nonrecurring revenue source to a nonrecurring expense, even though it has now created a hole in the budget, this allows no the use of that non-recurring revenue to plug at all. supervisor kim: is this considered a one-time non- recurring revenue stream? >> you would have the policy explicitly allow the mayor and the board, as an eligible nonrecurring expense, allows you to make deposits to reserves. if we have non-recurring revenue, as the board of supervisors, you can choose those nonrecurring revenues and fund reserves. i do not know if that gets to your question. supervisor kim: kenny redefines be used to back fill ongoing expenditures? >> in years were the rainy day reserve is triggered, which is revenue is declining versus the prior year or versus the prior year peak, it allows the mayor

and the board to appropriate money from the rainy day reserve equal to half the ballots in the reserve, and that money is explicitly intended to be for any purpose, including operating budget costs. supervisor kim: ok, thank you. >> this defines what discretionary revenue is. we tried that out to the charter. secondly, it excludes that that results in general fund savings or is backed by non description area revenue sources. we did not want to find ourselves in a place where you would be forced to make a poor business decision as a city because of the 3.25% cap. if we had a cabin in the city but had the opportunity to buy an office building where the debt service we incurred from the debt would actually be cheaper than what we're

currently paying to the private landlord, we did not want to close the door on that artificially with the policy. we believe this exclusion avoids that circumstance. we talked to supervisor farrell about this, and he is working with our office on the legislation. he is comfortable with it. that concludes my brief presentation. i would be happy to take questions. supervisor chu: thank you. it's good to the budget analyst report. >> on page 9 of our report, we noted file a 11-0999 would codify in respect the expenditure of nonrecurring revenue is only for nonrecurring expenditures, which we fully support, resulting in -- for example, that will mean expenditures upon capital improvements and equipment, but this would result

in a demolition of the board of supervisors options for three appropriating savings achieved by the board of supervisors. i am talking about during the annual budget process for addax and restorations. we do support the principle of the expenditures of nonrecurring revenues to be applied to non- recurring expenditures. on page 11 of our report, continuing on that same file, while file a 11-0999 provides a precise definition of selected nonrecurring revenues, the ordinance provides an open-ended definition of nonrecurring expenditures, leaving room to interpret the proposed future expenditures that would qualify as a nonrecurring expenditures. in addition, the proposed ordinance does not provide the board of supervisors with an opportunity to dispute the interpretation of what is and what is not a nonrecurring

expenditure. in the event that the board of supervisors wish to object to the classification of certain nonrecurring expenditures would be to make a one-time suspension of the provisions of file 11- 0999. and that would be on a two- thirds vote. of the board of supervisors. our recommendations are on page 12. as i stated, at the controller's definition of nonrecurring expenditures are open-ended. therefore, we recommend that you requested the controller to amend the file to find nonrecurrent expenditures as the six expenses listed in the proposed ordinance. by striking other uses that do not create liability or expectation of substantial ongoing cost, including but not

limited to. that would be page seven, and lines 8 and 9. the controller disagrees because it is possible they will identify additional nonrecurring expenditure is besides the six included in the proposed ordinance. we consider approval of filed a 11-109, we proposed changes in from the existing rolling two- year budgets. the board of supervisor reviews the budgets every year to a fixed two-year budget would reduce by the board of supervisors every two years of the policy decision by the board of supervisors. the trigger threshold for reviewing the second year of the fixed two-year budget, the file has been proposed its budget costs or revenues are projected to change by more than 5% the second year and that we also consider approval of that 5%

trigger to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. let me emphasize that in general, we're fully supportive of the controllers financial policies. however, since there are different -- there are significant changes to the whole process, we consider approval of the three pros to ordinances as amended with our suggested recommendations to you. and the others and the proposed resolution as amended to be policy matters to the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you. to clarify with the city attorney, with the amendment as a whole be substantive or not? it would not be substantive. ok, thank you. let's open this up for public comment. if there are members of the public who wish to speak on items nine, 10, 11, or 12. please come forward.

>> right at the onset, for those or at home, on matters like this, we need three minutes. but as has been the custom recently, some despicable chairs just give us two minutes, and that is uncalled for, especially in san francisco. having said that, i have listened to the narrative that the controller gave and shed some light on, and what i would like to say is that in the last five years, we see an erosion of the legislative branch. we know that in 1996, when willie brown was the mayor, he clipped the wings of the city administrators. so right now, for all practical purposes, we have the legislative branch and executive

branch. our only saving grace is the budget analyst and the comptroller's office. and hopefully the mayor's office and the budget office will somehow help the constituents of san francisco. was it pains me is that in our shelters, we do not give our people, not even a bed to sleep. we have poor people that are given a sheet, while the so- called representatives are talking about a rainy day fund. if the san francisco unified school district has a problem, do not rely and our city every year for a rainy day fund. that is not called for. what we really need to do is to be compassionate and not allow our indigent population, our poor population, to be sitting on a chair day in and day out,

for months, when we need to give them a bath. i have two seconds, may i have it? [bell rings] supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. [unintelligible] i think that certificates of participation should not be used to pay for maintenance. i also think that attaching cop's to the discretionary budget is wise. however, the funds are designated for health purposes, and money for this fund should not be used for other unintended

purposes. please continue to use the tobacco fund for public health purposes for which it was originally intended. while the 3.25% spending cap is theoretically a very good idea, the city will continue to fill a discretionary fund with principal and interest payments will be on 3.25%. the 10-year capital planning committee reports evidence of the 3.25% being maintained, and it clearly shows that from 2017- 2018, 2021-2020, the percentage will go as high as 4.1%. the discretionary fund is variable. departments are seeking to change the amount. a two-thirds vote of the board of supervisors will allow this, but i also believe the current board history will show that the board of supervisors will use

cop's to replace general obligation bonds and it will prove to be irresistible to san francisco's financial community. i've received 85% or 6%. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> hello. my name is debbie with the san francisco command services network peter i am here to speak against the proposal for nonrecurring revenue policy. this represents yet another set aside that will hamstring the city's ability to maintain import and services during difficult economic times. the city has already taken steps to restrict the use of one-time funds with the budget stabilization reserves and the

rainy day fund. there's no reason to tie the city's hands further. this is predicated on the idea that key services might be disrupted in future years. if we use one-time funds this year. but that ignores that one-time funds have prevented disruption every year by saving safety net services during the recession, a time of greatest need. today's child care discussion was a perfect example of how the process can work without this kind of policy. we have a need. we have some one-time funds. we have an honest discussion about it. then we decided we're going to support it, even though we are reluctant because there may not be money tomorrow. in past years, we have seen $43 million in restorations. this current year, we do not need to pass the policy to be able to do those kinds of restorations. we had $16 million restored a few years ago. that was the last time nonprofits got accustomed doing business increases. it has been flat-funded ever

since. for health and human services funding, how can we argue that one-time revenue should not be used when we're talking about saving lives? a starving man does not turn down a bowl of soup because there might not be sued tomorrow. there's nothing wrong with using one-time funds to maintain service for the vulnerable san franciscans during difficult times. the save money, and would be more costly to the city of we close them and try to rebuild them later. in essence, all money is one- time money. we take grants all the time. then we talk later about back filling when it expires. that is fine. we do not need a policy. i urge you to reject this as it -- recommendation. it is knack for san francisco. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. if i can ask the controller to come up again. you have got the amendment as a whole.

did we get copies of that? >> i believe so. you should have copies in front of you. supervisor chu: yes. so these are not substantive in nature that the city attorney has confirmed -- they clarified the interaction between the rainy day reserve in the budget stabilization reserve, clarified the effective date, and for the debt management policy, defense discretionary revenue but also excludes debt that results in general fund cost savings. colleagues, can we take those amendments without objection? that will be the case. colleagues, on the underlying items? do we have a motion to send the item forward? i just wanted to address a couple of things. i know we did have public speakers who spoke on the debt management policy. i think it is wise for us to set forward a debt management policy. i want to thank supervisor

farrell for his leadership on this topic and item. i think the amendments we have made, with regards to excluding debt that resulted in general fund cost savings, is something that is good and allows us to have flexibility on the issue with regard. with your direct to limiting the one-time expenses, i want to thank the analyst for the recommendation. however, i would be supportive of moving the item as is without that recommendation. the reason is that i think that as we go forward, we may find nonrecurring expenditures that we might not have anticipated. so i think it is prudent for us to allow for that flexibility to be they're going forward. finally, with regards to the nonrecurring revenues, it is a very limited definition of what non-recurring revenues are, at least in this policy as stated. given what the policy will look like, i am covered it by the fact that we're not saying that all non-recurring revenues can be -- prior year fund balance

would be counted. we still have the ability to spend, as you have seen, if history is to show itself again, $100 million on anything we want to, ongoing not. it is really only the incremental value that is the nonrecurring revenue that we are defining. not only that, take the example of last year's budget going forward, we were still able to do very much in terms of making sure that we met it but was able to deal with a lot of the community concerns. i think we will still be able to address those issues. i think this is a step in the right direction. i think the definitions of nonrecurring revenues is limited in nature, so i think it is a prudent action for us to move forward. one more note on that, i think helping to do this will create a more stable budget. something i have heard over and over again is how terrible it is to come back here-after-year without knowing if they will get their service is cut or contracts cut. i think to the extent that we

can create a more stable budget, it helps to prevent those big operational swings that we see that have a huge impact. so i think this is a good step. supervisor kim: thank you. i appreciate these proposals that have come before us. i want to concur with your comments. i appreciate the controller taking the time to answer a lot of my questions are around the nonrecurring revenue policies, which is where i had the most concerns. not because it is a bad policy. it is great policy. but, you know, you never know how budgets are going to look like in the future, and you want to have the flexibility in case of emergencies. but i do appreciate having an outlook of our last 10 years as sort of a base of what we might be able to look at in the future and i appreciate the limited nature of how we define non- recurring. we will be supporting these proposals moving forward.

thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. do we have a motion on the floor to send these items forward? supervisor mirkarimi: i will make the motion. i want to underscore one of the public comments. i think the call pyeatt was important, not to go unnoticed, as long as we do retain the latitude and discretion, so that we have that ability to allocate, even when this is not a pre fixed budget. it is important to maintain the flexibility, and i absolutely appreciate that remark. so i will make a motion. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi has made a motion to send items nine, 10, 11, and 12 as amended forward with recommendations. we can do that without objection. thank you very much. are there any more items before

us? >> that completes the agenda. supervisor chu: thank you so much. we are adjourned.

>> being a pedestrian in san francisco is not easy for anybody. >> [inaudible] people push tables and chairs outside the sidewalk. >> i have to be careful not to walk the sidewalk. it is very hard. >> sometimes people get half way across the intersection. >> you have to be alert because there is always something coming up that you need to know about. >> i learned to listen to the traffic patterns. sometimes i notice the other

pedestrians, they are crossing, on occasion, i have decided i'm going to cross, too. i get to the middle of the intersection, and i find out that the light has changed. >> we need to be able to work and go from one place to the other and have public transportation. the world needs to be open. >> people on disability has the task of addressing all the disability. when we are talk about the sidewalks, ramps, we have very specific issues. for people blind and low vision, we have the issue of knowing where they are and when the cross. it can be hit or miss.

>> at hulk and grove, that sound the the automatic -- it helps people cross the street safely. >> now we have a successful pedestrian signal. >> i push the button, i get an audible message letting me know that i need to wait. when it is safe to cross, not only am i going to get an audible indicator, this button is going to vibrate. so it tells me it is safe. there is the driller sound and this trigger is vibrating. i am not relying on anything but the actual light change,

the light cycle built into it. >> it brings san francisco from one of the major cities in the u.s. to what is going to be the lead city in the country. >> city working on all sorts of things. we are trying to be new and innovative and go beyond the ada says and make life more successful for people.

>> disability rights movement, the city has the overall legal obligation to manage and maintain the accessibility and right of way. with regards to the curb ramps, bounded by a groove border, 12-inch wide border. for people with low vision to get the same information. the shape of the domes, flush transition between the bolt bottom of the ramp and gutter. >> we have a beveled transition on the change in level, tape on the surfaces, temporary asphalt to fill in level changes, flush transition to temporary wood platform and ramp down into the

street under the scaffoldinging. detectable ramps. they are all detectable. nothing down below or protruding that people are going to get snagged up on. smooth clean that nobody is going get caught up on. >> our no. 1 issue is what we see here, the uplifting and shreufting to concrete due too street tree roots. here is another problem we have with street trees. if i have i was a person blind, this would be an uncomfortable

way to find out. >> we don't want to create hazards. >> sometimes vendors put sidewalk cafes where people push the chairs too far out. >> sometimes it can be impassable. so much foot traffic that there is no room for a wheelchair or walker to go by. >> san francisco is a lively street life, it can be an issue with people with visual disabilities as well. they have these diverting barriers on other side of this tables and chairs area. if people can find thraeur way around it without getting

tangled up, it is still fully accessible. >> we don't want anything special. we want people to basically adhere to the regulations and laws as they are on the books now. people can also, just be cognizant if they have stuff on the street, they thaoed to have 48 inches so we can pass, think outside your own spectrum of yourself that there are other people you need to share the sidewalk with. we will all get along better. >> although san francisco is a hilly place for a whraoel chair user, we seem to be better at most. that doesn't mean we can't continue to improve upon ourselves.

>> the public has a clear are -- of travel. we can't be every to make sure that is the place. we have to rely on the place. call 311. give them your name. that goes into a data base. >> it is difficult, still, um to make the case that the disabled community isn't being represented. in some ways we are not. we have a long way to go. >> the city of san francisco is using the most innovative technology available. these devices allow people to remain out in their communities, doing things like shopping. it is great to be able to walk as a pedestrian in this city and cross streets safely.

>> the next time you take a muni bus or train, there could be new technology that could make it easier to get to your destination. many are taking a position of next bus technology now in use around the city. updated at regular intervals from the comfort of their home or workplace. next bus uses satellite technology and advanced computer modeling to track buses and trains, estimating are bought stocks with a high degree of accuracy. the bus and train our arrival information can be accessed from your computer and even on your