the city, and a lot of them have told me they depend on these pamphlets. that's what they read. that's how they get their content and very few are technologically savvy or even have the wherewithal to point and click and get the information on the website. the cost to send that bundled information is that a cost the city will assume or is it passed onto the voter? >> no, the city would pick up the cost and the voter wouldn't pay for that directly. >> my question is is it going to be written -- the information where they can call and get it and i assume in multiple languages, bold, easily accessible for a reader? >> yeah whatever path we take with this the department wants the decision to be successful so we want to make sure the voters are well informed and aware,

it's intiewive that the solution and it's easy to obtain. >> thank you very much. >> so supervisor chiu. >> if i could make one comment to piggyback on what supervisor cohen said. i am concerned because of the digital divide we have constituents with either language issues or because they're seniors and don't have access to the internet i think it's important to get a flavor of the ballot measure and if they want to contact the department of elections or go to the library or have a copy mailed to them they will receive it and the language proposed after the first 20 pages and the text contains the first 20 pages but not the remaining pages of the measure. those pages could have useful information important to voters and i think

that addresses the concerns that the first 20 pages aren't represented and we know in november it's represented because it's the ordinance and lays out how a voter can receive the text of the measure. we tried to think of the issues and the cost incurred by the city and the department much elections and educate the voters and to make an informed decision. >> thank you. >> first of all i want to thank supervisor wiener and supervisor chiu -- or president chiu for taking on this issue in terms of the cost and what is practical for our voters, but at this point i would like to entertain -- now, i guess process wise can president chiu -- okay. so somebody on the committee would have to make the amendment. i will like to entertain an

amendment to supervisor chiu's proposal. is there any? >> yes. but do you want me to repeat what the specific amendment is? will i need to? >> no. >> i can. >> before we do that should i be taking public comment? >> you should take comment community before any vote. if you like i can respond to supervisor breed's question. supervisor chiu's description of the amendment and what he circulated suffices to describe the amendment you're proposing. just to be clear for the record the exclusion of text would be triggered whenever there is a measure over 100 pages long and when that happens 20 pages would be printed in the voter information pamphlet. >> let me have clarification then. what if it's 50 pages

long? >> under supervisor chiu -- if a 50 page measure is submitted to the department of elections it will be printed in full in the voter information pamphlet. this new rule would only apply to measures that exceed 100 pages. >> okay. supervisor breed. >> public comment. >> public comment first. okay thank you. any public comment on this issue? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor breed. >> yes. i would like to make a motion that we accept the amended ordinance proposed by supervisor chiu to change the language to reduce the number of pages to not to exceed the 100

to 20. is that accurate? >> that's accurate. in other words for measures over 100 pages and the first 20 pages are printed and that's the amendment to the amendment. >> is there a second? >> second. >> okay. the motion passes. any objection? the amendment passes without objection. at this point anybody want to make a motion to pass this -- we're voting on supervisor chiu's proposal which is item four at this point. is there a motion to pass this out of committee? >> so moved. >> second. >> motion is moved without any objection. and item five. this is supervisor wiener's proposal. is there any motion to either pass or not pass it out of committee? >> no.

>> okay. so what happens then? >> [inaudible] to the call of the chair. >> say that again. >> i would like to make a motion to file to the call of the chair. >> continue to the call of the chair? >> yes. continue to the call of the chair. >> is there a motion? second? motion passes. >>i would like to thank supervisor wiener and staff and thank you to the madam president and the city attorney staff working through this because it was more complicated than what i expected. thank you colleagues. >> thank you madam chiu. madam clerk anything else on the agenda? >> no mr. chair. >> if not the meeting is adjourned. thank you very much.

>> june 26, 2013. my name is supervisor mark farrell, i will be chairing this committee. i'm joined by supervisors john avalos and london breed, and will be joined by supervisor mar who is stuck in a meeting. >> clerk young: -- documents to

be included should be submitted to the clerk. >> supervisor farrell: thank you mr. clerk. colleagues, given that supervisor wiener is stuck in a board meeting -- we can and then dismiss those departments. -- so mr. clerk could you please call right now items six and seven. >> clerk young:( reading agenda)

>> why don't we have our health service system up. >> good morning supervisors -- acting director of the health services system. we want to thank you budget analyst team for their very thorough and thoughtful work with us and we are happy that we have come to an agreement with the budget analyst on our budget for next year. >> supervisor farrell: thanks ms. copy (sounds like) >> mr. chairman mbers of the committee on page 6, recommended reductions total -- approximately 53 percent, or

111 427 would result in savings to the general fund and for 14-15 the recommendation is -- and of that amount presently 123,147 would result in savings to the general fund. >> supervisor farrell: thank you mr. rose. any question for mr. rose? can we accept without opposition? so moved. (gavel) up next do we have the sheriff's department here? sure, bree here from the sheriff's department. >> it's on. >> hi.

supervisors good morning. i am prima horder, the cfo -- the sheriff is running down the hall to get here on time but we are in agreement and we would be happy to answer any questions that you may have and also have information regarding our supplemental request if you would like to hear it. >> supervisor farrell: mr. clerk could you please call item number one. >> supervisor farrell: okay, thanks. we you like to talk about item number one? >> yes.

-- -- in the interest of time i will work off the prints on the powerpoint.

as you can see on the first slide we are requesting to move about 460,000 from the salina salaries and 250,000 from dependent coverage to cover overtime. the reason we need to move is that we do have enough cash but we do not have sufficient budget allocation and this is in fact from supervisor farrell's overtime legislation two years ago. this is the second time we have worked with this ordinance; the department is learning how to manage his budget within the parameters of the ordinance which is exactly what we were intended to do. and you can see that in the following slide the problem is primarily due to a structural

budget problem. if you look at the pec work order you can see that we have three separate categories. the prominent salary categories, uniform salary categories and overtime salary categories. if you look at the budget you can see that all of the budgetary funds were placed in hermann and miscellaneous salaries which is people like me which were uniformed and there were no funds for uniform salaries or overtime, unusual because u staff work this position and the puc determined that they would like to hire two positions and work two half shifts on overtime. this means that we had about 250,000 in overtime that was worked and that we intended to work and the puc paid us for but was not budgeted. similarly you can see in the dp 20 budget, although we perform

work there we had no extend expenditures. a technical change that's what sets in compliance with supervisor farrell's ordinance. >> supervisor farrell: any questions on item 1? supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: i wanted to ask the sheriff, this is not about the supplemental but just on one of the general items. there's a 1.3 million dollar i believe capital -- line item that has to do with the acquisition of the parcel that his next-door to the hall of justice. some of the community groups have raised concerns that there hasn't been enough discussion on that item. as we modernize the jail.

i wonder if you could comment on that item because it has been raised by a number of community-based groups. >> we welcome the discussion. we had a forum a few days ago where a number of groups have been under the impression that we are looking to expand jail space which is false. it was -- many years ago before was elected sheriff, by the department of public works that the hall of justice would be demolished. in a staggered approach of replacing the departments that are in the hall of justice, whether the courts, police department, district attorney's office, adult probation and the two jails on the sixth and seventh floor, is

essential that we replace the jails on the sixth and seventh floor which comprises 903 beds. when i came into office there was an effort to have a one for one that replacement. i thought that was excessive and unnecessary and a great amount of effort with city partners has been underway for some time now to have a more effective and smaller jail. i also sent letters to all supervisors many months ago inviting them to tours of the jail system and some have. in my opinion conditions in jail 3 and 4 are absolutely horrific. the style of the jail reflects yesteryear, about 50 years ago plus how jails were made. people were sardines in our custody. we cannot get programs in the jails because of how poor the architecture provides for that opportunity.

it borders on inhumane if not inhumane altogether. the headge the mindset of myself at yourself or the board of supervisors and seven in san francisco it would be ideal if we did not been to jail. the courts are going to keep sentencing, the police are going to keep arresting and the d's are going to continue to prosecute. in many not just general population -- while they are in our custody i wanted to be in a secure and safe environment that anybody both taxpayer and shared with agree on but we

also want to be a rehabilitative environment and that's been the problem with jails 3 and 4. historically it has not been allowed to be that and we cannot get the kind of wraparound management where we introduce programming that one would hope would help toward successful transition back into society. that is what's going on there. the bottom line is we would be the first county in california that is contemplating in jail project, everyplace in jail not just a jill expansion and be reducing our jail space by 30 percent. every other county in california due to realignment especially those reeling from realignment it's we are not and regions in california due to the recent projects, they are looking at expansion. in the last five years if any jails have been built or those in the pipeline to be built it's about expanding their cell

and bed space we are talking reducing by 30 percent. with the recent decision by the court that rejected governor brown's appeal to halt prison realignment, and we see realignment coming down only in good conscience i have the obligation to say that we have the right facilities to receive those that will be coming back and to do so anyway that is consistent with our core value and that core values to do everything we can the tackle recidivism while people are incarcerated before they're handed off. >> supervisor mar: that is crystal clear where we are planning modernization. you are saying that san francisco may be unlike other jurisdictions planning to reduce the number of cells. >> by 30 percent. it alarmed me too when i started to see these messages that were being put out there

that we want to expand and expand with 800 beds. that is just not true at all. >> supervisor mar: thank you. >> supervisor farrell: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: i met with some folks as well and totally understand where you're coming from in terms of the overall goal of reducing recidivism and incarceration in smaller jail facilities aligned with those goals. they mentioned that at san bruno there is a pod or jail facility there that is actually ready and capable of being used right now but it is not being used and perhaps that facility can be used stead of rebuilding a new jail, replacement jail. i didn't quite think that was actually correct but would like to hear your interpretation -- not your

interpretation of what you see is happening at san bruno in terms of jail facility and the usage and what is available. >> we want to maximize as much as we can. san francisco is the least crowded which is a good thing. the way the space is configured it is not all general population. when we have to buffer opposing gangs that creates a different kind of jailing staffing plan where we are not able to group people together as is the case with people we are seeing a constant uptick which we mentioned before suffering from mental health and psychiatric needs which requires the use of jail space that is more isolated or requires more staff intensive that does not give us always the room for

other places inside. >> supervisor avalos: what are the different units? >> county jail number 5 and part of 6. while we can convert in a large style dormitory some of that that is not with the population is in jails 3 and 4 at the hall of justice. it would be not a fit, not compatible whatsoever. >> supervisor avalos: using all jail facilities at san bruno, what is response to that? >> if the courts were willing to transfer to san bruno, that is a whole systemic question. it is not just the people housing, but the people being sent since we are not the ones doing the prosecuting and

sentencing. there is also pretrial; already made the people near the court that are able to have greater access to the system here. >> supervisor avalos: has there been any cost analysis? >> it is significant. by the sheriff department and by consultants outside, i believe about 17 dollars. >> supervisor avalos: on an annual basis, transportation back and forth to san bruno. >> that's right. we don't have the space anyway. we would not be able to be able to maximize all space in san bruno in lieu of not having space here at the hall of justice. >> supervisor avalos: thank you isn't it true that the public safety bond that we have a couple of years ago the original version actually had to rebuild of - -- and it was taken off because it was deemed

politically unfeasible for the voters to support a bond that would actually -- >> i believe that was the case. i forgot what year that was. >> supervisor avalos: i think it was 2010. >> 2009-2010. jails in any single county are the most unpopular institutions to be built and there is good reason for that because in this country, in the state we have overbuilt. there is a legitimate mistrust with the field of dreams analysis. if you build it they will come. i want to use that counterintuitive which i think it is important to demystify what motive we have. we are not looking to expand but to reduce. but we need to take care of not only the current population but future population needs. >> supervisor avalos: -- working on recidivism and realignment.

>> we are. the department is sensible enough that they recognize where the needs are and if we are moving to a point of access they would say that as well because we work more in the symmetry. so far people see the rationale for the department of public works, the mayors office and others in the city; there seems to be a rational plan. any questions about the budget overall? >> supervisor farrell: any questions at this time? did you ever report separately on item number one? > yes we did pages 38, 39, bottom line is that based on the analysis that we recommended you approve the ordinance. regarding the recommendations on page 39 of the report, our total recommendations in 13-14 will result in 435,073

city city general fund and for 14-15 recognitions total 131,000 even. >> okay, colleagues any questions for mr. rose? >> i want to thank budget analyst's office for working with our office diligently. >> supervisor farrell: colleagues, can i have a motion to accept the budget recommendation on the sheriff's budget. (gavel) we do need to take public comment on this item. if there is someone on the public that would like to comment step forward. public comment is closed. can have a motion?

can we do so without opposition (gavel) so moved. up next, the treasurer tax collector. mr. cisneros. >> good morning supervisors, jose cisneros, seven cisco treasurer tax collector. >> supervisor farrell: any questions for the treasurer? mr. rose can we go to the updated budget report. >> page 57 of the report, our recommendations in 13-14 would result in 459,184 on your page you have a number of 559,568, our revised recommendation is

459,184, the city's general fund. in 13-14, are new reductions are 34,849, instead of the 79,727. those are our recommendations. >> supervisor farrell: any questions for mr. rose or our treasurer? we have a motion to accept the budget reports recognition? do so without opposition. gvl (gavel)we have the fine arts museum here? >> good morning chairman farrell. supervisors. michelle -- with the fine arts easier when we are in agreement with the budget analyst. we thank you so much for your continued support of the dm and the legion of honor. >> supervisor farrell: any

questions? mr. rose can we go to the revised budget report? >> on page 53 recommended reduction is 38,631 in 13-14 and on 14-15 are recommended reductions totaled again 38,641. >> supervisor farrell: thank you very much mr. rose any questions .? any motion to approve the recognitions? we do so without opposition. (gavel) we can do adult probation? >> supervisor farr