like there is a desire to see more information. colleagues, from my perspective, i am fine was holding off until thursday to make this final decisions, but i would express but i do feel supervisor chiu articulated very clearly the rationale for not continuing to star of a department -- to starve a department. i would be generally supportive of not taking those cuts that supervisor chiu articulated. i am ok with told and often as pieces until thursday. if i can and, if we could, let's take action on the items that do not have any disagreement. we will take action on the $295,105, and we will leave the

$800,000 and the thursday. thank you. the ethics department. this is a department we did hear from briefly last week. this is a department that we did ask the budget analyst to go back and see if they could provide some brief information on, a particular because we do have a significant pot of money in the mayor's campaign fund, a public campaign funds that are in there, so it is worthwhile to cover that and have a budget analyst report on them. >> thank you, madame chair, supervisors. we did work with the legislative analyst's office, and they did complete the review. also, you requested a breakdown of how we expect public financing expenditures in 2012

to pan out. i did forward the document to all of you with that breakdown. the only other thing i would highlights while i am here today, last week, i told you the total funds distributed under the public financing program was $1,674,000, and in the seven days since i gave you that figure, an additional $826,869 has been distributed in the last week, bringing us up, that much closer to our estimate. i do not know we will hit the $3.1 million by this thursday, but we're going to come very close. at this point, we are just over $2.5 million in expenditures for

this fiscal year on the mural public finance program. supervisor chu: with regards to the campaign fund, we have a balance sitting there that will be carrying forwardthe mayor's s an additional amount in the budget as well. to the extent that, come november, after the mayor's race is completed, and all the public drawdowns have been completed and verified, if there is a huge remaining balance, is there any provision to allow us to bring that back into the general fund? >> there is actually two ways you can deappropriate those funds, directly through the mayor's office or an act of the board. the amount i am proposing would be leftover. circumstances being what they are, it is difficult to make an exact prediction.

but we are anticipating that out of that $3.5 million, we would need about $900,000 for the following board of supervisors. supervisor chu: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: i assume you are using pretty conservative calculations? >> i think we're being conservative in the ability of the leading candidates to raise $400,000 is reasonable. id is not certain. and then the ability of -- it is not certain. in any ability in the past has been reasonable, but not certain. in the mayoral race, we're doing the best we can. in the board race, we least have something to go on. supervisor wiener: so, under

your estimates, using fairly conservative assumptions, after we finished the mayor's race, there will be $3.5 million left in the fund, and you will need the best part of $1 million, $900,000, for 2012, so that would be about $2.5 million. >> a little bit more than that. supervisor wiener: what is the policy rationale for leaving a sum of money that large above and beyond what we expect to use for the mayoral and for the first half of next year, for the supervisory -- given that we have so many services ranging from use the service to trees or roads that are facing major

budget efficiency is it? >> also, the policy decisions are in your hands to make. i believe the founders had in their vision a separate fund that would be capped in that it is more attractive to the candidates in the future to participate in public financing should they know the money is already there, rather than being dependent on future operations. i think that is the rationale. supervisor wiener: i understand the pleading the fund to zero -- depleting the fund to zero could have issues erratic, but perhaps that portion could be used for other purposes? >> our experience with the mayor's office is, those times when we were concerned there would not be and out, it did

happen on one occasion. there was a very swift supplemental appropriation. obviously, this $4.2 million restoration is an attempt to meet that obligation. again, the process has been there. supervisor chu: thank you. given the budget analyst report, showing $3 million or so, there is no way to have that reallocated to any general fund except to actively appropriate from the department, correct? >> madam chair, member from the budget analyst at's office asks supervisor wiener a question. each year, there is an appropriation of two -$75,000

per resident in the city. in prior years, the mayor had deappropriated funds from the balance. the current budget we institutes funds previously taken out of this budget to make them whole. at this point, there was a supplemental appropriation of $3 million just a few months ago, an additional appropriation this year. right now, with what is in the budget, they are completely whole in this fund. if any funds are reduced, there would be protected about $3.5 million fund balance at the end of the fiscal year, 2011-2012,

at the department projections are correct. you should know if any funds are taken out, they would have to be restored in the future. supervisor wiener: it effectively would be a loan from the fund? >> correct. in essence. and that is what has happened in the past. because there was not an election and there was not a need for the funds in that year. the mayor had taken funds of the budget. but now the budget is made whole. supervisor wiener: right, and i understand the way the system is designed, it can lead to potential over-appropriation into the fund well beyond what is needed. at the same time, we are making devastating cuts to health, human services, roads, trees, rec and park, all these other areas and we are accruing a larger and larger balance.

that is one reason why i did not approve the $3.1 million supplemental appropriation. i did not believe that was the right way to go. as the director noted, i remember when there was a deficit in the fund, and the board of supervisors may be supplemental appropriation to ensure the candidates would receive what they were entitled to in financing. it is really a balance about making sure we are allocating our money appropriately, while still being committed to public financing. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose? >> manager, actually we have no other comments. as the department indicated, we do not have any recommendations. supervisor chu: thank you. thank you for the report. given that we know the conservative estimates may add a

balance of $3.5 million after this year's election and every year thereafter we will necessarily be putting in another $2.2 million because of the mandatory $2.75 per resident, we get to where we will have $12 million again in the year 2016, where hypothetically we will have an incumbent mayor. at some point, we do need to evaluate the levels of funding we are putting in their. we had not had a mayor's race yet. this will be the first mayor's race we will see. maybe that will be informative going for. supervisor wiener: it will be $9,900,000 for next year's supervisors' races. that leaves us with $2.6 million. then we will automatically put another $1.7 million, or what

ever that number is -- $2 per resident. , atwood -- how much would that be? >> about $2 million. supervisor wiener: then we would automatically put another $2 million in, bringing us up to $4.5 million. there would there would be some drawdown, but presumably not more than $500,000 or $1 million, or whatever. then we will not have it may years race for three more years. i am just trying to get my head around why we -- i guess the system is what it is, but it encourages an extreme over creation, well beyond what we actually need to publicly financed these races. >> man?

-- may i? obviously, you are the policy maker. it is your decision. the only humbled request i have is the whatever funds you do draw down, you commit to putting them back at the time we need them. supervisor wiener: believe me, i am not suggesting that we somehow deplete the fund. it would have to be done in very collaborative process with the ethics commission. >> and it has been a collaborative all along. supervisor chu: thank you. again, it does raise questions about the program and how we fund it and whether there is a mechanism we can deploy in the future to be able to draw down if the balance is overly funded, so that is something for another time, but thank you for coming in. ok, colleagues, i think those are all the departments that we have today. we had a few items before us. i believe items one, two need to

be continued to wednesday. can we do that without objection? ok. items three, four -- can we continue these through thursday? which is the final day of the budget conversations here at the committee. can we do that without objection? >> [inaudible] we cannot put out a new agenda, so you could reset the date meeting to thursday if you would like. supervisor chu: ok, we will do that. and then we have already dispensed with item five. we have moved items 6 and 7 to the full board already. item eight, if we continue that to thursday. without objection? thank you. do we have any other items

before us? >> that completes the agenda. supervisor chu: ok, we our recess. thank you. -- we are recessed. thank you. >> hello. 9 judge terri l. jackson. the court is now recruiting prospective civil grand jurors. our goal is to develop a pool of candidates that is inclusive of all segments of our city's population. >> the jury conducts

investigations and publishes findings and recommendations. these reports them become a key part of the civic dialog on how we can make san francisco a better place to live and work. >> i want to encourage anyone that is on the fence, is considering participating as a grand jury member, to do so. >> so if you are interested in our local city government and would like to work with 18 other enthusiastic citizens committed to improving its operations, i encourage you to consider applying for service on the civil grand jury. >> for more information, visit the civil grand jury website at sfgov.org/courts or call

supervisor chu: good morning. welcome to the budget and finance committee. i am joined by supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor kim, and supervisor chiu. our clerk is victor young. do we have announcements? >> yes, please turn off all cell phones. if you present any documents to the committee, please provide a copy to the clerk for inclusion to the file. items acted upon today will be on the board of supervisors agenda on july 12, 2011, unless otherwise stated.

supervisor chu: thank you very much. ed sfgtv, we have michael and bill, thank you for your coverage. mr. clerk, would you call items one through 11, please? >> item number one, consolidated budget an annual appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and estimated expenditures for the city and county of san francisco for fiscal year ending june 30, 2012, and fiscal years ending -- june 30, 2012 and june 30, 2013 for the airport, port commission, and public utilities commission. item two. annual salary ordered its enumerated positions in the annual budget and appropriate ordinance for fiscal year ending june 30, 2012 and june 30, 2013 for the airport, port commission, and public utilities commission. item three, or in its appropriating for select departments, ending june 30,

2012 and june 30, 2013. item four, proposed annual salary ordinance for selected departments for fiscal years ending june 30, 2012 and june 30, 2013. item number five, ordinance amending the san francisco public works code by amending section 724.1 to modify monthly fees for temporary street occupancy for construction and daily fees. item six, and ending the san francisco administrative code by adding section 2a.211-a and to add a fee of $37 for services provided by the the public administrator/public guardian representative fee program. item seven is no longer under the jurisdiction of the budget and finance committee. the san francisco unified school district. item number 8 is no longer under the it jurisdiction of the budget and finance committee. public education enrichment fund, children and families

commission. item number 9, declaring the city's intention to appropriate available rainy day reserve funds to the san francisco unified school district to help with the loss of state funding for 2011-2012 school year. item 10 is no longer under the jurisdiction of the budget and finance committee. contract certification of specified contacted-out services previously approved for various departments. item 11 resolution concurring with the controller's certification the services can be performed by private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by city and county employees for security services at the department of public health hospitals and clinics. >> thank you. just so we're clear, items number seven, eight, and 10 are no longer in the jurisdiction of the committee, because we have already acted upon them. just so you know.

item number 7, 8, and 10, we already moved out of committee. so they will not be before this committee today. we started with a lot of departments and kind of walked through the presentations last week. many department came back to us on monday to talk about outstanding issues that they were not in agreement with with our budget analysts. today represents the balance of departments that have yet to come to agreement. let's begin that process. health service system. >> good morning, committee members, and chairwoman chu. we will agree to the cuts that have been proposed. supervisor chu: ok. budget analyst? >> madam chair, for the record, it is $52,981 all general fund

recommendations. >> we have that amount for the cuts being proposed that the health service system, mostly in staffing adjustments, some copy machines and specialized services cuts. the department is in agreement with that? >> efp president chiu: can we take that without objection? ok -- supervisor chu: can we take that without objection? ok, thank you very much. the next department is the public library. >> good afternoon. i am the city librarian. we are in agreement with the analyst recommendations and very much appreciate the support and the help we received from javier and kate. we're pleased with the proposed budget. supervisor chu: thank you. >> madam chair, members of the committee, the total recommended cuts are $264,486.

they're not general fund reductions. supervisor chu: thank you. and to the comptroller, because these are actually savings from the library baseline, these would remain within the library's budget department. correct? ok, thank you. given that we are in agreement, can we take these cuts without objection? that will be the case. thank you very much. >> thank you. supervisor chu: our next department is the fire department. >> good morning. i am from the san francisco fire department. i just wanted to let you know that during the last week, we were able to work with the budget analyst and his staff.

there reductions changed somewhat, and at this point, the total is $713,389. we are prepared to accept that. i should state that it is very lean for us. this assumes that we will have regular days in the year, 2011- 2012. if there was any major catastrophe, obviously a natural disaster or act of terrorism, this would not cover our budget. so it is something that has absolutely zero in there as padding. i remain concerned about it, but understanding the economic times, everyone has to make some concessions. we will accept the most recent revision from the budget analyst and accept the71 dollar sign his3,389. -- excepted the $713,389.

the last item i wanted to review with you is near and dear to my heart, and it should be the year and dear to your hearts as well, and that is our neighborhood emergency response team program. it is a hallmark program that has been modeled by other communities. as you know, it came about after the 1989 earthquake. what we saw in 1989 was so many members of the committee be stepping forward and wanting to assist. they did not have the training or education about what it would take for them to be able to assist us and not be in our way. as we embark upon this program early on in 1990, and it has been successful ever since. at a minimum, we train 2,000 people for year -- per year. we believe it is efficiently run. there's a policy recommendation today. mike position as the same as last week.

we strongly disagree with this recommendation to reduce the operating budget by $259,519. the monies for the overtime we pay to our instructors. ther air members of the san francisco fire department -- they are members of the san francisco fire department. they're enthusiastic about this program. they have a desire to teach. and as evidenced by the many letters that are written by members of the program, what makes the program is successful and has people coming back time and time again and has graduates referring to their neighbors and co-workers that this is the great program. it is a free program, and we feel this expenditure is of vital to the continued success and viability of the program. so i strongly encourage you to disagree with this policy recommendation. supervisor chu: thank you, chief. supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you. i will not repeat what she said, but i agree with it and i am

prepared to make a motion on the fire department budget. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i will make the motion. it is to accept the agreed upon cuts but to reject the proposed cut to nert. >> second. >supervisor chu: first, let's go to the report. >> as stated, the agreed upon recommended reductions are $713,389, and our policy recommendation is on page 19. supervisor chu: thank you. just a quick question for the mayor's budget office. a large part of the budget hangs in the balance in terms of where we are with the negotiated mou's. do you have an update on that? >> absolutely. gosset the mayor's budget director. as of yesterday, we have a tentative agreement, which is consistent with the mayor's

budget submission. it still has to be ratified by the members of the police officers association, the firefighters' union. however, it is a very significant concession that we have agreed to. it tentatively. and it will keep our budget in balance. there'll be a few administrative changes we will need to make to implement it, but is absolutely manageable. i just want to thank the police officers association, the firefighters' union for their agreement. they stepped up again to provide a significant help to the city to help us balance our budget. i think we just need to be cognizant of the importance of that and what it has done for us to be able to protect services in this budget. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener: that is

really good news. if i could just ask you -- is it -- i know that the 3% raise is going forward, compensated by a corresponding 3% increase by the firefighters and police to their pensions. it is that 100% cost neutral, given that the 3% salary increase also brings benefit costs? >> it is a great question, and we should have dhr in here to walk you through the specifics of the agreement. but the big picture is that it is a very close to cost neutral. as you point out, there is a slight difference, for exactly that reason, that we had initially anticipated that it would be a deferral of the wage. instead, it is a pension contribution pick up of an equival