>> 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, 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