jri, that $1 million is combined with other jri funding, is that correct? >> is that? do you want to j-- supervisor avalos: how was it funded in the past and how is it different? >> that was redevelopment. >> jri is the jobs readiness initiative. it was previously funded through the development agency at approximately $1 million on an annual basis. we have included $1 million in funding going forward for those services which are early job readiness services. supervisor avalos: where are those programs focused? what part of san francisco? >> the existing initiative is primarily focused in the areas

the redevelopment agency was working. the focus is primarily south of market as well as in the bay view-hunters point area. we have asked the department, as we're taking on responsibility with these funds, to consider how these funds were together with general fund dollars -- work together with general fund dollars and determine how those to support a broader base of neighborhood and district services. supervisor avalos: in the past, these funds were used for residents of specific neighborhoods to access services around burial removal? with a survey in people city- wide -- were they surveying people city-wide. it marks there were more serving the neighbors of the redevelopment areas. supervisor avalos: we're now looking at serving citywide, probably with a focus on those

neighborhoods. >> the priority is not to have about ends to programs that are important in those neighborhoods. this allows us the ability to work city-wide and leverage of the dollar's to expand the jri program. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim. >> i also appreciate the overview. you have $10.8 million in general fund allocation. i have that there is $0 11.3 million increase in general fund request from last year. 153% increase, the second- largest increase forgot after the city planning department. to give some relativity, the

third largest was from rec and park at 29%. there is a large increase. i know a lot of it has to do with the mayor's 17-point plan. i am curious about what is not included in the $10.8 million of the $11.3. >> some of that is things we agree to as cuts. supervisor kim: increases in personnel? >> i am the chief financial officer for oewd. it is attributed to personal adjustments from year to year. supervisor kim: that accounts for the $500,000. last week, it it said -- i was not sure if this was in the past today years or the next even years, that you are dedicating $7 million to the market partnership and the third street

corridor. is that for the following two years or is this for the previous two years? >> that was for the previous two years. supervisor kim: i was going to ask how that broke down in this summary. >> in the second sheet i prepared which is a breakdown of how general fund and non-general fund money would be spent, the improved blighted areas is really directly dollars that would go to central market and a view as grants. that is not the only money going. they will also be included in invest in neighborhoods and the overall strategy. that is a pot of money that will be dedicated for next year. supervisor kim: 1 more clarification question. i noticed in your budget for professional services that it has been growing substantially. there was an increase from $1 million to $11 million over two

this will cycles. are these redevelopment functions? rather of the reasons for the large increase? >> i think a fair amount of that was america's cup. >a large percentage is reimbursd by developers. i do not want to speak incorrectly about that. yes, it is america's cup. supervisor kim: that was america's cup. i think i was a little confused about the difference between the job squad and invest in our neighborhood. you feel like they're going to be focused on specific corridors? >> they will be point of contact for the totality of what a particular neighborhood or corridor needs. the job squad will be full-time outreach workers that will be going across the city on a regular basis talking to businesses that cannot come to a

small business commission meeting or to the office. they will be working like case manager's understanding what businesses need by talking to them. they will be first line connectors to small businesses. supervisor kim: and get the difference, but i am not understand why both. i think that fulfill the same need. i understand one is more external and one is more internal. it is still hard for me to understand why one cannot do both. >> the invest in neighborhood managers are almost like project managers. as projects develop, whether it is streetscape or wanting to oversee the aside improvements of eight different businesses

happening within three months, the invest in neighborhoods team would be shepherding all of that. the job squad folks would be those that spot problems and make sure the responding department gets out and cleans this vacant lot or that dpt paints a green zone they have promised to pay. it is more tactical and small- scale. supervisor kim: ok, thank you. supervisor chu: supervisor cohen. >> i appreciate the initiative you are assuming by stepping up and playing a significant role in recorders. i am grateful for that, particularly in the absence of the redevelopment agency. i want to make sure i am seeing and reading these numbers correctly. the mayor is currently funding

-- the mayor's budget is funding for the continuation of contracts through the end of this calendar year. an additional $800,000 for fiscal year 2013-2014? >> yes, that is right. supervisor cohen: i want to echo the concerns we heard on friday during public comment about the six-month funding gap between the end of the calendar year and the additional funding opportunities available for the next fiscal year. in particular, for smaller organizations. just wanted to share those thoughts with you. >> it is definitely something we have been hearing from our partners, that we are relying on redevelopment funds. it is an issue with the funding cycle. we're looking to other funding sources to try on a smaller

scale. >> just to add one clarifying point, a supervisor. i believe there is not a funding gap in terms of the dollars available. there is $1 million available in the budget. i think she is referring to the timing of the rfp cycles. we will work with the department to make sure there is not a gap in funding. supervisor cohen: thank you for clarifying. supervisor chu: in terms of the full year, there is $1 million placed in the budget for jri funding. in the redevelopment budget, the results of $1 million funding for the full year. >> correct. supervisor chu: the rfp issue is that now the city is taking on responsibility for administering these contracts,

we as the city have to reissue an rfp to figure out who the vendors are that will be providing the service. >> correct. supervisor kim: -- supervisor cohen: understand you said this is just for one year. have there been any thoughts on what will happen next year for jri funding? >> there is $1 million of funding in the first year of the budget. there's $800,000 in the second year. we have asked the director of work-force development to take those funds and look at those in conjunction with the larger portfolio of jobs readiness funding we have on the city side which is general fund dollars as well as federal dollars. to make sure all of those are being used in the most effective

way possible. the larger question that has been coming up is a question about the timing of rfp's and making sure there is not a gap in services. there is funding in the second year. the city will need to conduct a competitive process for those funds. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you. i raised this last week and am raising it again. this budget has significant increases for the revolving loan fund, the job squad, other economic development programs. i am supportive of all of those things. i wanted to emphasize my continuing disappointment that the promised night life and

entertainment position was downgraded to a halftime position. i think it is a difference between $48,000.9 and $96,000. i wanted to express my disappointment that in the 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.