of our economy we must do more to support the sector as a whole to today, i want to affirm that my budget contains 1 and a half increase to nonprofits that contract with the city in addition we'll also launch a new sector initiative at the office of economic workforce development to focus on strengthening our nonprofit sector. this budget also includes my invest invest in neighborhoods with the 25 neighborhood commercial districts providing a job squad that brings businesses to our city hall and brings wifi to our commercial corridors. ladies and gentlemen, while the worse of our economic crisis maybe behind us we can't deviate

in insuring a budget is balances our diversity across the city we'll continue to invest in our neighborhoods and infrastructure and most important in our people with the one hundred percent. i want to recognize budget supervisor farrell for leading this budget a truly collaborative process and thank you to my staff led by steve to my budget office led by kate howard and thank you our city controller and staff and, of course, thank you in advance to the budget analyst harry rose. so with that ladies and gentlemen, and supervisors let's get back to work and get this budget done. thanks very much. (clapping.)

>> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee meeting for monday, june 23rd, 2014. my name is mark farrell. i will be chairing this committee. i am joined by supervisors john avalos, scott wiener, london breed and katy tang. we'll be joined momentarily by supervisor eric mar. want to thank the clerk of the committee linda wong as well as the members of sfgov-tv kindergarten covering the meeting jennifer low and

jonathan gum wall. >> [speaker not understood] as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted pop today will appear on the june 8th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay, thank you, madam clerk. could you please call items 1 and 2 -- excuse me. tell you what, we're going to go first items 4, 5 and 6. >> item 4, resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the construction, acquisition, improvement, and retrofitting of transportation and transit related improvements, and other critical infrastructure and facilities for transportation system improvements and safety and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants under administrative code, chapter 37; providing for the levy and collection of taxes to pay both principal and interest on such bonds; incorporating the provisions of administrative code, section 5.30 - 5.36; setting certain procedures and requirements for the election; finding that a portion of the proposed bond is not a project under the california environmental quality act and adopting findings under c-e-q-a, c-e-q-a guidelines, and san francisco administrative code, chapter 31, for the remaining portion of the bond; and finding that the proposed bond is in conformity with the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1(b), and with the general plan consistency requirement of charter section 4.105, and administrative code, section 2aeld in the city and county of san francisco on tuesday, november 4, 2014, for the purpose of submitting to san francisco voters a proposition to incur the following bonded debt of the city and county: $500,000,000

to finance the construction, acquisition, and improvement of certain transportation and transit related improvements, and related costs necessary for convenient for the foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of the resulting property tax increase to residential tena ~ transit related improvements. item number 6, resolution amending the city's ten-year capital expenditure plan for fiscal years 2013-2014 through fiscal year 2022-2023 to increase to $500,000,000 the proposed transportation and road improvement bond. supervisor, we currently have six supervisors in the chamber. we are now convened as a special meeting of the board of supervisors. >> okay, thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, item 4, 5 and 6 are general obligation bonds sponsored by the sfmta. i want to invite supervisor tang to speak before mr. reiskin comes p. >> thank you, supervisor farrell. i think we need all of our comments last week when we were here. really today just wanted to continue to urge the rest of the committee members to forward out these item to the full board with recommendation. >> okay, thank you, supervisor tang. colleagues, if no other comment at this point, i'll direct director reiskin back up if you have anything to add at all. >> thank you, chair farrell, members of the committee. i would just echo supervisor

tang's points. we did have some amendments that we requested you to adopt like you did last week which necessitated continuing to this week. otherwise, we would urge your support and be happy to answer any questions. >> okay, thank you, director reiskin. colleagues, any questions or comments? okay, we have items 4 through 6 in front 6 us. do we have a motion? >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor avalos to send items 4, 5 and 6 to the full board with recommendation. can we take that -- >> public comment. >> what's that? thank you. before we accept that motion, we're going to open this up to public comment. anybody wishing to comment on item 4, 5 or 6? okay, seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] >> we have a motion by supervisor avalos to send item 4, 5 and 6 forward to the full board with recommendation. can we take that without objection? so moved. [gavel] >> all right. madam clerk, can you call items 1 and 2, please? >> item number 1, proposed annual budget and appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and all estimated expenditures for

selected departments of the city and county of san francisco as of june 2, 2014, for the fiscal years ending june 30, 2015, and june 30, 2016. item number 2, proposed annual salary ordinance enumerating positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance for the fiscal years ending june 30, 2015, and june 30, 2016, 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. ~ or establishing these positions. >> okay, thank you very much, madam clerkv. this is the continuation of our larger budget discussion. we have a number of departments back up this week continuing from last week. so, we'll take them in order here. first up are treasurer and tax collector, mr. cisneros. >> good afternoon, supervisors. jose cisneros, san francisco treasurer. i'm please today report that through the good work of folks in the budget analyst's office, we are in agreement with the recommendations and want to theirctiontionv them for their work and the mayor's budget office as well. >> thank you, mr. cisneros. colleagues, any questions? mr. rose, can we go to your updated report, please?

>> yes, mr. chairman, members of the committee. on page 5 of our report we report that our recommended reductionses to the proposed budget total $165,83 1 in 14-15. all of that amount are ongoing savings. these reductions would still allow an increase with 4,760,387 or 13.6% and the department's 15-16 working budget. we also recommend closing out prior year unexpended general fund encumbrances which would amount to [speaker not understood]. together those recommendations result in 255,7 81 savedles to the city's general fund in 14-15. our recommended reductionses to the proposed budget total 199,340 in the 14-15-16. you will amendment, [speaker not understood] recommended reductions are ongoing savings. as the department has indicated as we understand it, they are in concurrence with our recommended reductions which are on page 7 of our report. >> thank you, mr. rose.

actually 6 and 7. >> colleagues, any questions for mr. rose or for mr. cisneros? okay, thanks very much for being here. >> thank you. up next we have our public defenders office. >> thank you, supervisors. when we were last here, the only issue was the question of our salary savings. if you go to the first slide, you'll see here that last year we had 28 vacancies. these are also partial vacancies and leaves. this year we're projecting just 11. so, if you look at this year we had $23,000 surplus which is wonderful, but next year we're anticipating $217,000 vacancy. what we provided mr. rose and his office with are the actual

detail for each of the positions. so, you see here our salary savings in 2013-2014 and how we arrived at the $6 23,000 surplus ~. and then we see in the next year, this is actually in the 2014-2015, it's mislabeled, the projected deficit is 217,000. if the committee takes the additional 40,000 plus the 15,000, it's going to put us in a further deficit position. i just want to point out just two thing. one, last year the district attorney's office received nine positions which were annual i'dx. we did not receive any new positions yet. we're handling all those new domestic violence cases. secondly, the indigent defense panel actually returned $500,000 to the city and paid for raises. and one of the reasons is because we changed our

department policy last year. so, the public defender would be able to handle more cases. the conference policy is a policy which sets forth when we're essentially prohibited from taking cases due to ethical conflicts. and the law changed so we're able to change our conflicts policy which allowed us to set up ethical walls which allowed us to take more cases. my concern here, supervisors, is that if you sustain this cut, it's going to essentially take a third of the funding that we received from the mayor's office for the leap program and it would create a disruption in services. so, again, i understand mr. rose's position, but, however, would ask that you not take this cut. the other recommendations we're in agreement with. >> can you just, for our purposes, quantify the dollar amount of the cut that's in dissununuth >> yes, it's 40,000 plus 15,000

for fringeses. so it's a total of 55,000 ~. >> sorry, supervisor breed. >> yes, i don't understand how this money would impact the leap program because it's not from that particular position. >> what happened is we received two off-budget positionses for the leap program for the attorney and for the social worker ~. and then the funding was -- that added to our budget, but the attrition, our salary savings was reduced in the amount that we would need to fund these positionses. so, rather than to fund the positions, our salary savings or attrition, in other words, the target that we're required to meet by having vacant positions was reduced by $122,000. does that make sense? and, so, essentially -- >> it does make sense, but

based on the budget and legislative analyst report it doesn't seem like it would be done that way, because the positions are specified in the line item and you're saying the attrition saving here has actually been identified as the source for that particular position. >> right. >> i don't understand how that's even possible. >> well, because the positions that we received are essentially unfunded positions. so, they put those positions in our budget -- we already had a social worker position and they added a attorney position for the leap attorney. and rather than to fund those positions by giving us $122,000, instead they reduced our attrition, which has the effect of essentially funding those positions because we have a lesser attrition. and, so, by, again, increasing

our attrition number by $40,000, that essentially wipes out a third of the funding we received from the mayor's office in order to pay for those two positions. perhaps i'm not doing a good job explaining it. >> supervisor avalos, keep going through the questions here. we'll get to this. >> i don't really have any questions, but i am going to be okay with not taking any attrition savings and mandatory fringe benefits and i would, you know, vote against taking it. >> supervisor mar. >> yes, i'm also strongly supportive of the leap program. i'm understanding the connection mr. hadachi is saying the cuts would compromise the paralegal. [speaker not understood] how is this going to get to that. so, there's the paralegal position and also the social

worker position. >> these position are funded until the end of december. and, so, we have the position in our budget. what we have to make sure of is we have the funding to continue it. now, if we disrupted the program for two months and we laid off the social worker for two months or laid off the attorney for a month in order to make up the amount in the attrition so he we don't run over, that would be one solution. but, again, i'm hoping that we don't have to disrupt either of the positions because the program is -- it's important the program be sustained throughout the year. >> thank you. so, i'm also supportive of -- and i know the public defender has accepted several of the budget analyst cuts, but i don't support cutting the attrition savings. >> mr. rose, why don't we go to your report and we can flesh this out. thanks. >> mr. chairman and member of the committee, our recommendation has absolutely

nothing to do with public defender mentioned three things. the district attorney's budget, the leap program, and the indigent defense program. our recommendation had a absolutely nothing to do with any of those items. let me read you the recommendation which is on page 12 of our report. we say the increase attrition savings 14-15, the department is proposing to reduce attrition savings by 122,335 to hire vacant positions that has a salary surplus in 13-14. the documentation provided by the public defenders office indicates the implementation of the budget and legislative analyst recommended reduction [speaker not understood] would result in a deficit for the public defenders office. on the contrary, the analysis by the budget and legislative analyst shows that not only would our recommendation not result in a deficit, but rather the public defender would still have surplus funds available even if the implementation of

the 55,160 recommended reduction. therefore the budget and legislative analyst recommendation provides sufficient funds to fill the requested positions in the public defender's budget. we would be happy to respond to any questions. this is a straight analysis of your entire salary budget. has nothing to do with any of the three thing the public defender mentioned. >> okay. supervisor breed? >> thank you. i wanted clarification from the mayor's budget office from the tower. so, just for clarity sake, it's, i guess, mr. had i dacha ~ hadachi said the money from the leap program would come from these particular savings. i wanted you to clarify that. i know there have been positionses approved and i'm trying to understand lorn this reduction impacts that particular program. >> supervisor, kate howard, mayor's budget director.

it's a good question. so, to be very clear, the mayor's budget did include these additional funds to support the -- half a year's worth of salary and fringe benefits for the leap program. it specifically added the money for that purpose. >> half a year which begins -- >> in december. >> december. >> the program is set to expire in october ~. >> end of december. >> end of december? >> this would be from january until june 30th. >> okay, thank you. >> so, the funds are available to support the program year round regardless of the reduction. >> well, there is 122,000 added to our attrition. neder, it was subtractved from our attrition. those are the same funds that would be used to fund these two positions from january 1st until june 30th of 2015. >> so, maybe if i can add

another piece of information. so, we added these funds to the public defender's budget to sustain the leap program. the public defender has shared with us his concern that there was not additional funding added to his budget, he would not have sufficient money to continue the leap program. and we, after review, concurred with his assessment. it is also true that the city does occasionally experience delays in hiring and to the degree that there were delays in hiring in the public defender's budget, that might generate additional savings so that he could meet the, the budget and legislative analyst's proposal. however, we did include this in the budget so that we could be assured that the leap program would not suffer any slow downs or any changes in staffing levels. >> so, and i just want to -- because i still don't

understand how attrition savings results in somehow a problem with the leap program because when we talked about it, and when i talked about it with the mayor's budget office, it was my understanding that fund were put into your budget to 100% support positions that already exist once the program expires and they no longer receive its grant funding. in term of where the source of those funds come from, that's really where the confusion is because i don't understand why any attrition savings will be used to support positions that moneys were added to your budget to support. so, i'm missing that piece. i just don't get it. ~ monies >> supervisors, ben rosenfield controller. if it's somewhat helpful, and it may not be, just briefly a bit about how the city budget positionses and how budget

money for position. >> just for clarity, these are for positionses that already exist, are funded by a federal grant, and there is no need to rehire anyone unless there is additional positions added, maybe during different process. >> right, but we have to get new positions added in order to continue that. in other words, these are grant funded only positions so they expire at the end of the grant. so, these are new portions. ordinarily they would be funded by adding money to our budget in the way that you indicated. ~ position >> so, they have to go through a hiring process. >> yes. but we -- it's our intention to continue the program with the same individuals who are in the program now. however, the mayor's office chose to fund it rather than putting the money in our budget for those positions. instead, added or subtracted from our attrition, which i suspect is what the controller was going to indicate. >> mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, just a

clarification. every, every cut that we have recommended to you has been funded by the mayor's office. so, if you want to go on the basis that the mayor's office funded it, then you should accept none of the budget analyst recommendations. >> mr. rosenfield, any other color? >> just very briefly. so, the board does two things when you're approving a position budget. you're authorizing a certain positions for menu the department is authorized to hire. then you're choosing to fund a certain percentage of those. so, for example, the board could authorize 100 positions for a given department. we then view them in the budget acknowledge that given turn over and other changes in the department's operations, they likely won't need funding for all 100 in the year. you may only fund 97 of them. the difference between those two numbers is budgeted attrition saving.

attrition saving isn't specifically earmarked for a specific position such that if you may have unexpected vacancies in one unit, you then can meet your attrition saving target and still afford others. i think what the public defender is saying here and what mr. -- disagreement with mr. rose falls is when you compare the public defender's current payroll and say how does that compare with the funded positions for next year, well, they need to generate additional attrition savings above and beyond the payroll to make that payment work. that's the difference. >> i think my confusion is the fact that these are positionses that already exist. they're not positionses that are -- that anyone is hiring. so, i don't understand because the money that is anticipated for the savings for attrition for vacant positions, you know, listed in this report is what we're talking about. so, that's where i guess i'm confused because i realize that there is a transition. i realize that there are fully

funded positions, but i just don't understand why this is -- i don't understand how this is going to impact this particular program because i am a supporter of the program. from my perspective, it doesn't look like if we agree to this particular cut that it would impact the leap program. but you're saying that it will, and i just -- i'm not getting it. and, so, i just -- >> mechanically the way this would work, if the board approves the budget and the department finds say six months into the year it would appear based on the projected payroll cuts that they don't have enough funded positions in their budget to manage, the department then faceses a choice about how to bring their budget back into line. that can be a number of things. that could be not backfilling a vacant position that might have