups of the funding formulas and equities -- and inequities that currently exist. supervisor chu: thank you for your presentation with regards to the cultural centers. i know it has long been an issue with the city in terms of how we resource existing physical structures and centers that we have. it is a conversation or tapping, but let's not lose perspective of the other resources available, perhaps not on the city's budget. we do have an asian art museum and many cultural institutions in chinatown. let's think about some of these

larger areas and how we can work with these organizations to provide what is we're looking for. >> thank you. supervisor chu: the arts commission did not have any recommendation with regard to cuts, so why don't we move forward to the fine arts museum? >> good morning, supervisors. i'm the director of the fine arts museum in san francisco and want to begin by thanking the city and county of san francisco for its support of the fine arts museum which includes the museum in golden gate park and the palace of honor in lincoln park. i think the supervisors' budget analysts and mayor's budget analysts and other departments which have participated in the construction of our budget and would say over the past few days we have worked with those analysts to come to an

understanding and acceptance of a reduction in our budget of $41,950. we do accept that, supervisors. >> madam chair, the number is $41,931 of general fund reductions for your consideration. supervisor chu: given the department is in agreement, can we take that without objection? thank you. we can take that without objection. >> thank you. supervisor chu: our next department is the recreation and parks department. recreation and parks department?

>> good morning, supervisors. i'm from the recreation and park department and i'm happy to say we have reached agreement with the budget analysts. i'm happy answer any questions. supervisor chu: the department is in agreement with those cuts? >> yes. >> of that 576911: hundred 64,00743 our general fund

reductions. there is a recommended return to the general fund -- excuse me, that is to the recreation and park fund, 35,343. that's not a general fund. the total general fund reductions are $164,743. total reductions are 612,000 tutored 54. supervisor chu: with regard to the service equipment, there was a proposed cut to software. can you speak about that and why you are in agreement? >> this was funding that was approved for the department to implement a software package which is associated with our work order system, which we know as tma.

the application would be on hand-held devices and allow our staff, carpenters, plumbers, ironworkers, to close out or quarters when they are in the field. if there's a broken toilet, they go out and fix it, they can close the work order and move on to the next item without having to come back to the yard in golden gate park. we thought it would be worthwhile in terms of increasing efficiency for the department. in terms of why we agreed with the budget analyst on this, it felt like something we were not going to be able to come to agreement on. so we let ago. supervisor chu: in terms of the need and cost, the department as saying your expenses going to be about $180,000? if you reduce by $85,000, will

you be able to go forward with this software? >> that is the total cost of the new software package. without the funding, we cannot implement the application. supervisor chu: currently in your business practice colony have plumbers or others going to make repairs throughout the city, when they finish a job any particular location, have to go back to the art at golden gate park? >> correct. our structural maintenance yard is in golden gate park. generally, what they do, it is instead of coming back after the completion of every job, they leave themselves a space of time at the end of the day and come back and do all other data entry into the computers at the art. essentially, this would eliminate that need and they would have additional time over the course of the day to be of repairing things.

this is an efficiency measure. supervisor chu: this is a coit- approved project? >> is. >>supervisor chu: i would like o leave this item open in terms of the maintenance service equipment. given where the department is, i know you are short staffed in terms of partners, custodians, and everything else. to the extent we can keep people in the field as opposed to having to travel back and forth to close out projects, i get a good investment. colleagues, if we can take the remaining balance of closeout for projects worth $35,342, take the remaining balance of the recommendations except for the $85,000 in terms of the software work, can we do that without objection?

>> thank you, supervisor. i appreciate that. supervisor chu: the next apartment is the children and families commission. -- the next department is the children and families commission. >> i'm the deputy director. supervisor chu: there were a number of recommendations provided to the department. that was something we could not take here. i'm wondering if these are items you agree with that would to be making those adjustments to your budget? >> yes. supervisor chu: there is about 48,000 recommended by the budget analysts. is there is a neat -- is there anything you would ask? >> i'm sorry, i was just in discussions, but my understanding is the department disagrees with our recommendations.

-- i'm sorry -- our recommended reductions are $48,992. this is not general fund and if the department incurs called the board of supervisors can implement the recommendations. supervisor chu: given the department does agree, can we take this without objection? the other conversation is run the question of reserves. that's something i would like to keep open as a conversation. i don't think we're going to come to any conclusion today about it, but given the fact with the state is not going to be sweeping the reserves we thought and given to have a balance of about $9 million currently, even without assuming a large suite originally, perhaps there is room to talk with your commission about how we might be able to appropriate or use that fund indicated for first five. we look forward to this conversations in the coming days

and perhaps months. the department of public health. >> in good morning, supervisors. -- good morning, supervisors. i have some information for supervisor kim on our income -- on our hiv prevention measure. some of the changes was to incorporate some data and evaluation, quality assurance, and as well as trying to

provide services directly without having a contract and the services did not increase, they stayed the same. we also have some information about the security issue. to supervisor mirkarimi, we did to a survey of the hospitals in the area and through california and as you can see, several of them have some hybrid processes between sheriff's, a contract, or hospital employee. many of them have contracts and one of them have police.

supervisor wiener: thank you. this is helpful. for the hybrids, particularly los angeles might be a good comparison. -- riverside, which might also be a decent comparison. do we have any sense how they do it in terms of one thing i know that comes to mind is whether you could have a private security as a general matter and then have surest the peace in

the highest risk areas such as the emergency room or the psych ward where there might be a high-risk to staff? >> i think that happens in los angeles and the riverside county area. there is a precinct station at the hospital cost that is how the work that out. supervisor wiener: i know this has been a discussion with the sheriff's department about whether it would be possible to have the contract and have a smaller number of deputies focused on those risky areas. >> i cannot speak for the surest, but we would be open to that conversation. supervisor wiener: the question is how do we -- >> we would probably have to sit with a share of sen have that discussion. i would be happy to do that. supervisor kim: i'm very

interested in the hybrid model. i know it's something i have brought up before, but particularly in areas like the emergency room where there are safety issues, i know one of the challenges was about a communication protocol. seeing that other counties to a hybrid, and curious how they do communication between private security and the sheriff. >> we can definitely do it through the sheriff's office and have that discussion. supervisor kim: thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi: i agree with the sentiment that if there could just be a reconsideration of how the department of public health is approaching this issue in entertaining perhaps an alternative proposal but that helps you get to the place you need to go in saving funding, but being cognizant of, as i

know you know, issues on all of our minds. this is now the third or fourth time this issue has come before the budget committee. is essentially an annual issue. this has come before us -- i've been on the budget committee for six years. there are some arguments, i don't know if they sit well with people with knowledge we can rely or overlie on private security as opposed to a peace officer. we want the staff and the patience @ san francisco general laguna honda to get the utmost care in safety provided for as well as the general public to visit. if there is a mechanism that recedes back from the contract thing on prop. j or finding

middle ground, i would strongly encourage that be the case. >> we have all the same goals in terms of safety, so we would be happy to have that conversation. supervisor mirkarimi: as it relates to process, i'm not sure what was entertained. but you have a year's worth of discussion with the surest apartment and assurance department was simply complying -- the sheriff's department was simply complying with the department of public health -- from my characterization, managed retreats. it looks like a managed retreat from dph. i know there have been proposals put out there. i don't know how well those proposals have been vetted. the impression i have been given

is that because there had been a decision to move forward on the decision on contracting out, that stops short of looking at anything else. >> i believe the controllers office should respond to that. >> yes, we have spent a fair amount of time reviewing the different proposals brought forward and comparing them to the proposal in the budget before you. we continue to refine his numbers, but generally speaking, in that ip only model, on an annual basis, we would expect it would reduce the cost versus the current model by somewhere

between $600,000 and $900,000 annually. for half a year, that would yield about $300,000 in savings versus the current model. offsetting that in the first year would be significant implementation costs but we have to model during the coming year -- modeling employees before the effective stop -- the of -- potentially there would be some savings in years beyond. i should say that is our current work to refine numbers and make them apples to apples. the health department and sheriff's department have expressed concern regarding that operational model. supervisor chu: from my understanding, the ip only model, you're estimating a four-

year savings as opposed to $600,000 to $900,000. >> as opposed to the proposal you have in front of the which saves $3.2 million. >> the half year model was $300,000 savings compared to the $3.7 million in savings? >> $3.2 million. supervisor chu: operationally, does the ip only model work? >> its not an option we would like to see. we have no requisitions in this area, so we don't believe there will be a large amount of savings. it will take almost a year to get this operational from our opinion. supervisor chiu: i have had four or five meetings in the last week with the department and with our controller