increase in next year's fifrk will increase budget. my guess is that public works can probably spend unlimited sums of money to clean our streets, but i will reserve that question for the department. >> supervisor kim, bruce robertson, public works, no, we could not spend 2.5 million between now and the end of the fiscal year. what we can do is request a supplemental for additional equipment, as well as we can make sure we get our nonprofit on board to provide services in the tenderloin, and then we can begin the hiring process. and as department director stringer mentioned, we have gotten a lot more nimble in hiring the 16 positions, but it would not expedite the $1.6 million for staff, so the short answer is no. >> and i appreciate supervisor kim's questions -- if you could just stay at the mic.

>> president breed: one second. supervisor yee, were you done with your comments? >> supervisor yee: i mean -- no. >> president breed: okay. >> supervisor kim: i'm so sorry, supervisor yee. i apologize. >> supervisor yee: no, it's okay. regardless when we appropriate this money, whether it's now or three months from now, the department still has to go through the same process. so i'm in the thinking that what we're -- there's almost no disagreement that we need to get working on this issue. i feel we could get smaller amounts appropriated so we don't have to wait three months from now. i truly believe -- and i'm pretty tolerant of what i see in the streets that it's

getting worse. and it's not everywhere, but certainly, in certain areas, it's getting worse, and it needs some help. i'm willing to support a smaller supplement where we can get things started. because i looked at more recently -- i don't know if it was a controller or somebody showed me a list of projects and programs that would support such an effort that would cost almost the same amount as what supervisor kim is suggesting. so again, it seems like somebody, the department, has thought this through already in terms of what would be a good approach. so i just like to say i want to support a jump start on this. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor ronen? >> commissioner renne: sur . >> supervisor ronen: sure. i'd love to continue hearing the questioning, but having personally cleaned the b.a.r.t.

station which was in great need of cleaning every single day in my district, i can say that every day that areas of our districts are kept clean makes a big difference in the lives of our businesses and our residents. and because the materials out there are so hazardous, whether it be human waste or needles, it can really hard hit neighborhoods. in communities like the tenderloin, like the mission, you could not get started fast enough. i just want to appreciate dpw for your incredible work. i, too, work with you pretty much every day, and i really think that this use of unassigned funds in our current budget makes perfect sense. now if we were tapping into reserve funds or some other source of funding, i would have

reservations and think we should plan it according to the normal budget process, but given it -- the condition of our streets and how hazardous the condition is -- the materials are, i would say that this is appropriate. i do want to appreciate chair cohen for the approach you're taking to the budget this year. i'm really excited about it. i think it's the type of leadership that we need. i think it's going to make us have a different experience than we've had in previous years. i appreciate your comments, supervisor cohen, and i'm really excited about participating in the process that you've setup, but i'm really in support of this supplemental whether it's the full 2.5 million amount or a lesser amount that we might discuss in a minute. i do think it's something that's not only appropriate but something that our residents are demanding of us and

rightfully so. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor stefani? >> thank you. just want to associate myself with the comments of supervisor cohen and supervisor tang on this. i absolutely do agree that our city streets are dirty and need our attention. there is no question absolutely whatsoever that we have to do something about it. there's no question, and moreover, we have to look at what's making our streets so incredibly dirty. it is ae a high priority to me, and it's one that i've communicated to mayor fairly and the chairman of the budget and finance committee. i've also been given assurances by the mayor that he is working on addressing this issue and is working on a comprehensive plan for the entire city. the thing about these funds, to me, i don't see it as extra money, i see this as money that should be applied to our budget deficit over the next three years, which is $136.9 million. after we figure out how to deal with that, a significant

structural deficit remains. there is an increase of $420 million in the deficit between fiscal year '19 and 2021, so i think we need to have a comprehensive approach to this process. we are currently in the process as chair cohen mentioned, and we are hearing from our departments while we await the mayor budget, the competing budget and the needs of the city are extremely intense. for example, one of the major contributors of our city is dirty drug use, yet when we heard from the police chief, we learned we only have ten narcotics officers on our streets. we don't meet the number of police officers needed, which is currently mandated in our charter. there are a number of competing interests, and like i said we're looking at a two year budget deficit of 136.9 million. and i'd like to say another thing. as a former department head, i know how hard it is to fight

for funding to keep the departments going with the required number of employees to provide the services we are obligated to provide to the city and county of san francisco, the investments we need to make and the programs we need to apply. for the clerk's entire operating system, we were looking for funding elsewhere, so departments are under stress right now as they're working with the mayor's budget office to keep going. they have to cut budgets by 2.5% and hire no fte's, so i don't see this money as extra money, also. we also have a volatile federal government with no indications of support, and what's really threatening to me is the overturn of sb 1 at the ballot, which we could loose budgetary funds that are desperately needed. for me, there is no question in my minds that he with need toen he been up our streets, no question. the fact is we are in a budget process. this is $2.5 million that can

be applied against a budget deficit, and we need to look at this globally. we need to look at this all together. i look forward to reviewing through the city's regular budget process. thank you. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: sorry. just one follow up question to my earlier one regarding hiring. i'm just wondering how many vacant corridor ambassadors are people who are manually cleaning our streets, how many vacancies there are right now, and can we address try to filling those first? >> so approximately, if we take the corridors, the commercial corridors where they usually work, there's about 90 now, and our goal is 130, so we're 40 down as of right now. and we continue to hire, but given the -- our employees,

they are a challenge, so it's hard to keep them. we haven't been able to get up over 110 in the last year, year and a half, and sustain it. >> supervisor tang: so i think that just goes to my early point, we'd love to get more people hired, we'd love to sustain them. i don't know that putting 1.6 million to that right now is going to sustain that. i think it's a wonderful program that you proposed in getting folks from workforce development to come and fill those positions quicker, so i'd love to see those 40 positions filled first rather than putting those additional supplemental forward if we're not even able to. >> we do have better success with the nonprofits than we do with hiring city, i will say that. >> supervisor tang: okay. great. thank you so much. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor tang. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you. i just wanted to bring up public works again to address the question that supervisor norman yee yee brought up about what would be an appropriate amount that we could fund in

the remaining fiscal year, and just looking at what we had put together with your department, there is 560,000 to purchase the ravos street sweepers, 100,000 for street sweeping terms and supplies, which i assume we could use today. we have the 230,000 in community grants which we could also issue fairly quickly, but i think the question is the 1.6 million that we have set aside for hiring additional street cleaners. i'd like to right size the appropriation given the time passage and reduce the original amount as suggested by supervisor yee. >> supervisor kim, i'm real back of the envelope, so i'm saying the 560,000 for the purchase of the equipment some remain whole. the $100,000 for materials and supplies, we probably could also reduce to about half. the 230,000 to the nonprofit

community partner, that is something that i don't any we would want to reduce, and the reason being we agreed there's only a few months left in this fiscal year, but i don't think we would want to start a program and not have the funding in place for it to continue for a full year, so that would be our concern would be to bring a nonprofit partner on board, amend their contract with an extension of work on saturday and sunday and then have it only go for two months. i think in terms of the operational impact, and certainly, larry can speak to that, that full amount would be warranted. so the big number that's remaining, the 1.6 million remaining, i think 250,000 just based on the timing and some of the successes we've had in hiring, it would be 150,000. i handle all the hiring for the department, and i have a good idea of what's in the pipeline, but i think we could expand our requisition and use about 200 to $250,000.

>> okay. i'm recalculating that amount. >> president breed: supervisor kim, while you recalculate the amount, would you mind if i call on supervisor safai who hasn't had a chance to talk? >> supervisor kim: sure. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i guess i'm a little bit confused, because the original proposal was for 40 part-time employees? >> there would be -- each individual would be capped at 1,040 hours, so based on the scheduling, they could work any more at six months to longer, but their hours are capped at 1,040. >> supervisor safai: so you know, this is actually one program i do have particular experience with, having worked with dpw, helping director nuru to set the 99-16 program up,

and the way that we did this over a decade ago was we did work with nonprofits, we did work some with hsa, but not as much then, and it was targeted towards some violence intervention stat gees and first time employment opportunities. and one of the problems i have with at least this proposal is that for me, it's not -- you know, if you just think about it in terms of the streets and the conditions of the street, i think we're all 100% on board. i see that your budget has gone up significantly as it has over the last six years for street cleaning, but when you think about the actual employees themselves, we made a commitment back with the 99-16 a decade ago, to have at least a year or longer, and it was actually a preapprenticeship program, and the idea was they would graduate into potentially permanent positions. and tso the idea of hiring the in a very short of time is you give them a sense of hope, you

do hire them for a very short period of time, but there's no light at the end of the tunnel. and that's what works against me, so i will be voting against this today. >> the hope is after that six months, there will be funding to sustain them after that six months. i am not a fan of temporary help in the sense that if we provide opportunities for employment, we want to provide a career pathway out of that. so if you're in total agreement. and that's been public works' mission for the last 1 year2 y is not just to provide temporary pathways, but to provide setups for cleaning the streets. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: just to be clear, we worked closely with department of public works to

make sure these will be permanent positions. we've been talking about mayor farrell about ensuring that extension. and -- and so i just wanted to rejugger the number, and so it looks like the number would be reduced to 1.1 million, supervisor yee. and so if that's an acceptable amendment to you, based on what we had heard today, that would be my suggestion for amending this appropriation to 1.1 million. which would bring it down to ensure that we can do the community grants, the street cleaning materials and supplies, as well as the two sweepers. and then what was suggested in terms of the money that could be spent down on hiring these new street cleaning sweepers. a couple of notes that i do want to make, because i do understand concerns from colleagues about moving outside the budgetary process.

i just want to reiterate we do this almost every single year, and to be honest, it's difficult to find all of our supplement scalia appropriations. they' -- supplemental appropriations. they're not easy to find. in january 2012, we passed a $1.8 million supplemental appropriation to fund hiv treatment and care services, making up for where the federal government had cut from our programming. that was a unanimous vote. in late march of 2012, we passed a $1 million supplemental appropriation for small business revolving loan fund. again, at the same time as this vote, late march. march 20th was the first vote, and that was 11-0. in 2013, we did not pass the supplemental appropriation, but i introduced a $2.5 million supplemental appropriation to help students that were not on track to graduate, in our new

graduation requirement to o public schools. that was a 7-4 vote. in april 2014, this board passed a $1.3 million supplemental appropriation to expand the homeless outreach team. again, i think very similar to the item that is before us today. this was a 9-2 vote, and i want to respect supervisor katie tang's consistent vote against supplemental appropriation, but it was only supervisor tang -- i'm sorry, it was a 9-1 vote. supervisor mar was absent that day, where we voted on literally two months before the budget was supposed to be submitted, an immense expansion to our homeless outreach team in response to the fact that we believed we should be addressing homelessness. and that was introduced by then supervisor mark farrell. in april 2017, this board passed an $2 million appropriation for council for unaccompanied youth that were here in this country without documentation.

and then in january of 2017, last year, we passed a $2 million supplemental appropriation for right to counsel for those in deportati deportation proceedings here in san francisco. and by the way, we should just note that deportations is not a new crisis. the obama presidential administration deported more individuals than this administration has so far in just an annual count. so i think we can question and debate the timeliness of supplemental appropriation, the emergency nature of supplemental appropriations, but the fact is that this board has done this every year, and it has done it as late as the week that we are in today, which is the first or the second week of april. so it would not be inconsistent for this board to vote for the supplemental appropriation given what we are hearing from our constituents every single day. they are tired of how our streets are. they are tired of stepping over feces. they understand there is a

budget process, but they doin' want to wait two months. they want to see that funding today, as quickly as we can provide it, and these are unspent dollars that every year this board decides to determine how to spend down every given year, depending on what thwe think is the most important issue of our time. i think the condition of our streets have really reached a crisis point. we see it according to the data, with you see it on our walks, we hear it from our merchants. there's no ifssue i hear more about than the status of our streets today, and i think that any money we provide to public works will help alleviate some of the conditions we're seeing here today. so egg colleagues, i am had he whoo -- happy to amend the supplemental down from

1.5 million to 1.1 million, and colleagues, i'm asking for your support. it will provide a tremendous amount of relief, and it is not inconsistent with the positions of this board of supervisors. >> president breed: supervisor kim has made a motion. is there a second? seconded by yee. colleagues, can we pass the amendment without objection? without objection, the amendment passes. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i just wanted to call director stringer back up again because i heard something different from supervisor kim than what you had just said. so these are temporary positions. and has money been identified to make these positions permanent? >> i'm not aware of as of yet? >> supervisor safai: so we would be voting on these temporary positions without the undering that there is permanent money for these positions as of today? >> as of today. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. >> president breed: supervisor kim, supervisor cohen is on the

roster. >> supervisor kim: oh, sorry. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor cohen? >> supervisor cohen: thank you. which is -- to put a finer point on what supervisor safai was saying is all the reason why we need to go through the budget process and look at this in a more fuller context. i'd also like to bring in the budget legislative analyst into this discussion who has given an opinion that we heard in the -- in the budget committee. i want to welcome harvey rose -- or i'm not sure who's going to be speaking, but i wanted to be sure there's clarification. in the original statement that supervisor kim wrote, there's going to be 40 full-time employees. but today we've heard different. i don't know if you could give us clarification. >> yes. president breed? >> president breed: mr. rose. >> president breed, members of the board, supervisor cohen,

our report identifies that there would be approximately 41,150 hours of public service aides, and we do identify that these would be temporary positions. it would be the approximate equivalent of 19.8 full-time positions. it is my understanding they would work over the course of one year to expend that 41,150 hours for a total cost of 1.6 million. our report also identifies the community grants, the materials