budget where we are expanding these important programs that we could not find $48,000 or whatever to have a full-time position to work on economic development in an industry that contributes conservatively $4.2 billion a year to the san francisco economy. i just wanted to register that again. it was quite a surprise for me in the budget. >> there is no question the night and industry contributes massively to the overall economy. we're wanting to be sure we could utilize that position well. there is a great deal of opposition can do. i hear your concerns. supervisor wiener: was that decision made on a policy basis? the department did not think you could find enough work for a full-time position? or was it a budget decisions in

terms of needing to save $48,000? >> i think it was in contrast to other initiatives we have started that have partners that are readily identifiable in the non-profit sector or a body of work we know someone can dive right into. i think it was not a policy decision meant to negate the impact of the industry. i think it was in starting from scratch and wanting to develop something that was thoughtful in its scope. i hear what you are saying. supervisor wiener: this is a compliment to oewd. when they are focused, great things can happen in terms of running interference with

various departments and permitting. you have a very effective department. we are so behind in terms of saving our nighttime industry and street fairs in san francisco. we're losing ground. we are seeing a lot of planning processes and other projects moving forward that are not taking my life and entertainment into account. it is a side thought or afterthought. having someone who was full time devoted to this $4.2 billion industry sends a strong message and will allow us to make sure my life and entertainment are at the table and we do not continue to lose ground. -- nightlife and entertainment are at the table and we do not continue to lose ground. i think there is more than enough work for one person. supervisor chu: thank you,

supervisor. we have discussed a number of different pieces to the department budget. it is my understanding the department is in agreement on the closeouts and recommendations. the area where the department difference is on the policy recommendations regarding the revolving loan fund. can we have a motion to except the budget analyst's recommendations? we can do that without objection? to the revolving loan fund, any thoughts? supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: i would like to follow the recommendations on the revolving loan fund. i feel we made the allocation earlier this year. not all the funds have been spent. i do think if there is an additional need at a later time, we can look at a supplemental. we did that in the current year.

we're doing that -- doing that next year might be a way of doing that for the city's commitment to the demand. there are huge amounts of support we're giving the commercial corridors and small- business. i think the greatest effort should be placed on how we're programming the existing funds we're setting in motion. i am not clear to what extent these programs are going to serve district 11 and other places in greater need for compensatory investment that do not necessarily happen in these parts of san francisco. my motion would be that we accept the budget analyst recommendation on the policy recommendation for the revolving loan fund. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim.

i did get the fund balance as of march 27. it was $520,000. even with the loans earmarked, $1.5 million given to the revolving loan fund. i feel comfortable supporting supervisor avalos' motion. i understand there are multiple tiered loan programs and appreciate the diversity. i would rather we start slightly slower in our first year disbursing these loans. after we see the outcome, including the diversity of which corridors and they land in and the success and ability of us to be to allocate these loans in a timely matter -- manner, then we evaluate to see if we want to increase the loan fund even more the following year or

through a supplemental appropriation this year. i do appreciate this program. i am a huge supporter. i personally went out and did our reach for the revolving loan fund. our small business owners are excited about it. i do think we should be more measured in our first year of this program, understanding the resorted $509,000 in revolving loan fund prior to our $1 million allocation. supervisor chu: thank you. a quick question on this item. i know there is a desire to say we have a certain fund balance. from my understanding, the $2 million are going to be allocated to different programmatic areas.

in respect of of the balance involved with the revolving loan fund, these are strategies aimed at different parts of the portfolio, correct. >> that is correct. the small business revolving loan fund has set parameters with varying interest rates. it is a set program. we are proposing to create funds for businesses that need large amounts of money but to also fund the ss shines program. it has only been in a couple of neighborhoods. without these funds being dedicated towards sf shines, we will not have improvement moneys. it is not clear where that money would come from. we have heard over the last 18 months an extraordinary high

level of concern around ada compliance for businesses that often targeted for ada compliance through litigious folks. to be able to have ada assessments for businesses looking at moving into new storefronts and be able to do what is often relatively modest but for a new business can be daunting, $7 million worth of improvements, we think it would be an incredible enhancement for small businesses. that is what we're also talking about using some of this money for. supervisor chu: i know supervisor avalos has made a motion to except or take the policy recommendation. it sounds like we have a second from supervisor kim. that motion is on the floor. in terms of the motion, i do not

want us to get into the practice of saying we do not want to take care of something and will come back and get a supplemental if we support it at this moment. i prefer we take time in the next few days to hear whether we think we will be able to utilize and spend this money down before we take action. that would be my preference on the item. i will be voting against that motion. i wanted to speak to that. having taken a look at where our revolving loan fund size is and how fast we're able to ramp up on that item, it is a good question as to whether or not we will be able to spend $1 million of the $2 million. one of those is just the loan- loss reserve. that is not going out the door. it would behoove us to see if we can spend that in year one. supervisor kim: i wanted to vehemently disagree with emotion

on the floor. i disagreed with the strategy to slowly dispersed the money. i heard from merchants in the southeast neighborhoods that is not what they do need. they need us to continue to be supportive. from my accounting, i would imagine there are merchants in the entire southern part of the waterfront and southwestern part of the city that could benefit from these extra dollars available in this tight credit market. i have businesses teetering on the brink of destruction that could really use the infrastructure support. i implore you to reconsider your position. there is an unbelievably pronounced need for these

dollars to be spent. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim. supervisor kim: for me, in terms of how the money gets allocated, if we do not approve the $1 million $500,000 can still go forward. what i have in front of me is we have $1 million in that fund. there's 509,000 such remaining and another $500,000 allocated with the other $500,000 on reserve, there is $1 million in that year where $300,000 may have been allocated. that still leaves a lot of room for many programs to go forward. as we look to see success in the questions others had as to how the out reached plays out, we will be able to evaluate the

program next year as we look towards increasing the program further in fiscal year 2013- 2014. i think moving forward quickly now, i feel uncomfortable with it. we are balancing a ton of different priorities. small businesses are clearly one of our city's priorities. we have a ton of other priorities we're trying to balance in this budget cycle. i would love to support everything coming before us. that would be my ideal scenario so i could say i supported health and human services and small-business. the reality is we have a limit to how much we can support every priority for the city. on the balance of things, given the myriad of things already in this budget and also considering the payroll tax inclusion i believe will pass that will provide relief to small businesses in this year's budget

cycle, i would support supervisor avalos' motion. supervisor chu: supervisor winer. supervisor wiener: i understand the motion and am not critical of it. in some respects, i am sympathetic to it. i think supervisor kim is right. we're bouncing a lot of different things. -- we are balancing a lot of different things. i believe this program is a very good one. i know a number of businesses i am familiar with have been able to take advantage of the funds are not paying payroll tax. some are businesses underneath the $250,000 threshold. if we go to a gross receipts tax model, there will be plenty of

small businesses that will be underneath the $1 million in gross receipts. i do understand the motion. on balance, i will be voting against this motion. i do think over the next few days, perhaps there will be some further conversations to see if we can reach some sort of accommodation on this. but i am not prepared -- i am not going to support this motion. supervisor chu: supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: i want to thank supervisor at kim for her comments. that is why i made this motion. i think we need to do everything we can to support small businesses in san francisco. i have been very supportive of the work this administration has been doing. but we do have to balance it with other needs that exist.

in my district, we have $0 that go for workforce development. for decades, that has been the situation. we have to look at how we need to respond to needs emerging in other parts of our economy and how we serve everyone in our economy. that is one thing i am looking at in terms of my priorities. i also feel we have had a thorough discussion about the revolving loan fund. there was going to be an emphasis on the fund serving neighborhoods that typically have not been getting a lot of the relief we need to provide in terms of facade improvements and business support. my district in particular has not received a very large amount of that funding. we have seen with the funding has been focused. it has been able to do dramatic impacts to commercial corridors

working with community residents. maybe it is time to move it to other parts of san francisco that do not receive that support. do we need to provide funding throughout the city or focus on areas to compensate where it has not happened in the past? that is why i made the motion. i think it is important we look at how we can assure we can have many priorities go forward in the budget. this is the time to make that decision right now. i am willing to make it. i appreciate the support. i would urge my colleagues to build that flexibility into our programs so we can meet other emerging needs in our communities. supervisor chu: thank you. there is a motion on the floor. to the motion, roll call? >> supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: aye.

supervisor cohen: no. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor chu: no. the motion fails. supervisor chu: thank you, colleagues. why don't we return to this item. i know it will be outstanding. let's continue to have conversations about the revolving loan fund. thank you. dbi. >> good morning. i am the director of dbi.

i am pleased to present the fact we have worked with the budget analyst's office and come to an agreement on all of our terms of the proposed cuts to our budget, including the reserve for the positions. supervisor chu: from my understanding, the department is in agreement with the recommendation. is there anything you would add? >> no, i have nothing to add. supervisor chu: colleagues, any questions for dbi? why don't we take the recommendations? we have a motion. we can do that without objection. thank you. to the assessor's office.

>> good morning. i also want to report that i am the chief administrative officer of the recorder's office. i would like to also report we are in agreement with the budget analyst. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rhoads, is there anything to add? >> no, there is not. supervisor chu: we will accept without objection. we have touched upon the treasury and tax collectors budget. let's go to the controller's office. >> i would like to thank the office for the work of the budget. we are also in agreement with the proposed reductions. supervisor chu: anything to add? >> no. supervisor chu: do we have a motion to except the budget analyst's recommendations and

close out? we have the motion. we will do that without objection. >> i believe we have come to tagreement as well. supervisor chu: any other comments? >> no additional comments. supervisor chu: do we have a motion to accept the recommendation for general city responsibility? we can do that without objection. now to the city attorney. why don't we go to admin services? the department of technology? maybe not. dpw? ethics commission? why don't we take a break of five minutes.

please ask your departments to be here. that would be great. i think there is interest for the committee to go on break. i think these will be quick items. the mayor's office, do you know if your department heads are able to come quickly? >> i will call them right now. i think they are all in the building. supervisor chu: ok. i know we will run through these last five departments quickly. rather than break for lunch, let's see if they can get here quickly.

supervisor kim: in order to allow the apartments to be here. here's our city attorney, mr. mr. herrera. >> thank you. i imagine that the budget analyst put forth there recommendation? >>supervisor kim: we ask for recommendations and then we get the budget analyst response. >> thank you. we will have discussion and answer some question from last week and get clarification, particularly as it relates to supervisor cohen and supervisor kim.

i want to follow-up on things they focused on. as you know, we did not agree with the budget analyst recommendations. we have been working on cuts that will allow my office to meet our core mission, and we came up with approximately $250,000 in cuts would to see reflected in the report. we disagree with the budget analyst policy recommendation. a bit like to focus on -- we were differing over essentially two decisions. the number we agree with reflects money that we found over the course of the last week in an effort to bridge a

gap. unfortunately, we find in this report is on top of that $220,000 number we came up with, and the policy recommendation, assuming there's still a recommendation, the concern is we not be granted that one legal assistant position. first, supervisors cohen and kim were interested in the code enforcement process. is a revenue-generating -- it is a revenue-generating mechanism. there are a variety of city agencies that are charged with enforcement of municipal code governing. last week, we had discussion

with respect to the department of building inspection. i want to make clear this is a citywide responsibility. we worked very hard with public health, planning, and police. last week, much discussion took place, and only after the client agency completed the administrative process did they turn to the office for enforcement and possible litigation. once it has completed the process, there is no further remedy for the agency. once there has been a referral to the city attorney's office, the client bills for services and will generally investigate

the underlying allegations and appropriate mitigation. some matters may resolve short of litigation. i would like to say over the course of the last five years, this has been an incredibly important program for generating city revenue, while reflecting the policy priority of the board of supervisors to make sure that we are reaching out on behalf of the citizens of the city of san francisco. more specifically, in the period of 2007 to 2012, the city attorney's office has negotiated judgments of parts of $12 million. the amounts collected on those judgments is approximately $8 million. the cost of litigating is $4

million. so, it was a worthwhile investment on behalf of the residents of the city and county of san francisco and we are happy with our efforts. the code enforcement program generates revenue consistent with future code enforcement efforts. however, money must be invested in the investigations and cases must be referred to the city attorney's office upon the exhaustion of administrative remedies. from our perspective, what we find is municipal codes are not enforced and send a message that the city tolerates public nuisances. is our opinion that we send the message loud and clear that we except the residents will do whatever they can to make sure they are not creating public nuisances in there -- in their

respective neighborhoods. we are trying to expand our code out reach efforts. it is vital to code enforcement that the residents of the city and county understand how to report potential code violations and understand how enforcement is carried out by the city. that is why we tried to establish various forms of out reach, which we think have been incredibly helpful. for example, we have a city attorney hot line. we have community meetings attended by the city attorney for the deputy city attorney. we have created a new application -- up to code app -- which will soon be available to the public. is a brand new smart phone application that will make it easier for the citizens of san francisco to code -- to track

code violations in the city. madam chair, you had some questions with respect to internships. you asked about work opportunities for youth. i told you last week the vast majority of opportunities in our office are four law students. that is in fact true. i do want to expand a little bit because i know it is of interest to your. of program does include undergraduate students and high school students and our law student volunteers received work study credits. we are working with political science and public policy programs, most specifically at the university of san francisco, and we have heard -- we have three or four graduates every year. we