department to give more information and i can provide that information to the committee today if you would like. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i am surprised that he can provide it today, we have been requesting that information, most respectfully and we have not received that information. but, do we have... our recommendations on page 64, our recommended reductions proposed budget 1 million 104,242, of that amount, 589,234 ongoing, and a one time safe ands these reductions will allow, increase of 86 million, or 11.7 percent of the department 14/15 budget and they will result in the savings, and regarding the reserve in fiscal year, 14/15, let me just read this and this

is on page 68 of our report, supervisors. and what we say, is place 3 million, 421 in the budget and finance committee reserve, pending the detailed information on hiring new positions for the expanded positions and the services and the department fiscal year, budget, includes an increase of 115 positions, including 50 positions approved by the board of supervisors as amended to the salary ordinance in 13/14, the department's projected salary, surplus, in 13, 14, is 6.8 million, and if you accepted this recommendation, it will give the department plenty of time to provide us with the details that we would not be holding up any hiring whatsoever and so this recommendation, is not to penalize the department but to get the details in writing where we can analyze them and report back to the board and with regard to the recommended reductions, and rec mepded reductions of the total budget

to the proposed budget, 635 in 15, 16, 425 are ongoing savings, and 180, one time savings and they will allow increase of 10.5 million are 1.3 percent, of the budget, and these reductions will result in $384,965 savings in the city's general fund and 15/16, the department concurs with the reductions but does not concur with our recommended reserve. >> thank you. >> mr. rore why don't we go back to you. >> sure. >> and committee members, i am providing the information on the hiring which we do provide in the budget analyst, i believe and perhaps, the budget analyst office does not feel that it is sufficient in order to reverse the recommendations. and so if you recall, a couple of months ago, you will approve the budget supplemental to add the additional staff and i am happy to report that 52 of the 56 additional staff will be hired, by the end of july,

which represents 2 and a half months, and so we have significantly reduced approval times, of dhr as well as the mayor's budget office, and it used to take, months, to get approval and now most hires and most requested new hires are approved by those two entities that within a week, we have also simplified and stream lined the internal process to get the staff on board and we looked at our recent payroll for the current year and analyzed it and analyzing the most recent payroll, and we are actually exceeding our salary budget by 1.6 million dollars and so we are on track to expand the full salary budget. which is why i am asking to have the money not be put on reserve and i appreciate the budget analyst saying, and not to penalize the department and the xwlon is there and we will have to come back again and provide more information and that is the additional step that i am going to avoid

because we are on track to fill these positions and we will be close to fully extending our salary budget within our attrition budget. >> okay. so our budget analyst? >> okay, from the budget and legislative office, and the reason that we made this recommendation and i will agree that the department has provided the information on the vacant positions and what their plans are is that we are projecting based on payroll through may, we saw a 6.8 million dollars in this year and there were positions that were approved by the board in 12/13 in the large number, and in addition, to the supplemental appropriation, and that did not filled on the permanent basis. and we are seeing, huge salary savings and we know going forward this will increase the mandates and enhance the services that the department is providing and we were very conservative in the recommended reduction in the department but we thought that the budget and finance committee needed to see during the course of the year, what was happening in terms of the department's ability to

meet the mandate and the hiring requirements and we thought this was a reasonable way for them to do it. >> okay. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions? >> for our budget analyst or for mr. rore? >> okay. >> from my perspective, i am okay with the cuts, i am happy to not put it on reserve and to... and i appreciate the attention here. and i have talked with mr. rore frequently over the last few months over hiring and doing so and so i am okay not putting it on reserve and it will be my suggestion, because you are welcome to the comments or a motion. >> i would put it with the committee reserve. >> without putting it on reserve? >> yes. >> so supervisor avalos has made the recommendation to accept it and not to put it on reserve. >> do i have a second. >> okay, we will take that without objection. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> okay. so, next is the war memorial, and we actually came to an agreement last week from the controller's office that those funds were going to take it all as general fund. and so we will reflect that in our final budget. so up next we have oewd. >> good afternoon, supervisors, office of workforce development last week we were in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations over the last week and we worked with the analyst on a revised set of recommendations and we are in agreement with the revised recommendations, and i do want to make one note, that the second recommendation is a downward substitution which is non-general fund support just to be clear with the committee as well as others. >> okay. thank you. >> colleagues. any questions, could we go to mr. rose's report first? >> yes, mr. chairman, and members of the committee, on

page 72 of our report, our recommended reduction to the proposed budget, 267,159, 14, 15, and that amount, 112,000 one time and 154,000 are ongoing and recommended reduction, 186 in 15 1/16 all of which are ongoing savings. >> okay. thank you, mr. rose. >> colleagues, any questions, or comments. >> okay, could i have a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendations? we have a motion by supervisor breed and a second by avalos and we can take that without objection. >> thank you. >> okay. >> it has for the sheriff's department. >> >> good afternoon, supervisors, and i would like to first thank the budget analyst and the budget office of the controller and we come here to report that we agree with budget analyst

report, and look forward to moving forward. >> okay. >> thank you mr. sheriff. >> colleagues, no questions? mr. rose. >> a report that i handed out this morning, i recommended reduction of the budget, 386,585 and of that amount, 258,000 are ongoing, and 128,000 ongoing, and these will increase of 13 points, or 7.4 percent and the department budget and we also recommended closing out prior year unextended funds that will allow, 104,000 for the general funds and so together the two recommendations 493,000 savings for the city general fund, and our recommended reductions to the proposed budget, 280,in 15/16, 254 are ongoing, 25,000 one time, and these reductions will allow an increase of 4.8 million or 2.5 percent in the

budget, and the department is controlled with the revised recommendations. >> thank you, colleagues any questions for the sheriff or mr. rose on the sheriff's department report? >> supervisor avalos? >> yeah, just a question about, thank you. just a question about reconfiguration of security services at general hospital, and i am told that there is a new program in place, and involves deputy sheriffs. and you know, i am wondering if there is any cost savings to be found in that? could you explain the new program? >> significantly, because it is not just the deputy sheriff but it is cadets we as a cadet class that learned fusing with the supervision and the satellite of public health locations as well too. and with the great collaboration, especially with the last seven months, between the department of public health sf general and ourselves, we have forged a plan quite frankly that i think should

have been in existence long before my administration about satisfying the security services needs at the 24.2 acre campus at san francisco general and it is not just deputies that afix a post solution of 24 acres of one per fix post and one rover but to inject a cadet level which is a significant savings when you look at the delta between the cadet class and this one deputy class, and we are quite pleased with the collaboration that has occurred with dph and i think that was a testament recently to a town hall meeting, if you will at sfgh, with their staff, and with ucsf president who has also been a strong assistance to us, and everybody, i think is feeling good about the direction that we are going. >> and there is a work order between dph, and the sheriff's department, for the services. and i don't have that entire department before you, but do

you happen to know offhand what that is. >> i know what was budgeted was upwards to 3 let me ask. >> and i can get that for you. if you would like? afterwards? >> i think that there was a policy recommendation? that we have been in the budget analyst report that was about reducing that work order? and i just want to make sure that is in this report or not? i hear from the legislative aid, but i wonder if there is any room to, i know that we made the program and plans in place and we have had the issues of security and i have visited the hospital and learned about the security issues that there are and i wonder if there is any recommended cost savings based on the budget analyst work, that you might know about? i have a figure before me, of that seems really large, but i want to see if there is any analysis that is behind it.

mr. rose... >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, supervisor avalos, i don't believe that we have a recommended reduction in our report. and that you are referring to. >> okay. >> thank you. >> and just, if i could, supervisor avalos, what came out of also an audit that i and the mayor had called for, about sfgeneral and the department of public health, about security services, at sfgeneral, and this comports with the results of that audit. and of the last several months. and so, that investment, one way or the other is going to be made, and it has been made, i think, faster by the collaboration of or between our departments and frankly, it is years overdue. >> thank you. >> okay. >> colleagues, any further discussion or questions, or comments? >> one thing that i would like to stress. we are pleased to see that in

the upcoming budget that there is an academy class, i just presided over the one and only academy class for the deputy sheriffs and this department had not seen in five years, and so i know that it is, well spot lighted both for the police and fire, for their need of classes. but for the department of our size, and our strength to have only one class in five years, was stared from another class and so i want to say thank you for the one upcoming class that is proposed for this budget and we appreciate that very much. we certainly had hoped that there might be more, but we look forward to that discussion too. >> so thank you. >> thank you, sheriff. >> okay. >> colleagues, if know other discussion, could i have a supervisor breed? >> well, i just was going to make a motion to accept the budget and legislative analyst, recommendations. >> thank you, supervisor, breed and supervisor avalos, seconds that and we can take that without objection. that brings us to the end of the departments for the moment, one thing that we do have clean up from last week and we took a

number of cuts before the public comments and that we agreed with the departments with, and so forth, could i have a motion to accept all of our previous agreements with our departments? >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor avalos. and could we take that without objection. >> and are we going to hear the city administrator right after we do this? >> yeah. >> is our city administrator here? we have kim from her office that is here. >> okay. >> before taking that motion, why don't we hear. >> so. let me just start by saying, that last year, supervisor breed and this committee started the process of talking about our outstanding grants for the arts and our arts commission and various city funding of the arts in the city and i think that with the goal of expanding the arts for everyone, and especially in one of the most art supporting cities in the world and i think

last year, supervisor breed and i and others, raised some concerns about making stronger progress towards cultural equity and we defined the cultural equity broadly, not just under served communities of color and also lgbt committees and woman's arts organizations and other under served and usually smaller based organizations. and at the hearing last year, kerri, that now 34-year head of the grants for the arts mentioned that she was working hard on creating funds for smaller fragile, arts organization and she committed very explicitly on supporting cultural equity and coordinating more with the work of the arts commission and their staff as well and his commission and staff and when i asked about achieving cultural equity and in the moving fast enough, i think that it is entirely our goal and to

support the new, younger up and coming groups that served the populations that really need that access, and also, diversifying the existing larger arts organizations as well and i think that last year there was a process that supervisor breed led, that distributed, i think that it was 125,000 per year or 250,000 total, towards cultural equity broadly, and i know that on july 16th this committee will hear analysis, and a discussion on the budget analyst's report on the progress over 25 years, of grants for the arts and cultural equity and i will leave it to that committee hearing, to dialogue about it and i think that one thing, that the report highlighted that i wanted to bring up and i know that, in some ways, our city administrator and miss shulman might have the concerns about how the report was, and the methodology of the report and i do feel very strongly that the report has strong

findings and recommendations and number one, grants for the arts of the funding of the arts organizations, especially for under represented groups has not kept up, and that the larger dominate arts organizations still have the lion's share of funding and we are not doing enough to increase the amount towards the smaller as miss shulman called them the smaller on theser organizations and i think that jeff jones and andrew wood, and other arts advocates point out that 57 percent of the population are under served and people of color and if you add on to that, women and lgbt communities it is larger and the grants for the arts funding has not kept up with the growth of the diversity of the city and seeing some stronger out comes and stronger goals towards that is hopefully will be the goal of the july 7th, and the july 16th hearing, anddy want to also say that in

looking at the budget of grants for the arts with our city administrator, and miss shulman and others, and it looks like, 191,711 dollars is additional money that has not been spent, but it is also money that does not take away from the existing allocations. and my motion today, will be that we allocate that money towards cultural equity and i was going to ask mr. bacowsky from the city administrator office to verify that is unallocated amount of money and what are your suggestions for allocating this towards cultural equity. >> thank you, deputy, city administrator and i am here on behalf of kelley and she was not able to make it to this hearing and so we have had the discussions with the office and we appreciate your thoughts on this and realizing that these vast majority for the funds

have already been allocate and we recently completed the grant cycle and so we do have an unallocated balance of 179,000, and what we have proposed to do is to create ate one time fund called cultural fund and that is in alignment with what director shulman and city administrators have wanted to do in terms of finding the ways that we can support the smaller organizations in terms of their basic, basic needs. and that is one of the great things that grants for the arts can do. and so, we would look if you prefer, we could either allocate that, in house, within the arts, or we can also set it up as a work order to the arts commission and it is a program that we will be doing jointly with them and manage with them jointly, and so, either way, that we want to establish in the budget, will be fine. >> and i would like to get the comments from my colleagues,

and i, would say thank you for working this allocation out, specifically for cultural equity as a first step towards pulling up the smaller fra gig arts group as we work together to expand the pie and i want to say that in the 2006 arts task force recommendations and i know that many arts organizations are not in total agreement, of the recommendations but on july 16th, we will have a conversation that many want the stronger allocations but others, also point to the need for a cultural affairs office and some other stronger efforts towards merging all of the different arts and funding organizations but i know that is a later discussion that we will have. i will personally prefer that money go towards the arts commission, for cultural equity rather than the grants, but i would like to know what the colleagues think. >> i would support you in that.

>> supervisor breed? >> thank you. i just wanted some clarity, how is the funding allocated if we have not even approved the budget for next fiscal year? >> well, we the funding is allocated because we have made a determination of where... the fair begins on july first and that is a complicated thing about the budget process is for the grantees and the year also begins july first. >> it is made clear to them that it is not clear until it is approved by the board of supervisors. >> if the board wanted to take other action, we will notify all that based on the board's appropriation, we are reducing the grant amount that we had previously awarded to them. >> this separate entity that you are proposing to set up, do you have money that you are prepared to insert into this entity? >> it would not be, it is not separate, it is just a fund, and as supervisor mar was saying, it is something, that we would do in collaboration

with the arts commission, with could do it as a work order to them and create a process that is competitive it create, and to generate new grantees. >> got it, thank you. >> i would support supervisor mar's proposed motion, to move funding to cultural equity grants, specifically, i think that is the better move. last year, we were given a commitment that there would be that the department would look into our concerns very and would take our concerns about equity within grants for the arts very seriously and we will work towards creating a more equitable process from the recent grant allegation and i don't believe that anything has changed much and i don't have confidence in allowing a process to continue, and to be over seen by the grants to the arts directly, i am much more comfortable with a commission

that over sees cultural equity under the san francisco arts commission where the decisions are competitive and the decisions are voted on and they truly go to organization and we do have a problem and i am looking forward to a thorough discussion at the government audit and oversight committee which i chair to really dig into the report, by the budget and legislative analyst, that supervisor mar has requested. it is clear that this has been an issue for many, many years, and it is time for us to make some serious changes and i would be willing to support, a motion to the effect of not necessarily increasing grants for the arts and i want to make this clear that we are not going to decrease lash year's allocation of grants for the arts. we are just not supportive of increasing it until we understand that there is clear equity. and so that increase, i'm understanding is being proposed to be moved to cultural equity

grants, where it will be distributed a lot more equitable under a commission that votes to determine who these grants are distributed to. so i just wanted to make that clear as well and thank you, supervisor mar, for your leadership on this issue, and if you could clarify, what you are proposing that will be really helpful. >> thanks. >> so let me just try to think out loud with him in the room as well. i know that cultural equity grants has some limitations on how the funding can be used by the fragile and really potentially and struggling arts organizations with the capital needs or the space, needs as well. and i am just wondering, what do you feel that if, it was allocated for the cultural equity grants that gives you enough flexibility to support, organizations that are going to need it? i am just wondering if you have any discussions and then, our chief, city administrator and

kerri have suggested a joint fund that allows the better communication within the arts funding organizations? but do you have any discussions? >> thank you, supervisors, tom decaney san francisco arts commission, we would be willing to work with the grants team with the grants for the arts and haze and other members of the team if the money comes to the cultural equity grants and we could allocate the funds to the creative space program and it is the program the grants program specifically to looking at the capitol and space needs of tentative improvements and other, you know, ada and code compliance issues, and we could look at it more broadly across the equity as well and they include, the individual artists and commissions and the project grants but i think that the idea being that we would work closely with the grants for the art team to insure that we are looking at cultural equity across the system that will improve the cultural equity, not just for the existing, but

to work in partnership on that endeavor. >> if we allocated it for the cultural equity. and so for the social and cultural equity it has more flexibility for use, and you would be coordinated for the grants for the arts staff as well as the arts commission staff. >> yes, in that case, it will be recommended not to put it into the endowment fund and so that has legislative guidelines we will have responsiveness to look at the equity as if it was its own fund. >> i think that we want to be careful about creating something that does not exist. and i know that we are looking

into rent stabilization. however, i think that with the cultural equity grants and to be able to use them for the facility related needs and i think that the structure exists and i think that it is just cleaner to move it into the cultural economy grants to increase that grant allocation, and number one, and number two, when we go through this hearing, process and we begin the discussions, with the grants, or with the city administrator and the grants for the arts and the arts commission at the stable around the cultural equity in general and we can look at the broader discussion about what this truly means in terms of service and providing service to provide equity for arts organizations in general, and i don't necessarily, i am not necessarily, comfortable with such a small dollar amount, being specified, for potential capitol, because capitol expenses are so costly, and many instances these are smaller, organizations, and

with the need for a specific project, or they can also, there are other different various guidelines that they could use in order to spend these funds, but ultimately it will go to a diverse group of artists with a community process and with the public approval if directly provided. >> so i am going to defer from the colleague that comes from the arts community and the arts communities but also, to say that the board's allocation of 2 million dollars, for stabilization of non-profits and or of the arts, organizations is something that already is going forward. i also wanted to acknowledge that among the add backs of many of the colleagues on this board, there were about 500,000, 550,000 of potential add backs that are going to cultural equity from the specific board members backs, but i think that i will be

making this motion now, to move the 191,711 dollars of surplus from the grants for the arts and into the city administrator, towards cultural equity grants within the arts commission and so that will be my motion, based on the input from here, and then i will, i did want to also raise, one concern that some members of the arts community have looked at the allocations to date, from the grants for the arts and it totaled about $10 million, which left about a $1.1 million dollar unallocated amount, but i am just saying, that those are the kinds of numbers, that as we go towards july 16th, that hearing and just to understand, more of how the grants for the arts allocates the money and how it is achieving the goals to the equity and those are the kinds of questions that i will be asking as we come up to the july 16th hearing, any other

comments? >> i would just say in response to that, we look forward to the july 16th hearing and we encourage if there are specific questions or information that you would like to bring into that meeting that you let us know in advance, so that we can come well prepared for a good discussion on a date. and secondly, i just want to clarify in terms of when you say, move the funds, if that would be in terms of allocating the funds within our budget as a work order or some other process? i just wanted to clarify that. >> so if i could just ask, the controller, to suggest what would be the motion? >> and just for clarity, the motions were for for the fiscal years based on what is allocated in the budget, and that additional amount would be stable for the following fiscal years as well and so i would like to make sure that we are talking about the $191,711,