expended ultimately in the future. you have 2 million development for the projects and $41,000 for street light improvement and programs noted on page 12 of our report, that includes 281,000 for fire is you suppression project. supervisors, again we've reviewed these request and recommend that you prove the proposed ordinance. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues you have any questions for mr. rhodes on

items 1 through 5. any public comments? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> before we let item no. 1, do you have any questions for mr. kelly? seeing none. we have items 2 through 5 to act -- on. we have motions on items 2 through 4 together. can we take the amendments for item no. 5. the underlying item no. 5 as amended we can do that as opposition as well. please call item no. 6. >> shall we continue item 1? >> that would be right.

130261 [health code - retroactive increase in patient rates for certain mental health services]1302616.sponsor: mayorordinance amending the health code, section 128, to retroactively increase patient rates charged for certain mental health services. 3/19/13; assigned under 30 day rule to the budget and finance committee.3/26/13; referred to department.4/8/13; response received.page 130261 [health code - retroactive increase in patient rates for certain mental health services]1302616.sponsor: mayorordinance amending the health code, section 128, to retroactively increase patient rates charged for certain mental health services. 3/19/13; assigned under 30 day rule to the budget and finance committee.3/26/13; referred to department.4/8/13; response 130261 [health code - retroactive increase in patient rates for certain mental health services]1302616.sponsor: mayorordinance amending the health code, section 128, to retroactively increase patient rates charged for certain mental health services. 3/19/13; assigned under 30 day rule to the budget and finance committee.3/26/13; referred to department.4/8/13; response received.page >> this item is revising which they reimburse medi-cal mental health services. in the past they were capped at a state maximum allowed reimbursement and recently announced a new rate methodology where they are going to reimburse us at interim rates. the purpose of this rate ordinance is to provide mental health rates to capture the interim higher

rates for this fiscal year. >> thank you very much. any questions. mr. rhodes. >> on page 18 of our report based on the states of the reimbursement rates estimated increased 12-13 revenues shown in table two and on page 19 of our report we note that, again that the i would show that the total revenues would be -- we do recommend that you approve the proposed ordinance. thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to approve. so

moved, we can do that without opposition. please call item no. 7. >> 130185 agenda[appropriating $656,958 of general fund reserve to the public defender for salary expenditures - fy2012-2013]1301857.sponsors: campos; avalos and marordinance appropriating $656,958 from the general fund reserve to the public defender for salary expenditures in fy2012-2013, pursuant to charter section 9.113, this appropriation is subject to a two-thirds affirmative vote of all members of the board of supervisors. fiscal impactt2/27/13; assigned under 30 day rule to the budget and finance committee.3/13/13; assigned to the budget and finance committee.3/27/13; amended, an amendment of the whole bearing new title.3/27/13; recommended as amended.4/2/13; re-referred to the budget and finance committee. >> 130185 agenda[appropriating $656,958 of general fund reserve to the public defender for salary expenditures - fy2012-2013]1301857.sponsors: campos; avalos and marordinance appropriating $656,958 from the general fund reserve to the public defender for salary expenditures in fy2012-2013, pursuant to charter section 9.113, this appropriation is subject to a two-thirds affirmative vote of all members of the board of supervisors. fiscal impactt2/27/13; assigned under 30 day rule to the budget and finance committee.3/13/13; assigned to the budget and finance committee.3/27/13; amended, an amendment of the whole bearing new title.3/27/13; recommended as amended.4/2/13; re-referred to the budget and >> 130185 agenda[appropriating $656,958 of general fund reserve to the public defender for salary expenditures - fy2012-2013]1301857.sponsors: campos; avalos and marordinance appropriating $656,958 from the general fund reserve to the public defender for salary expenditures in fy2012-2013, pursuant to charter section 9.113, this appropriation is subject to a two-thirds affirmative vote of all members of the board of supervisors. nanccommittee.3/13/13; bssig

assigned to the budget and finance committee.3/27/13; amended, an amendment of the whole bearing new title.3/27/13; recommended as amended.4/2/13; re-referred to the budget and finance committee. pursuant to section. >> this is continued from a number of weeks ago. >> good afternoon and thank you for rehearing this supplemental. when we were last here there were a number of concerns raised by the committee concerning not only our supplemental but the budget proposal for next year. and i'm proud to inform you that we worked both with the controller as well as the mayor's office ben rosen field and kate howard to address these issues. the first issue was out of temporary salaries and we are over spend negative that category and we had 5 employees who were being paid out of temporary salaries. what we've done is die to several vacancies that we'll have at the end of this year, we are going to delay hiring in those positions and also use some of those positions to place. most of which going to be vacated. the second issue related to salary savings and the department not hitting the salary savings target. it's

created between the employee leaves and the employee is hired. we have identified a number of employees that are going to be retiring and resigning at the end of the year and we've agreed to keep some of those positions vacate. normally what we do is when an employee particularly one at the top step is hired we bring to the lower step. we've agreed to delay hiring and put together a schedule. i won't bore you with the details unless you want to see it. it is essentially replaces employees in the position at a lower rate of pay and also delays hiring. the total amount of savings that we've identified is $553,000 and that will address the salary savings

issue. the 3rd issue which is known as a salary adjustment, again this is a target that was given to us by the mayor's office that we were not able to meet during this fiscal year which resulted in the need for the supplemental and we are still working out the details in that regard, but the mayor's office and they still have to discuss this with the mayor. is going to help us meet that shortfall in the next fiscal year. and again we are still working out the details but in essence the plans so fast two out of the three of the issues. the last issues we were close to a resolution and i think on our end we are in agreement that at this point we would have a supplemental to go forward. >> okay. thank you very much.

supervisor campos? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and thank you to all the members of the budget committee for the work that you are doing on this budget. i just wanted to thank the public defender, i think that we have seen since this item has been introduced since the discussion that took place in committee and at the board of supervisors that there is a willingness to work on this and i appreciate the various steps that have been taken by the public defenders office. i think that the fact that they have been working closely with the mayor's office point to how they are really trying to deal with it in a responsible way and i hope this item moves forward. i think a lot of progress has been made on most of those issues and they are very close on the last one so i would simply ask for moving the next item forward. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor

campos. so, i guess there are a few questions. i under stand you are working with the mayor's office but pending outcome from there, as i shared my perspective from last time i don't like when the budget chair now the committee member when we approve a budget and it gets spent and we any knew this was going to happen. at the same time we have to pay for salaries that have been earned. my concern is for next year which is most important and i want to make sure what we are hearing from you is that you are not going to be back next year. >> that's right. it's what i wanted to hear. anymore questions?

>> supervisor reed. >> thank you, i want to thank you for working with the mayor's office to try to resolve this issue. i know it's been an on going issue and i was really concerned about the precedent this would set. i'm excited about the resolution looking forward to moving forward and i know there is a lot of wonderful attorneys and a lot of great staff and a lot of great programs that come out of the public defenders office and i wan to make sure that we are fund ing this office as a level before we get to a point to this level in the if future and we want to move this issue forward and this this to rest. >> okay. colleagues any questions? seeing none, we'll move to the budget analyst

report. mr. rhodes? >> actually we don't have anything else to weigh in on. as you know we recommended a reduction. it's my understanding that that's what the committee adopted at the last meeting an that's what's before you today. so the legislation before you today as we understand it is consistent with the recommended reduction that you accepted our recommendation at the last hearing. >> right. we don't have to amend again? >> that is my understanding. >> i just want to state that we are to convene for a special board of supervisors meeting. >> thank you. >> thank you for making that happen. colleagues any other questions at this time? seeing none we'll open to members of the public. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you for being here. i appreciate the comment and i always want to say thank you

for working with the mayor's office and budget office and looking forward to having it resolved. no more supplementals. can we have a motion to move this item forward with recommendation? so moved. >> okay. we have items no. 8 and 9 from our district attorneys office. i don't see the district attorney here yet. may we take a 5 minute recess to get our district attorney here? >> is it necessary for the district attorney to be here to move this item forward? >> i believe so yes. can we take a 5

>> okay. good afternoon. welcome back to our regular schedule budget finance committee for 2013. mr. clerk please call item no. 8. 130273 [accept in kind gift - technical assistance - $250,000]1302738.resolution authorizing the office of the district attorney to retroactively accept an in kind gift of technical assistance valued at $250,000 from the open society foundation for the grant period of january 1, 2013, through june 30, 2015. district attorneyy3/19/13; received from department.4/2/13; received and assigned to the budget and finance sub-committee.4/24/13; continued.5/3/13; transferred to the budget and finance committee. 130273 [accept in kind gift - technical assistance - $250,000]1302738.resolution authorizing the office of the district attorney to retroactively accept an in kind gift of technical assistance valued at $250,000 from the open society foundation for the grant period of january 1, 2013, through june 30, 2015. district attorneyy3/19/13; received from department.4/2/13; received and assigned to the budget and finance sub-committee.4/24/13; continued.5/3/13; transferred to the budget 130273 [accept in kind gift - technical assistance - $250,000]1302738.resolution authorizing the office of the district attorney to retroactively accept an in kind gift of technical assistance valued at $250,000 from the open society foundation for the grant period of january 1, 2013, through june 30, 2015. district attorneyy3/19/13; received from department.4/2/13; received and assigned to the budget and finance sub-committee.4/24/13; continued.5/3/13; transferred to the budget and finance committee.:

>> okay. thank you very much. we have from our district attorneys office to speak on no. 8. >> thank you. this is not a grant coming to the city of san francisco. these are to support our efforts of the first of it's kind local sentencing commission that passed through here just over a year 1/2 ago. the specific responsibilities that will be completed by nccd are made by the city of san francisco commission which maybe through responding to members questions and providing briefings to all the membership and the public. in addition, they will also be providing support through our victims services. we are going to conduct victims services analysis to meet all the needs of the victims who are presented to our office. i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have about the technical assistance will provide and the san francisco sentencing commission. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions? >> okay. seeing none. we move

to public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> can i have a motion to mover this item forward? so moved. we can do that without opposition. please call item no. 9. 130274 [accept gift - design services and furniture - $26,445.43]1302749.resolution authorizing the office of the district attorney to retroactively accept a gift of design services and furniture, valued at a total of $26,445.43 from various donors. district attorneyy3/25/13; received from department.4/2/13; received and assigned to the budget and finance sub-committee.4/24/13; continued.5/3/13; transferred to the budget 130274 [accept gift - design services and furniture - $26,445.43]1302749.resolution authorizing the office of the district attorney to retroactively accept a gift of design services and furniture, valued at a total of $26,445.43 from various donors. district attorneyy3/25/13; received from department.4/2/13; received and assigned to the budget and finance sub-committee.4/24/13; continued.5/3/13; transferred to the budget 130274 [accept gift - design services and furniture - $26,445.43]1302749.resolution authorizing the office of the district attorney to retroactively accept a gift of design services and furniture, valued at a total of $26,445.43 from various donors. district attorneyy3/25/13; received from department.4/2/13; received and assigned to the budget and finance sub-committee.4/24/13; continued.5/3/13; transferred to the budget and finance committee.: we have our district attorney. thank you for being here. >> thank you, committee members. i want to that happening thank you for the opportunity. our office is a general fund. there are many needs that we are unable to fund. we just finished

approving a grant from the foundation. we are looking for other partners in order to get the work done and there is another item that was not here because it was below $50,000. we got another grant from the saddleback foundation for research justice project for juveniles. again, if there is an effort from my office and myself personally in order to be able to get the work done and do it with the minimum impact for taxpayers when we can. this is an item where we got some furniture for our executive office and for victims services lounge. the donations were made to the city. this is for the sole purpose of conducting city business. the furniture in question will remain in the district attorneys office and will stay there through its useful life and when that concludes it will be removed

and deposed of according to city regulations. concerning the furniture, originally we believe through advice that it was permissible for this office for each additional gift would be below $10,000. oufr from advice from the city attorney it was suggested it would be most appropriate for this group being the amount is $10,000. for full transparency and issue was brought before the board. they have determined the donation was appropriately accepted as a gift to the city of san francisco. with that i'm ready to answer any questions that you may have.

>> thank you mr. district attorney and mr. avalos? >> thank you for being here. and for presenting. you said the fppc ruled on this already? is that correct? >> that's correct. they were contacted and looked into it and determined there was nothing inappropriate and they will not be investigating this matter. >> do you have a copy from them saying that >> i do not. >> do you have anything they have provided? >> we have the oral discussion. you are welcome to call the fppc yourself if you desire. >> i appreciate that, but since the investigation i was hoping that you would provide so the evidence for that. if it's just based on your work as a lawyer,

if you say something, it has to be verified. >> the fcc did not close the investigation. >> is there -- >> i hope you are not thinking i'm here giving you misleading information. it's on the record. >> it's common practice to present information, to ask questions here. and i want to ask questions that it's about providing evidence of something it's something i do all the time. sometimes those questions aren't very welcome by people who present, but i do believe that it's in my right in my work to ask the questions. if you do not have evidence of

that. i take you on your word for that. just by asking the question, i don't think it goes too far in my role as member of this panel. >> absolutely. i'm not questioning the fact that you are questioning, i'm just telling you that i would hope that you understand if i'm telling you that we were given an oral statement that there would be no investigation, that they felt there was nothing inappropriate that you would take my word for it. certainly if you want to verify it that's fine. your right to question i get it. >> i take your word for it. i draw a different opinion of or get a reaction within me. i totally accept that. can we move on to my other questions. i do have a question about whether there was also request for investigation with a local

ethics commission. is that correct? >> personally i'm not aware of that. >> can i ask a question for our city attorney, john give ner. >> the ethics commission question, ethics commission complaints regarding conflicts of interest gifts are confidential. so general commission and the lawyers who advise the ethics commission don't confirm nor deny. sometimes people filing complaints make public statements. i'm filing a complaint against supervisor x about this issue. i'm not aware of any public announcements of any complaints being filed at the ethics commission. i am aware that there is a letter in the board's file regarding a letter or complaint with the fpcc.

>> right, so were you not tracking or monitoring an fpcc investigation yourself. no, we don't track it. >> we talked about the fpcc investigation and you said you hadn't heard anything about it. >> my office isn't aware. when people file against city officials, we see if there are any public announcements about it. we don't track it or get involved or represent the individuals in those investigations. >> even when there is except an expense about when we approve accept an expense during an investigation. would that make

us -- whether we should wait for the investigation to be done be we accept an expense. that came from you that we have the option of waiting for that investigation to happen. and so there was a request of whether we had an investigation or not and it seemed like it wasn't important to track on the city attorneys side. >> supervisor, i would be happy to address any of the issues raised in the letter submitted by mr. mars doll in the boards file. the question of whether the board can act while an investigation is pending, is yes, the board could approve this resolution, could couldn't the resolution appending the outcome of the investigation.

we don't track it. i get e-mails from the fpcc when they have resolved complaints and i review those to see if there are any. >> i think we had a misunderstanding because in our conversation i thought you had been aware of it whether there was an on going investigation or not and you hadn't heard of any results. so i assume it was something were you looking at as a matter to providing this to this item. >> i'm sorry if i gave you that impression. i have been aware of this resolution pepding at the board. have read newspaper accounts of it, reviewed the board file but i haven't xhuptd -- communicated with the fpcc. this is where a member of public has filed a complaint with the fpcc against the city

officials. >> okay. could you talk about what was required and reporting from the district attorneys office. i know that he sought advice from a city attorney and filed a certain way and may have gotten different advice is that led to a misunderstanding. can you characterize the process of how this went about? >> let me talk about the general rules that apply in situations like this. as you know, just stepping back in terms of our conversations wtd district attorneys office, we tried to respect the confidentiality of our relationships with each official and not disclose the content with individual officials unless there is a legal need for other officials to know, but i'm happy to talk about the self disclosure

obligation that apply to the office here and i can tell you generally, we give the same advice in these situations no matter who is asking. so the rules that i will, that i can explain here are the rules that we would explain to anyone coming to us with these questions. when a department receives a gift from an outside source there are a number of obligation before the department receives an approval. if the person gets a gift of over a hundred dollars, they are required to report it on the website and who gave it and whether that donor has any business with the city. the department must every --

>> was that done by the district attorney attorneys office. >> i did look at the website and i did see it had been reported. every july, every department that receives gifts must submit a report to the board of supervisors. that deadline hepatitis come obviously in this case. the department should coordinate with the controllers office to make sure the gift is accounted for by the controller for budgeting purposes and 2, self disclosure rule that i think have been discussed in the context of this set of gifts. if the department receives a gift that benefits an employee of the department, there is a special reporting requirement. the department must few ill

what is called an fpcc form 801. basically it goes to three things. one that the department receives a gift, two, that gift ben fitted and individual and 3, the person decided which individual got the benefit wasn't the person and property who ended up getting the benefit. maybe a concrete way of describing that if someone gave a gift to the city attorneys office to send a lawyer to a conference and the city attorneys decided to send me to the conference with that gift. my office would file form 801 saying we got a gift from this source, john give ner benefited from it. and that report would be filed with the fpcc. there are some advice in the past from the f p cc

indicating that if a department receives a gift that is used in the department, that should be reported as an on the form of 801. >> was that done in this case? >> i don't believe it was done in this case, the district attorney can probably speak to that and i can also -- that's the form 801. the district attorney did file another form, form 803 which is designs for the self disclosure of the form. it's for the reform act which the fpcc regulates. when an elected official asks someone to make a donation to a certain non-profit or government agency and the person bho has been solicited

a of $5,000 or more, the elected official has to file a form 803. essentially saying, i asked someone done or s to give money to this non-profit or to the city department and done or s gave this. that report is filed with the elected officials department and then transmitted to the ethics commission which i believe has those on its website. >> so the other one, that goes to the state. why we don't have the questions i understand that happened. >> yes, the 801 is filed with the f pbc, the 803 is filed with the department and with the ethics commission. >>