reductions. harvey articulated they are not exactly the same as what is in the report. can we tentatively take that pending public comment? we will do that without objection. supervisor avalos: i did have a couple of other questions and they are really high level and slightly touched upon during the presentation. in particular, how what does the budget reflects the goals of the projects in san francisco? the next is on urban agriculture and what way the department is moving into that. there also questions about the transfer agreement between the puc and the modesto district as

well. >> we originally started the program with about $5 million and net dropped to $3 million. the budget shows $2 million a year for the next few years. we have been cutting everything, including energy efficiency programs and this reflects the lack of money in the budget because we need to make sure the infrastructure has to be kept up to speed and we just don't have that much money. in this current year, we were doing well until the middle of the year and there were folks who figured out a great way to have a small solar program with our subsidy. it became a free installation. it was not deleveraging we were hoping to get. we have been talking about how to stretch the $2 million as much as we can by making sure we are leveraging the money appropriately and having it available for all parts of the

community. you may hear from others that whatever we can do during the next year to figure out how to leverage it to make sure the program continues to grow. what you have now is we have dropped energy efficiency. we hope to make sure it is a productive program with whatever amount of money we have. on urban agriculture, i think there are opportunities to stretch dollars and there is discussion for the housing trust fund and i have been advocating for that for distressed homeowners and i see that geared toward a lot of households where we have single-family homes that could combine and be able to

stretch our dollars and it served a more diverse economic community. >> when we can leverage the money to make something happen, that's the best use of our money. on urban agriculture, we have selected two pilot projects. we are working with the school district to make it an education program. they have given us estimates about how much it might cost to make that happen. we are looking at a project and have been getting different ideas where we are trying to collect all of those thoughts into one place and make sure we don't have all these pilots wandering the streets. we want to make sure they are comfortable with how we are doing it in terms of how the water is being used.

we expect to be expanding that in the next year or two. >> to talk about looking at parks in the district and 11 area? lots of parts that could be activated in ways that could be beneficial in making sure we actually have economic activity where is happening. the last item was the modesto irrigation district transfer. when we did the impact report, we said we would be short about 2 million gallons a day over the next 50 to 100 years. the discussion was that every year is different. you never get one year that is average, but that is over the length of the entire project.

how do you have enough water to never make customers ration more than 20%? we came up with that number because when you have that, you really have economic hardship. we came up with the number and since then, working with fish and game and others, we have had to agree to let more water out of both crystal springs at them and alameda creek to the tune of about 9 million gallons more a day. the water we thought we had we will now have less of because 3.5 million gallons a day will be going down the creek. we had been looking to try to figure out how to get the $2

million and we are now short the additional nine or 12 million gallons a day. it's not a problem when there is lots of rain but it is a problem when you have for years of drought. we have been talking to the modesto irrigation district. modesto and turlock take about half the water of the river. san francisco's share is about 15%. we are a much lower user of the water. it allows us to take more in good years. we can't just take it all the time, we have to take it when there is excess. if we paid them to do things that would use water better and save water over time, what day be able to give us some of the

water they were able to save? there are always concerns about water and when they see so much of their livelihood is based on the need for water. on the other hand, if you look at water issues in california, you need to figure out ways of having large urban areas willing to pay for water work with agricultural areas that don't have that much money so they can use water better this is a great pilot to do that. it is an insurance policy. in most years, we would not use the water. when we did the program, we

talked about the usage. many people point out we are not using that today. when we talk about things in that the water world, we are looking at the next 50 years, the next 100 years. if we're going to continue to serve customers, we need to always be looking forward. we are contractually obligated to have 255 million gallons a day. we cannot meet those obligations without looking for other ways to get water. to give you an idea of what it is worth, we are willing to pay modesto about $700 per acre foot of water. the currently charge their farmers about $10 an acre foot. doing things like the recycling project is upward of $4,000 an acre foot.

it is incredibly important to have access to different ways of having water that are relatively reasonably priced where they are incredibly prices for agricultural districts that allow them to be the kinds of things to upgrade their use of water. >> and this will be finalized by? >> it was supposed to be in front of them, but they have been having a lot of questions in the valley and have postponed their discussions. >> in our budget deliberations today, how does that discussion reflect what we're doing? >> your budget includes the amount of money we would pay, about $1.6 million for the first to thousand acre feet. the larger discussion we want to have is an additional 23,000

feet that would require a major environmental report. first one was covered in the report for the water system improvement program. if we can't get back, there is no reason to continue to work and spend money on the larger discussion so we are hearing from all the people right now about whether they like this or not but there is money for the first year's purchase. supervisor chu: thank you. we have no other questions, i would like to move on to the next department. >> there are two clarifications for item #5. the water legislation, on page 8, row 11, the citation of $18

million should be eight team -- the other non substantive amendment is on item six, the head ceci supplemental -- the hetch hetchy clarification, to add to the bond oversight cost. again, are heightened level of scrutiny is covered and funded in the items before you. supervisor chu: thank you. there are no further questions, we have tentatively taken the recommendations the apartment did the crew -- the department did the -- the department did agree with. i will take additional access -- additional questions after public comment. i believe we will not need the puc to come back and we will

follow-up on urban agriculture and other things we have asked about. i know there are a number of people who might be here to testify on the rates or the parking meters as well as the irrigation district transfer. we will likely be taking half an hour break at noon and we will do the department of environment presentation, and come back half an hour at 12:30 and that do public comment after that. it is want to make that announcement in case you would like to take a lunch break.

blue >> good morning. i am the director of the and san francisco department of the environment. thank you for the opportunity to present the 2012-2013 budget as well as the resolution approving the department to move to market street. first, i would like to cover our budget. you will see our proposed budget for 12-13 itemized by general expense. this represents our current budget plus previously approved expenditures. the department of the environment has six major funding sources for its programs and staff. that includes the in pound accounts, anergy watch, recurring grants, one time grants, work orders from other

departments as well as liquor fees. approvals come in two forms that are somewhat unique in this fashion. the annual budget process and the accept an extent approvals for grants outside the usual budget process. compared to the previous year, there's an overall decrease in expenses and revenue of $2.2 million, mostly due to be spent down of the federal stimulus funds we received a couple of years ago. in order to protect the long- term funding, we are looking at what is approved through the accept an extended process.

on $5.27 million has already been approved for the process. the budget will be larger since we continue to apply for and received grants throughout the year. this chart on the screen shows all of the funding for the department. first, the impound account -- this is the first bar chart. it's our largest single source of funds. this comes from refuse rates and have been a stable source of funding for green building, environmental justice, and outreach programs for 25 years. this supports 60.5% of the

current account of 111.9 positions. the second source of funding is energy watch. that's funded by the public goods charge that customers are charged on their monthly bills. it has been a consistent source of on going, reliable funding for energy work for the past 10 years. for the next fiscal year, the grant will total $5.68 million and support 14.6 positions. the next source of funding is for abatement from two sources. $2.5 million from these of cigarettes and $950,000 from other departments. a fourth source of funding is

work orders for other departments. for the past 10 years, we have had agreements for work performed by other departments. we will receive $1.3 million. supervisor kim: can you give an example of what type of work orders you do for others? >> we have a work order with the puc. they fund quite a bit of our client -- quite a bit of our climate work. those are some examples. supervisor kim: 8 green school program you work order to the

puc? >> they spent quite a bit of time doing work in the public schools. of the two other sources of funding, recurring grants -- we have for recurring grants to the transportation authority. we have received grant funding annually for the past 12 years and we received annual grants from a state agency from cal recycle for the past 15 years to go toward our waste work. it supports about 7.46 positions. last is a non-recurring grants, one time grant. every year, the department and applies for and received grants from the state government, federal government, and foundations to support new and existing initiatives.

the total for 12-13 to date is it to quit $1 million we have raised in non-recurring grants. i want to back up to one slide that i skipped over. i wanted to mention -- this is our budget broken down by program area where you will see line items for the zero waste and toxins and many other program areas. our two largest program areas are zero ways and toxics and energy and climate. i'm sorry i skipped over that periot. what i have just outlined supports about 85% of our positions. the one variable source of

funding supports 12.9 positions which represents about 11.5% of our funding. the department does need to raise about $1.5 million annually to support these positions. just to give a sense of the track record, in fiscal 2010- 2011, we raised [unintelligible] and to date, we have raised about $1.8 million in new grants. just this week, we learned our department received a $400,000 federal grant for our brownfield work. i was asked to address creation of jobs and our program areas help small businesses so i want

to spend a moment talking about that. most of the programs not only help small and medium-sized businesses but helped to create jobs. one of the best examples we have is our energy watch program outlined on this slide. over the past three years, the san francisco energy watch program, a program where our auditors work with small businesses to provide free energy audits. once they take action, they are able to save money on their energy bill and reduce carbon emissions. this has saved over 4000 commercial and multifamily properties an average of $4,500 in annual utility bills and reduced carbon emissions by 40,000 tons. this cycle of having programs that benefit jobs and the economy and help our environment does repeat itself multiple times.

for instance, are commercial waste program, 4600 businesses have been visited. businesses are saving 50% on garbage bills which helps the bottom line. as they comply with composting laws, they are able to see a reduction in their garbage bill which helps their bottom line. we have a number of retrofit programs and home improvement programs which help to stimulate the market and put contractors back to work, working in homes and commercial buildings. i was asked to talk about our job training program. we have a program called "environment now." is our green jobs training program. there are currently 18 team members throughout san francisco and our core to the outreach effort.

their activity is extensive. they do monitoring, recycling, composting, knocking on doors to promote energy efficiency, talking with small-business owners of reducing energy use and bills, and tabling at fairs and festivals to educate about the zero waste. as part of this program, they participate in a number of work- force training activities. that includes environmental literacy, which uses the curriculum to teach sustainability, soft and technical skills development with training focus on skills like public speaking, outreach, customer service, data collection and waste and energy auditing. there is also a project-specific training where they learn about the many innovative environmental policies in san francisco and interagency coordination. another critical component is the on the job experience.

they have done work in the residential sector on energy efficiency and zero waste and energy efficiency and toxin reduction. the progress update shows the different cohorts' we have had. we have 60 participants when the program was supported by the federal jobs now fund. in the past couple of years, we have had 18 participants. to date, 50% of graduates are placed in permanent positions elsewhere. one other thing regarding use opportunities, there is staff dedicated to a volunteer program. annually, we employ about 30 internes and engage over 300 volunteers in department programs. most of those are folks under 24.

supervisor cohen: you say 50% of the graduates have jobs. where are they being placed? >> ecology, waste auditing, they're mostly local jobs. supervisor cohen: are any of them in the department of environment? >> we do have to who are in the department of an barman. we just promoted one to a leader who is leading the environment now team. supervisor cohen: what is the criteria that you use to evaluate will be accepted into the program? >> we work with quite a few nonprofits that do the kind of work we do in that community. we have close partnerships with goodwill, the san francisco

conservation corps, we work with a lot of development programs where they have maybe six or eight week program and provide an opportunity for participants to do a two-year stint with us. it's a much longer opportunity. we work with a lot of partners and that's the main way we have been recruiting. >>supervisor cohen: these are paid positions? >> yes. i believe the hourly rate is $14 an hour. supervisor cohen: this is 18-24? >> not all of them, but many of them. supervisor cohen: is there an age limit? >> there is not an age limit. the department of the environment has 30 staff whose primary responsibility is an outreach. 90% of our outreach staff are

bilingual. they speak cantonese, mandarin, spanish and other language fluently. they conduct grass-roots outrage to residents and businesses that are strategic and it focused on environmental behavior change. a key tactic for the program and department is to deploy the multi-lingual staff in business corridors of the highest need throughout san francisco. in addition to bilingual staff, we produce a wide variety of educational material in different languages. all of our commercial programs have an outreach materials and languages other than english. there is one example for our fluorescent lighting program. there are many other examples of materials in other languages. shifting gears, i would like to talk about our lease and why we

are planning to move. you have before you resolution asking the budget and finance committee to approve a lease for the department of environment to move to 1455 market. currently, the department of the environment is located in two spaces -- 11 growth where we have four floors as well as 401 van ness where we have 30 staff. that is a city property. at that location, staff work with no access to the shared drive for the department of environment and have no centralized phone system. being in two locations as you can imagine makes communication and coordination quite difficult and efficient at times. other factors driving our need to move is the lease at 11 growth expires on may 31, next week. real estate has worked us to have a hold over least the -- have a hold over least the -- holdover least through novem