is the microphone working? to go in district 4 and 8, i wanted to focus on pedestrian safety. i was watching a program by the district attorney where he mentioned a number of cases, and we need the number of pedestrian cases since we're where he dealing with funding and improvement to be mentioned on the web site. the district attorney was saying that in one case an elderly man was killed. we have seen many cases all over the city, and i would like to know on an average, the people

get killed every month and how many people are killed every year, so while we take some districts at a time, like today we're taking district 4 and 8 , and if you were paying attention, the representative from district 4 said this does not belong to district 4. they have no idea about the boundaries. since i am talking about the boundaries, we changed the boundaries of recently, and did you do not live in the city, you will just get a paycheck hear it in the city. it is good for you to study the boundaries so you will talk

about the other districts to know exactly what we're talking, and to focus on changes and improvements, but they have to be factual. again, i want to stress, we need to know the numbers of people killed. pedestrians killed by is bicyclist. , because, right now we do not have a mechanism where bicyclist are licensed and maybe some of them have to get orientation like a driver's license and how to ride a bike, because some people use them as a tool, and some people have used them as a tool to kill innocent constituents. we need some reports of that. thank you very much. >> members, directors of san francisco and the government, i am not sure who this is directed

at, because it was done in so fast of a fashion, i could not understand what was happening. somebody is a citizen and they actually want to pay attention to government and listening on sfgtv or sitting in audience having someone go through it really does not help. i look at this and say we have flagged projects that are at risk or have sound and -- shown indications that it may, at risk for missing timely deadlines or have delivery issues that could result in some of it scope, schedule, cost or funding changes. i heard nothing about what projects were behind, how far they were behind, what was being done to catch up, what needed to be done to catch up, when the deadlines were, what the cost would be if we did not meet the deadlines or any of the information that i would think would show up in this.

we discover a brief overview. we of this project of this project, and a few not very salient facts, and it really does not address much of what is in this article. if you are going to be meaningful about this, there is no reason to do anything when you consider most of you do not pay attention to whether people are speaking, and if this event is intended for the public to get information, it falls way short. i know it is the city hall family, and you want to do -- you want to talk to folks to talk to all the time, and they know what the abbreviations are, and they know what all of this is, but i think the intention is to some degree to let the members of the public that are paying for all of this is some understanding -- is some understanding of what we're talking about.

are we talking about something that is millions behind in months behind in millions in danger of being lost or something that is a little behind, but we a been making progress? i did not hear any of that. and i was a project manager for years, and it is one -- if one of my subordinates came in and give me a bunch of stuff like this, i would say what i've i supposed to do with that? i cannot make any decisions. from what you told me, i got a lot of verbiage, and i have no idea how far things are behind or what, so we need to meet in my office and have a real long discussion about what these reports are supposed to do. supervisor campos: 6 speaker, please. did you could please call item no. 11. -- next speaker, please.

any member of the public that would like to speak a number 11? seeing none, public comment is closed. an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item that is not of the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the san francisco county transportation authority. >> ray hearts, director of san francisco open government. >> i kno you sii know you listed think this guy is a real pain in the back none, heside. you know if the same person had gone up and said i think what you said is bull shit, they would have a share call them out. the reality is that like it or not, as citizens of this country, those flags of there's a self, get to make comments

whether you like the comments or not. there is a real attitude among the boards, committees, all of them that they really, because the volunteer the time, do not to listen to these people, and that is not the truth. i am looking forward to july 4 when the board of supervisors -- july, whenever the next meeting is before the july 4 holiday, and i want to hear all of this that we support the constitution, flag, and then watch procedurally as there is a concerted effort to deny people an opportunity to actively heard dissipate. i really do think every board and commission in taking the oath, the members really taken the oath to encourage public

comment. there really i come here and make the comments is not because i want to be an a-hole, it is because i took an oath when i joined the united states navy to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. when i watch elected officials take the attitude that they can be disrespectful to members of the public that come here to speak, where they can ignore people, and they can do it with such blatant disregard, to the oath they took to support and defend the constitution, whenever anybody individual or individuals -- individual or citizen of the city has a right to come talk to you about anything they feel you need to hear. maybe if you did not talk so

much yourself, you would not be so worried about the time constraints and constantly looking for ways to cut back on what the citizens are allowed to say. trying to find these roles and things, which violate the constitution by saying that is electioneering or you cannot say that, that is this, you cannot say that. in the bottom line is if you are right, this will commit to time, and if you are love -- wrong, they lost the right to speak. commissioner compost: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is jackie sex. at the last plans and programs committee meeting last week, one of them was brought up that i think all of you should take into consideration for the brt

project is in consideration. one thing you have to remember is there were two rail projects in 1989. one was supposed to meet up with the other one. i was on the transit task force, and one thing you should do before the next planned programs meeting and the next full-board meeting where you take the subject into consideration, all of you should do your homework. one is the final report that was published back in 1989, who has since retired above the kiri light rail project. also-- about the geary light rail project. you should read the project in 1995. also, the srtp that same time,

it was quoted as the only way to alleviate traffic congestion. this is what the people of the city wanted back in 1989, and you should look into those three documents, and do your homework before you take any action on that one subject next month. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i just want to talk on one issue. some time ago we all agreed that it their projects regarding pedestrian crossing, that we would get a list -- we all agree that if there were projects regarding pedestrian crossing, that we would get a list and

make it easier. i would like to see list of those projects. how are they lined up? because some of you from the san francisco county transportation agency said we may not have the money now, but we will have the money in the future. we cannot take the risk of having our elders and children die of this crosswalks. some of us do have the ability to use some pressure directly, and get a crosswalk painted. ordinary citizens. but you folks, if you just go on van ness, you will see despicable conditions of the sidewalks are not painted. i want you to pay attention to

that. the other thing is i think it will serve the nation -- i think if you serve the nation, you get a sense of decency and standards. i see some of the supervisors have decided just to take a hike. that is fine. go take a hike. as some of us have been saying, come election time, we can make some of your -- some of you take a hike forever, we do not really have to go there. i have been watching some of the deliberations, and some of the representatives all they think is to get into some political situation, putting political power so they can bring in the

moneys. others are not. it is all over the nation starting with the lobbyist. now we try to play the republicans. -- now we tried to blame the republicans. we have a few corrupt democrats right on the top. we have one woman who has written $42 million. politicians must servelearn to serve tehe people, not bring in the millions. >> item 13, adjournment. commissioner campos: meeting adjourned. thank you very muc

supervisor chu: good morning and

welcome to the budget and finance committee. mr. young, do you have any announcements today? >> please silence all assault on an electronic devices. copies as a part of the filing should be submitted to the clerk. supervisor chu: please call all the items on the agenda. >> item 1. proposed budget and annual appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and all estimated expenditures for departments of the city and county of san francisco as of may 31, 2012, for the fys ending june 30, 2013, and june 30, 2014. item 2. annual salary ordinance enumerating positions in the

annual budget and appropriation ordinance for the fys ending june 30, 2013, and june 30, 2014, continuing, creating or establishing these positions; enumerating and including therein all positions created by charter or state law for which compensations are paid from city and county funds and appropriated in the annual appropriation ordinance; authorizing appointments or continuation of appointments thereto; specifying and fixing the compensations and work schedules thereof; and authorizing appointments to temporary positions and fixing compensations therefore. item 3. proposed budget and annual appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and all estimated expenditures for selected departments of the city and county of san francisco as of may 1, 2012, for the fys ending june 30, 2013, and june 30, 2014. item 4. proposed annual salary ordinance enumerating positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance for selected departments of the city and county of san francisco for the fys ending june 30, 2013, and june 30, 2014. supervisor chu: thank you for colon all those items. just a quick question to the city attorney. on the items that we have today, items one and two comprise of the aso for general fund apartments, as well as the general enterprise department. items three and four were

carried over from our may deliberations. these are primarily for the enterprise departments. do we technically have to merge them? >> it is up to the comptroller what they need in terms of the documents. >> members of the committee, controller's office. it is up to the committee. usually, the committee merges at the end, but you can do it now. supervisor chu: thank you. we took comment on the entirety of the budget and with the public comment on the enterprise department budget. do we have a motion to merge items 3 and 4 into items 1 and 2? we have that motion and can do so without objection. now we have one aao and one aso

for the department's budget. we will be hearing from a number of departments this week. today, we are following up with regards to some of the outstanding issues recommended by the budget analyst. so we have most of the departments coming back today. in addition, we also have a brief update from the mta about their budget. if you recall, when they came forward, there were some changes from labor negotiations, among other things, and they wanted to fall back up with the committee on. they will be doing a presentation for us today. city planning department will be called out of order as well as the treasury tax collector, because of conflicts in their schedule. >> john ram, planning department. i do have a board meeting at 11:00 as well that i need to attend.

in summary, during the past week, we have been working closely with the budget analysts office. at this point, we are in concurrence with four of their seven propose recommendations. we have agreed to $221,000 in cuts in the our disagreement on three positions, which for the next fiscal year, would total about $250,000. i want to remind the committee, while our budget appears to have increased on paper about $5 million, in fact, $2.3 million of that is incorrectly in our budget and will be transferred over to the rec and parks department. $2 million of that is one time allocations. and of course, $1.5 million is due to the increase of the replacement of the furlough time. if you remove the one time allocation from the calculation, of the cuts would represent a 40% reduction to our proposed

base operating fund -- 14% reduction in our proposed base operating fund. a year over year fte growth is only 1.7 positions, so it is not as big an increase as one would think when first looking at the numbers. to be more specific on where we are in agreement, we agree that on the one-month delay for the harvard of the bar mental and citywide planners for the proposed arena, which is recommendation that analyst has made. we're in agreement about the reduction of temporary salaries and the reduction to annualized professional services, which it was done at the last recommendation of the budget analyst report. to be more specific and where we are not in agreement, the recommendations -- there are three position that we are proposing that we think are justified, given the workload of the department, and as we have seen, trends in the past couple of years. one is for legislative affairs.

the planning code has been amended over 54 times in the past year, which is a substantial increase from the year before. we are seeing a substantial increase each year. that does not include the increase in the number of appeals, which are also increasing the amount of staff time which must be spent on legislative affairs. we have been trying to work at a number proactive pieces of legislation, such as the restaurant legislation, air quality ceqa legislation, and we are moving a lot of other legislation forward. we feel the legislative function is undertaking an exponential increase. it apart and it's also in disagreement on the cuts with the planner of's position and the commission office. as you know, we staff two commissions. the planning commission is only one of two that meets every

week. the commission secretary supports essentially six meetings a month. that is an unusually high workload compared to other commission secretaries. our current secretary, who has been with the city over 30 years, will soon be retiring. the committees have decided to select one person rather than two to fill that function. they each have the right to select their own as charter commission's. we are proposing a high-level support position for that secretary position. what we want to do in the second year of this budget is maintain the three positions for the commission support, but for the coming fiscal year, we are proposing an additional position to give a high level of support to provide that high-level transition, but in the following year, we would reduce it to 3 fte, in a reduced structure. three positions now, 3 positions in the second year of the budget, but next year, we are

budgeting for it before your positions to allow for high- level support to the secretary. finally, the other place we are in disagreement is with the environmental planners. the mayor's budget included two in are the planners that would be funded through general fund to work on public projects, where we have a dearth of support in the department. we're in agreement on one of those positions that would move forward, but i think it is important to recognize that we have had a multi-year structural problem with the environmental review function of the department. it causes delays and frustrations for city agencies, in particular, and we believe that this position is desperately needed to make sure we keep up with that workload and not have a backlog as we are now starting to experience again because of the increase in the economy. i would respectfully ask that you consider our request for these three positions.

it represents about a $250,000 increase over what the budget analyst is proposing. that concludes my presentation. i am happy to take any questions. supervisor chu: with regards to your commission reorganization, could you explain that a little bit more? you talked about how in your current staffing some areas you have three individuals that stack your commissions. the plan is in your two, it would also be three positions. terms of the position you are asking for at the moment, that is to support the transition? >> to support the transition and ultimately -- currently we have a high level secretary position. we are proposing that be the second year, that that be substituted down. in addition to that, we have two clerical positions. instead of a high-level position and two secretaries, a

level as secretary and then a higher level position to support the commission secretary. ultimately, we do not believe we would need two clerical staff if we had that middle level position. in the long run, it would be the backup at the commission secretary needs. right now, we do not have a backup in that function. we do not have a high level backup. ultimately, yes, it would be three positions. it would jump to four next year, and then go back to 3. supervisor chu: the way that it jumps from four to three, would there be reassigned or attrition? >> we would reassign in year

two. supervisor cohen: i have a question, point of clarification. the position you're advocating for, are they all administrative clerical? >> a three we are talking about our planner positions. >> that is good. wei wanted to stress the planner working on a wonderful future of visitation valley. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i tried to get a grasp on something that you said. you spoke rather quickly. the state department's ask for the largest increase in the general fund. 162%, which is a drastic increase. roughly of the $5 million in additional -- in general fund

support that you are getting, $2 million of this is roughly -- >> $2.3 million actually should be in the rec and parks department. to do the 17th and folsom park, the puc property we have been working on. supervisor kim: i know the project well, but what will rec and park be doing? >> it is actually capital dollars. will go to build parks. supervisor kim: the impact will flow through the planning department. then the eir, the permanent project tracking system. for the warriors, i understand that would also be paid through fees, not to the general fund. ok, so that is not coming through the general fund. for the three planners, there is one -- two for the warriors?

>> yes. supervisor kim: 1 more for the preservation, and the other for the rec and parks. you have agreed for rec and park planners starting in the third quarter? that was one of the recommendation by harvey? are you anticipating that, too? >> the agreement is two positions would start in october. supervisor kim: i have the two warriors planners starting in august, which you are in agreement with. maybe i misunderstand this. i have two other planners. one is for the first phase of the historic preservation element. two planner that work on the rec and park project and the first phase of the historic preservation element. >>