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, for both upcoming fiscal years.

>> okay. >> so, is the chairman of the committee, the committee has two choices you could for each of the two years, you can move the money into a work order, that then admin services could transfer to the arts commission, or you could deappropriate it from this department and reappropriate it to the arts commission. >> i think that it is cleaner to deappropriate and reappropriate. 191,711 for this year and whatever surplus for next year. >> it is the same amount. >> for both years? >> okay. >> and so that is my motion. >> second >> we have a second. supervisor avalos? could we take ta without objection? >> okay, so moved. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar, and then, with that,... >> i do have a request about animal care and control, since we have you here. i apologize. this came up because i received a significant number of e-mails

lobbying me for support for animal care and control. and what i am trying to understand is that you know, as a department, you have the ability to make these requests to the mayor's office directly and the add back is no place to try to effectively serve a department, especially one like animal care and control and i guess that i am trying to understand why am i being lobbied and what did your department do to get the mayor office to support your budget so that you have sufficient resources for that department? >> thank you supervisor. >> first of all just to be clear that the lobby that you may be receiving is coming from outside organizations and individuals, and not from the city administrator's office, itself. >> the things that start when the whole add back process began. and so i am concerned about

that. >> so as the city administrator kelley has previously stated in earlier hearings, we, in our office we did go through a review of the animal care control needs and looked at their budget and staffing, and tried to figure out what made sense for them and we did propose a budget to the mayor's office that included, 11.5 additional ftes. >> okay. >> and as with all departments including the other departments under the city administrator's umbrella, we have had to go through and prioritize because there is not enough money for what ever department needs. >> if someone is doing this on their own, how do they know that you have proposed to the mayor's office, 11.5 ftes? >> we have previously shared that in the animal care hearing that was in these chambers. >> and we provided that department and showed what the request was with all of the break out and spread sheets. >> and it was a public department. >> thank you.

>> and so the city administrator had prioritized previously the public safety and health and the most important. areas that we have considered and so that is why the animal control officers were the priority for the decisions that were included in the budget. >> and it was rejected by the mayor's office. >> there are new animal control office of positions in the budget, there are other positions that are not in the budget. >> okay. and so it looks here, for the proposed budget, that there is a decrease from last fiscal year, but you are saying that there were additional positions added to animal welfare? >> yes, the decrease from the year to year, is likely related to capitol funding that may have happened in one year and did not happen in the second year and so it is one time funding that offsets. >> how many additional positions were added. >> i believe that it were two. >> and miss howard, can you explain to me why the mayor's office did not or decided not to provide that was requested for this department?

>> supervisor? >> chair, kate howard, the mayor's budget director, and as he indicated and as i think that the city administrator indicated previously, part of the process that we go through is, is the departments proposed the burgary reductions >> we widle them to the things that we can afford and the most priority. and we worked with the city administrator's office to prioritize, the public safety within animal care and control. and that is why we added the positions that we did. and the additional positions were just beyond what the mayor's budget could afford at the time that we put it together. >> so, are there concerns with the public safety as it results to not providing the number of positions that were requested? >> we do not currently have those concerns, no.

>> okay. >> thank you. >> okay, colleagues, any further questions? >> okay. thanks very much. >> and okay, so supervisor mar's motion, and so including that motion, could i have a motion to accept all of our decisions from last week prior to public comment? >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor avalos, we can take those without objection. >> okay. colleagues, we are done with our proper departments at this point in time and having gone through them, we are going to entertain a motion and we will go into recess and i want to turn it over to supervisor avalos. >> thank you, chair ferrill and i want to thank you for all of your work so far. and getting us through our department review. and i really appreciate it. i want to thank, all of our support as well, budget analyst and the controller, and the mayor's office and the mayor's budget office and of course all of the departments that came before us. and over all, we are a great difference between what kind of

a list that we are currently and the kind of revenue that we have to pay for the list of the things that we like to reallocate in the budget and i would want to see if there is additional things that we can take a look at to provide the flexibility of how we can meet the demand for services that are there, over all, i have heard from you know, many people over the past many months, and we all know about our affordable crisis in san francisco, and there are things that we have received especially around housing and the employment services and we also have had the big, requests, and the budget, and the mayor received these as well and around nutrition and the food security, and to about $10 million, also for the support for senior citizens and case management for senior citizens and also, there has been, or needs to be a request for the cola of us, about 1.5 percent in addition to the

mayor's addition of 1.5 percent and that equals 6.8 million dollars and various other large ticket items that are coming our way from across the city that you know, the people expect to have a great expectation that we fulfill, although, i don't know if we can find the revenue to fulfill those expectations but i would like to see if there is an additional sources of revenue that we can look at and i know that these are going to be controversial ideas that are going to come forward. and but i think that they are worthy of consideration, especially that each one of us, is on this committee and our colleagues not on the committee have the big requests for their districts that could amount to about a million dollars per, district, and they have reduced the lists from higher amounts and we have about ten to eleven million dollars over all and so if we just did the program and what we had requested for our districts in terms of meeting the district needs. and we would just be added what

we have in terms of revenue. but there is a large city, and many of them i have just listed, that the response that we don't have enough revenue to meet those. >> the record and the possible ideas that could be choices that we have before us. and i have requested the controller's office, and working with the mayor's office and with our budget committee to assess the possibility of entities and it be before us as choices and when we come back together from recess. and these include, the police, academy classes one month, delay, each year. and which would yield altogether, 2.4 million dollars, in both years and reducing, potentially, dph work order to the sheriff's department about 1.2 million and down to the support services in laguna honda, and our clinics from general hospital and reducing the pci

forward from 70, percent, to 68 percent, for the street and repaving program, will yield a total of 19.5 million over two consecutive years and i know that these are controversial choices and not expected to get into a debate about them 1k3 i think that those expectations that we are supposed to find more money and i think that we have to make choices and we have to make choices based on what is before us and these are the choices that we have and the other ones that will come forward as well and that will be the different choice and we also have the overhead surplus fund in dpw, and so, 100,000 per year, and it is sort of, we can take a look at. and the department of technology, and we will have an operating project of 1.8 million per year, and so that we can put in the mix of choices that we have before us. and choices that we can choose to take or not. and one, is looking at, managers that had to reduce the

number of managers in the city so that we can actually put the priority for the line staff, verses the managers and does not have a dollar amount here and are we looking at the office of economic workforce development and possible reduction of the management position which will be 141,000 a year, and manager five position that will have the security and general hospital, and for move thating position to be $153,000 per year. and reducing and the vehicle reductions that could also yield the cost savings and i will leave it up to the departments of the mayor's office to work with us over the ideas of the vehicle reductions and if, we were to do, quarter one percent reductions and the salary, and the fringe benefits across the city, i know that we could yield the cost savings and i know that there are impacts of doing the things across the board cuts and that may have in many positions and the services that we and many of us in this office, jointly would agree should be available

in the city. and we will get reduced but that is an option that i want to have up for consideration, and how and whether the option is another matter and also, you know, in the capital plan for one time savings that we might be able to fund, and the things that we have include in the capitol plan, include, improvement projects in your 1.2 million dollars and these are all, and projects that were like second tier projects and one that is critical in the infrastructure and 3.2 million, in the first fiscal year and golden gate park, and renovation project and savings of 500,000 and there is also a facility maintenance and the park that will be decommissioned soon of $500,000 yearly if we were to remove that maintenance for the park. and city hall emergency power capabilities of $620,000. and those are amount to over

all, 7 million dollars, in the capitol plan alone, and also interested in other possibilities that could, be found between, you know, the controller's office and the mayor's office and the budget committee members and we will work it together and i want to read some ideas into the record of what could be looked at that could be before us over the next few hours, to decide upon. >> thank you, supervisor, avalos. >> and supervisor breed? >> thank you. >> through the chair, supervisor avalos, i just wanted to understand the details of your request to reduce the new security at san francisco general. what would that mean? i mean that i am sorry, san francisco general and laguna honda, could you explain? is it... and it will reduce the new security or the existing security? or i am trying to understand that. >> and it would be maintain a certain level of security but making a reduction in the

security services that are there in the laguna honda and in the clinics and the sheriff just talked about you know the increase services in those places, but it would not or effect the general hospital facilities, so this is a, this is a new... >> and this budget analyst could talk about it within their report that came out last night. >> okay. >> and you want to. >> yes, for the chair. and in our report that we released last night and we looked at the changes in the security, and the evaluation of security that was done by usf was specific to san francisco general and we looked at enhance security and about the base line at laguna honda and i believe that the number was 1.2 million dollars increase. but we did not include in that was the increased security of the mental health clinics. >> supervisor mar? >> yes, i want to thank you for

that potential list of revenue and say that i think that the street repaving pci score seems like one of the large amounts, even to improve our goals, but a little less ambitionly would help to save money that could go to deal with the housing crisis that you mentioned or what i would frame as the hunger and the food security crisis that we are facing especially among the many isolated and vulnerable seniors in our neighborhoods and i also wanted to ask the budget analyst from their report that was issued to us and there were a couple of policy recommendations and i know that the health air and clean transportation ordinance is one that is a small run, but the larger one, seems to be in the general fund expenditures for the problematic projects that seems like it increased 850

percent from the previous two years but could you go through just previously the policy option that we have on the projects as potential revenues? >> and our recommendation, and we looked at each one of those in the respectful department budgets and made the recommendations in the budgets, why we included that in there is more of how it is budgeted, that we believe that those should be budgeted as the continuing projects and so it is more of a budget approach, rather than a savings. >> and it was factored in during each department's recommendations that you made to each department? on looking at problematic projects like that? >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> and i also wanted to say that i know that from the budget justice, of coalition and the public hearings that we have held that many in the communities were highlighting what supervisor avalos mentioned as the displacement

crisis, and rapid rehousing and some of the other issues to me are survival issues for many people to stay in the city, during the crisis that is pushing many out, and if we do have additional revenue, my hope is that it goes towards this critical safety net and not only for the people on the verge of being displaced but also, those who go to bed hungry, whether they are seniors or children as well. >> so, let me just see, on the roster is supervisor breed and then supervisor weiner. >> okay. >> thank you. mr., and vice chairman. i just have a couple of questions. and i am not sure on this, the list of that supervisor avalos that have been analyzed and i think that some of them have been and some of them have not. and so, i question, in case you have done this analysis, you could tell me whether you have

done it. and so, reducing the pci, score, the average pci score, that the pavement condition in the index scores from the streets from 70 to 68 and which in real terms is cutting about ten million dollars a year out of road resurfacing, which is a one quarter of the proposed road resurfacing, budget. now, if i recall correctly on prop b, which was passed in 2011 actually contains the voter adoptive policy that we are to get to 70 pci scores, on our roads. and so, in terms, and i guess that i, i don't know if this is a, and a legal question, or maybe not. and in terms of what is the relevance of the fact that about 70 percent of the voters, voted to put 7 pci score, of

70, for our roads, and this will be a apparently adopting a policy that should be lower. and is that... does that have any relevance that voter adopted mandate or policy in whatever you want to call it? >> supervisors and members of the committee, we can take a look at the language that went before the voters we don't have it in front of us. >> i would appreciate that. >> and also a reduction of 10 million a year in road resurfacing and i also want to know how many street segments like i guess, it was about a block and how many street segments would then not get resurfaced that would have been resurfaced with that $10 million, and i think that it is really important to when we are considering, something that sounds really academic that we reduce the pci score for the roads from 70 to 68 and what that ten million dollars annual

reduction would look like to regular san franciscans in terms of the number of streets that would not get resurfaced. and i also would like to know in terms of delaying the academy classes, what that, if that were to become something that we do, because we are doing three a year to try to catch up to get the full staffing and the police department, and if that were to become a trend, where we are now perhaps every year delaying the police academy classes by a month or two months or whatever it is. and especially since we are probably in the best budget year imaginable or there abouts, it is probably only going to get worse from here. and what that would mean in terms of how long it would take us to get back to the full staffing compared to what the mayor and the police chief have proposed. and what that would mean in terms of officers, on the street. and then, finally, in terms of

the various infrastructure and proposed cuts on supervisor avalos's list and different kinds of infrastructure cuts and some of them are, apparent, and i would like more information on the two, the 2.3 million dollar possible cut to department of the emergency management's critical infrastructure protection and we want to know what that means, and it is sort of an ominous zoning phrase and i can imagine what it means, but i think that it is important of making the transparent, the budgeting decisions to know what that means.

>> thank you, we will go to the questions and thank you. >> and i just want to thank you, supervisor weiner for your questions and these are actually policy choices and as the policy choices it is good to understand where the trade offs are and my, reason for doing this, is because, there is that huge demand, for from our offices and to honor or offices for pulling more of the budget than we have money for and so i want to go through the exercise of looking at our policy choices. and to helpful fill as much of that as possible, and certainly, we are going to have to reduce, you know, our expectations of what we can get, and i also want to increase our expectations of what we have. >> to call to no questions at this point in time and i move that we go to recess until 5 p.m., and we can gather at that point in time and have the

further discussion, and so colleagues we are in recess. [recess]