to finally throw in the towel. they now have to have church on saturdays. a 2000-year tradition of having church on sunday. we have a bicycle race, the marathon, the car race a few years ago. it already makes it difficult for us to get there. now you propose a parking meters. if you have parking meters, you would not -- we will not be able to double park. where did those cars go in neighborhoods that have no parking facilities? it is an absolute impossible think and i am overwhelmed that you all would come to even discuss this. please, change your mind and do the right thing. [applause] >> you picked a heck of a group to go against today. you know the lord don't play.

>> [inaudible] >> oi have come before you of representing seiu. equity is still important. as my colleague pointed out to you, there has not been equity. i have been fighting near the four years for equity. some of you have caught me in my most -- let me explain this to you, folks. we need to to be equitable. you cannot have budgets where you hired 20% more employees in one category cannot find others. i ask you to consider this. this is probably my last time i

come before you as an employee. i ask that you consider this. we all need to find muni correctly. there will be more difficulties ahead, but i want to be able to be supportive of you as an advocate. let's find some ways to do advocacy. chair nolan: good look. -- luck. >> good afternoon. i have not been here for a while. a higher power asked me to come here today to address you on the fact that there are not as many jewish people here in this city. a lot of the synagogues and places of worship are in residential districts. it has not impacted them, but there are far more people in other religions and their places of worship are not -- have to be

in commercial districts in areas where people cannot live. -- do not live. god said anyone should go up or ship and have spirituality and stay out of trouble. what you are doing, you are asking uhim to put 10 plagues on you. >> thank you very much. i am a former member of the board of supervisors.

you refer my namesake, david brown. -- you heard from my name's sake, david brown. i am amos brown. the prophet. the profit has come to prophesy. -- prophet has come to prophesy. it is unimaginable that you will would have the gall in this city to come up with a measure that would adversely impact the quality of life -- of life in the city. my wife had to get up and go out to feed the meter. it is sexist against women to have this kind of a measure. 60% of the membership in faith communities are women. i am appealing to you to have a

heart today. new york city has 8 million plus people. they get a face leaders -- we are in san francisco going to charge people for parking on sunday. i beg you, please, pretty please come and kill this measure. naked dead on arrival and do the right thing. " -- make its dead on arrival and do the right thing. >> good afternoon. judgment day is coming. i am looking at the devil. the double in sheep's clothing in this room. -- devil in sheep's clothing in this room. you have to make it -- an

intelligent decision. reject this budget. go back to the drawing board. tallinn to go to his buddies downtown and -- expand the transit impact development to the mission bay bridge make them pay. they are getting subsidized services from the city, from us. bus rides, they are not paying a dime. make the police pay. make them pay. [applause] when they collect the shoplifters downtown, the businesses do not pay them. the taxpayers pay the police. homeowners pay the police. chair nolan: thank you. everybody gets the same amount of time. thank you very much.

[laughter] >> i am rev. donna wood. if you implement parking meters on sunday, it would have a seriously negative impact on my congregation. it has been in the same place since 1908. all the surrounding area was mostly sand dunes. we have a lot of people to come from outside the city. you have heard all the wonderful stories from all the other folks. i want to point out that they come to church and worship and provide services to the people of san francisco and also spend their money here. they go out to eat, they get their hair cut, they go to the grocery store and the shop. that is another thing that would

probably go away. if they have to pay for parking, they will not come. i urge you to take this out. chair nolan: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am the past president of san francisco ministers conference. as i travel across this country, san francisco is constantly on people's lists. they have good -- because of our diversity in this city and because it is a city that people like to come back to once they visit. i used to be proud of this city. i'm beginning to think differently. there is a negative spirits in this city and it starts right here.

anywhere we can get some money, let's try to get it. even if it means closing churches because the people will not be able to pay to park. thank you. [applause] >> he is the last person. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman. i am a taxi driver. i would like to support -- they are the mainstream of this city. sunday, a lot of people come to the city, they eat in restaurants, shopping. everybody feels safe for sunday parking. you are going to lose a bunch of money for the city revenue. we have 10,000 american people

retiring every day in this country. they are only driving on sunday now because they still sunday is a safer day for driving. i look at your budget, $840 million. 850,000 people live here. it is about 4% of their income. thank you. chair nolan: we will declare the public hearing is closed on the budget issue. one more. >> i have been a resident for the last 44 years. i've spoken before this commission for a number of years. i am back here to talk about the

operating budgets, which has been approved of the last three years by deborah johnson, who is not qualified to approve it. you have gone up by 7% a year what you have taken over the taxi commission. and begun to squeeze the drivers beyond any reasonable basis. they are not part of the income producing part of the city and county of san francisco. they have no salaries, pensions, medical's, unemployment. they are paying for yours. thank you for your time. chair nolan: that would conclude the public testimony. we have before us the budget as presented, including these items. director heinicke: let me start with this.

at the beginning of this process, we ask you to scrutinize the work orders and make sure these were situations where there were was a proper nexus to the agency and this was a proper expensed to our money. we were looking at relatively lean times. let me focus on the police work order and the motorcycle unit. i will ask you to address that work order. your view that it is a proper work order for us to be pain. follow up with the two questions -- is this something we could revisit during the budget cycle as we discuss things with the police department? i assume it is, but i want to make sure. i realize that is a broader discussion about staffing priorities, but there was

comment raised that perhaps we could be using pco's instead of police officers to handle certain tasks. that would be less expensive to the agency. i have a few more questions, but let's start with this. >> we paid to the police department through a work order, which is the phrase the city uses in its budget process when one city department has services from another. $9 million of the work order supports a large portion of the traffic company of the san francisco police department. these are the motorcycle police officers who do traffic enforcement. the decision -- work orders are for specific services, order of

purchasing, or certain city-wide function that are allocated to all departments. most of those cases, it is not a choice of the individual departments. it is an allocation from city hall. it is an issue of where we believe the city department providing the services is best able to provide it. for us to do so, it would be more expensive. we would need to outsource the function. the traffic company is a little bit different than all of the other reporters. it is based on a policy decision that was made by city hall a number of years ago as part of their budget process. it identified a nexus between a large number of the functions of the traffic company and the city's transportation department.

the theory behind the nexus is that to we are charged with having a safe transportation system. we are charged with implementing the city's transit first policies. there is an argument to be made that the traffic companies supports both of those charter goals of this agency. in terms of making sure that transportation in the city is safe and enforcement works to the benefit of safety and the benefit of transit. there is a nexus for the use of mta funds for the service. there is also as many public speakers indicated, a justifiable position that the city's general fund should pay these costs. that is not a decision that we can make unilaterally with the this -- at this board.

it is something i have discussed with the mayor, would some of the members of the board of supervisors, and with the mayor's budget office. the challenge is, the reason why the decisions were made, the traffic company, and the way and work orders are allocated, was to protect general fund dollars there providing safety net services to our most challenged populations. the decision about mta police department work order was one of those decisions. the city is looking at the next fiscal year has $160 million general fund gap they need to close. to the extent they assume responsibility for this work order, are fiscal challenge there are policy arguments to be made on either side of the issue. the way the budget is currently

structured, the responsibilities -- it has been recommended to me that i include in my transmittal letter to the mayor and the board of supervisors, and articulation of how we could otherwise use those funds if that policy decision more different. if you gave us another $9 million, how we could put it to work to benefits the people of san francisco for the transportation department. that is something, i think comment that is a good idea. the other thing i been talking with the mayor and the budget office about is the fact that there is a unit of the police department that has been providing direct services to muni for security on the system did have been grant funded for

which the grant is expiring at the end of this fiscal year. we do not have the funds budgeted for that. the police department does not have the funds in their department to continue that service. that is a direct service provided to muni. i've also been seeking their assistance in the form of loring the traffic come -- lowering -- to make room for us to be able to find this direct service. i know that is a long answer. i think there is an arguable policy call in terms of where the funding comes from. it is a decision that needs to be made by city hall. >> i very much appreciate that answer. i am not suggesting that this money is falling into a sewer hole somewhere. it is being used for our police officers.

the question is where it comes from. i have a little bit of tissue with the notion that this is a city hall decision. -- issue with the notion that this is a city hall decision. not to have funds allocated for transit purposes used for other city hall purposes. again, i am not suggesting this is an el purpose. we need to support our police officers and we need traffic enforcement. the question is where this money comes from. i think we could make a unilateral decision to strike this from our budget and say, we will not pay for this because we do not believe there is a nexus. i think that would be an extreme mood and it would be one taken without enough -- extreme that move. i also want to turn up the temperature a little bit on this issue. the transmittal letter you are talking about is the appropriate step to take. i think we need to make clear that we as a board are

reviewing these things and not simply accepting them as the city hall decision. of course, we will value the opinions of the mayor's office and others to construct these budgets. we will pay our fair share for services. we need to revisit the notion of whether this is our fair share or not. we are an independent agency for that very reason. we're not a single agency in the traditional sense. i would ask that we continue to debate this and maybe we get a report back in several months on these negotiations to see if we want to take more extreme measures or see if we are reaching some sort of agreement and understanding where the nexus -- understanding. that is the place i would like to get. one step in that process, i do not know this proposal, if they

say there is money to be saved i would like to look at that. that is my first set of questions. i appreciate the long answer. this is one where many to push back a little bit more than saying this is a city hall decision. i know you are sensitive to that and i think the trend in a letter is a good for start. -- transmittal letter is a good start. put my second question concerns the parking proposal. i believe i have asked this question before. the plans for sunday parking is not -- will not have the deakin running in and out of his church. you will be able to buy the entire block of time. do i understand that correctly? >> we are proposing for our meters. it is not the entire time.

-- four-hour meters. it would be able to load the meter of to four hours. we will make it easier to pay for parking, credit cards, paid by phone. we are in the process of upgrading all the meter said they can be prepaid. if you're right at 11:00 the meter will start drawn the money down at 12:00. chair nolan: time for the board to discuss this. i will remind you of the last hearing. director heinicke: i am not sure we have the answer. one of the main reasons we are increasing the citations for the parking, sorry to switch topics, the courthouse the that the state has imposed on us. the last time around, i ask the

question of whether san francisco is receiving that money back or whether we are finding other counties courthouse. -- funding other counties courthouses. i think we need to our part state legislature with informations they can understand where this money is going. if it is going back to find san francisco, that is one thing. if it is going to fund courthouses and other counties, that is something we need to know. if we could give an answer on that question, i would appreciate it. chair nolan: any other members of the board? >> i, too, am prepared to vote on the budget. i have still below major concerns. the work order.

i would urge you do look at that work order because i think it is unfair that we are offsetting that when we are in a budget crunch. that is $9 million. maybe we can offset it with other agencies. i am not sure, but i would urge you to take a look at it. the second thing, as you know, i think san francisco is a great city, a diversity. but promote diversity. we promotes families. my concern is that it's -- the sunday parking impacts the quality of life for families to move around the city. it is a time when families move around with small children, senior citizens. when you start stipulating and implementing parking on sundays, it does have an adverse affect.

will the money that we raise from parking meters, it will not close that much of the gap? the quality of life is very important. i worry that the impact the quality of life, not just for people that are here, but people come into the city to appreciated and enjoy. i would like us to think about what we are trying to tell people about who we are, what we are, and what we offer. i want people to enjoy it. i am not sure of the fact that we promote other activities in the city that impact services. what is the impact of overall quality? if we want to support other organizations and functions on sundays, we should look at the

quality of life for everyone. sunday is something that provides that opportunity. now we're taking that away. many social programs that are provided throughout the city -- as we take away and people, and to volunteer for the social programs, now they would have to pay for parking and volunteer or get a ticket. if you are coming into volunteer, for example, how does that impact the quality you are giving back? it is something to think about. i urge the board to think about that. >> one of the things we need to look at t-- do we have a

contingency plan, mr. director? if we do not pass the parking meter part of the budget, do we have a contingency plan to fall back on? how do we get that $2 million back? are there ways we can do that? >> i did not make contingency plans for different line items in the budget. we just went through an exercise of identifying what choices we where -- we would make sure our revenue situation change. i guess i would make the same choices. i would recommend the same choices. were we to forego the revenue :::::::ñ

revenues, i would like to make the same recommendations for where we would make expenditure reductions accordingly. >> the other thing, we used to have a rainy day fund. nobody was supposed to be able to touch it. based upon the recommendations in the past, that rainy day fund should be put back in because it is our money to use for things like maintenance. if we have a hole in the means department, we could use that funding to fill that.

-- maintenance department, we could use that funding to fill that. >> in this budget, we are proposing to fund $2 million a year towards trying to get back in line with the board's reserve policy. we will know at the end of the fiscal year but we have been there. right now, we have $37 million in the balance. we have not been adhering to the boards approved reserve policy. we are attempting in this proposed budget to get ourselves back on track. >> ok. director ramos: thank you.