>> wow, thanks. >> now you can buy dinner. sfmta.com. access useful information, any >> supervisor cohen: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. good morning, i love the fact that everyone's excited. i heard all this excitement and discussion. you all are so fired up to be here to talk about the budget, talk about proposed cuts. this is what i live for.

i'm happy to be here. i hope you guys are happy to be here. i want to recognize my committee, vise president -- or vice chair sandy fewer, jeff sheehy on my right, kathrin stefani and norman yee on my left. we've got a pretty long day today and tomorrow scheduled. we're going to be hearing thoughtful rebuttals, i hope. i'm sure some of you will come up with some not so thoughtful rebuttals, but that's okay. all right. so i just want to welcome everyone to day four of department presentations. yea, we've made it. the first three days have been eventful. today we're hearing the recommended changed made by their budget legislative analysts. those departments who've reached out in agreement with

the b.l.a., and for whom we have no questions, we're going to reach out to you first, and then you will be dismissed. departments who do not agree with the b.l.a. or whose reports include policy recommendition as, you can present your case. this committee will try to make as many decisions as possible today. for the media, we will make decisions monday morning. we also have some procedural legislation that we need to take care of today. as in the past, we will call those items together with their department's presentation, we will hear the reports, we will take public comment on those items at that particular time. with that, i'd like to call up the following departments who are in agreement for whom -- and departments that we do not have questions for. and before we go a little -- any further, i want to just recognize our friends at sfgov tv, jesse larson and colina

mendoza, and of course our faithful clerk linda wong is here. she's one of my favorite clerks here, just on top of her game. madam clerk, are there any announcements, anything we need to take care of today? >> yes. please silence any cell phones or electronic devices. documents or anything to be included as part of the file should be submitted. items acted on today will be part of the june 25 agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor cohen: okay. i'd like to get started and call items 1 and 2, please. >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read] >> supervisor cohen: all right. so this is the order that we're going to be calling departments. first we're going to be hearing

from health service sam systems, the assessor, controller, fine arts museum, asian art museum, public works, emergency management, superior court, adult probation, juvenile probation, treasurer tax collector, art commission, war memorial, children and families commission, children, youth and their families, public health, the board of supervisors, and the department of police accountability. just want to let the department of public health know and dcyf, we've got questions for you, so we'll most likely see you tomorrow. just want to manage expectations. all right. first up, human service agency, come on down. we should have, like, the price is right theme music playing right now. exactly. that's right, trent. i love that energy. >> good morning, board of

supervisors. >> good morning. >> the human services agency is in green with the budget analyst's recommendation, however, there is one item that they recommend on reserve, that herrine mcspadden, director of the agency will speak to. it's related to the dignity fund. >> supervisor cohen: okay. great. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. so we are in disagreement with the budget and legislative analysts on one item, and that's that putting the dignity fund allocation for 18-19 on reserve. it's our interpretation that the board does not need to approve this. i have presented the allocation to you twice already, but it is also not -- it's our understanding that you don't need to approve it. the charter addresses the fund's fore year planning cycle. fiscal year 18-19 is year two of the process. this service allocation plan is to be developed through a comprehensive planning process. however, section 16.128-6 indicates that prior to the completion of the first service

allocation plan and while the first planning cycle's in process, daas, in consultation with our over sight and committee may fend money based on an existing needs analysis. >> supervisor cohen: one more thing, shereen, madam clerk, can you call item three? >> clerk: yes. item three, resolution approving and affirming the 2018 dignity community funds needs assessment. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. go ahead. >> okay. so that -- that item or that piece of it, and then, i need to also present to you the community needs assessment today for your approval and to hopefully move on it to the full board next week. >> supervisor cohen: all

right. >> so this year, we've been business busy doing the dignity needs assessment. i gijust want to start by givi some evidence where we are. this plan are outline funding strategies for the next four years and be based on the needs assessment. that also includes all of the dollars that we have in the -- in the dignity fund bucket, which is approximately 54 million right now. the cycle will begin again in 2020 -- 2021 and '22 with another large scale community needs assessment. our goal with the dignity fund community needs assessment was to really have a very, very

robust participatory process with many opportunities for input from community and service providers. we also wanted to develop a robust useful information to help us figure out the needs assessment. we brought on a consultant firm that focuses its word to strengthen social and economic effort and promotes social justice for vulnerable populations. we used a mixed methods approach. we really wanted to unsure that we heard directly from consumers. we did this through community forums, which i've already talked to you about a bit. we used focus groups. the focus groups included consumer population like cantonese speakers, older adults, people with hiv and younger adults with disabilities. focus groups were also held with other individuals, such as

city officials and faith based community leaders. we also concluded a community survey that gathered over 1400 responses in total. the survey has sections specifically for informal caregivers and also service provider as well as consumers. the third key part of this assessment was the equity analysis. in here, we examined how populations face systemic barriers or how people are not accessing our services as well as how participation and funding varies across city districts. the equity factors included communities of color, low-income, limited english flew entercy, isolation, and lgbtq identification. so i wanted to start with our strengths, our findings.

one, what we found out is overall we're serving one in four of the city's older adults. furthermore we're serving one half of the city's older adults, which i thought was really great. the equity analysis found the city is generally serving older populations at a higher overall rate than younger levels. almost one in three of the city's seniors of color are engaged in community services funded by daas. this indicates that partnerships with community based organizations are successfully reaching these populations. also, consumers accessing services tend to view them favorably, which of course we wanted to know. these services help meet their basis needs and also provide social engagement and provide opportunities for learning and skill building. and gaps and recommendations, the assessment helped us

identify areas where we can do better and do more. one key issue that we noted is that people don't know how to find our services. we need to do a lot around public awareness in how to access services. people had identified barriers, some real, some not real to accessing services, and so we need to do a better job of letting people now of how to access services and when they -- when they shouldn't be experiencing barriers. we also heard that many older adults and people with disabilities feel excluded from the broader city community. they describe experiences of ageism and ablism. the assessment also found that younger adults underage 60 with disabilities are accessing services at a lower rate. while our services are open to both older adults and people with disability did as, many of our contractors have expertise with and focus on seniors. the younger populations are interested in different types of activities and support, and we need to do a better job in that area. we've also heard that the name

of our department is really confusing. we don't use the term disability in our name, so we're going to look into changing the name. right now it's the department of ageing and adult services, and people with disabilities don't always see themselves in that name and don't osknow where to go for services. informal caregivers, family and friends helping a loved one would benefit from more support. we have put some money into dignity fund for caregivers also, but it's something we need to continue to focus on. the assessment also highlights for us that improvement in data collection in our services will help us better understand service utilization and trend. the assessment predated the local ordinance requiring collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data, and this really limited our and the how we support our lgbtq populations.

so looking forward, our main task is to draft the four-year service and allocation plan. it's going to take us this next year to do that, and we'll be conducting deeper dives into various areas so that we know better who we're serving and who we need to serve, so those areas are communities of color, and when we say that, we're thinking about sub populations of communities of color, adults with disabilities, the lgbtq population and caregivers, and that concludes my community with the community needs assessment. >> supervisor cohen: real quick question about the community needs assessment. it was done on paper. >> it was done on paper, it was done on-line, we had community focus groups, and funt forum-- community forums, but it was

done on-line. >> supervisor cohen: and how many people -- how many respondents were there to this survey? >> 1400. >> oh, okay, so it is a pretty good, decent snapshot. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you very much. we're going to take public comment, we're going to take action on this, and then, we'll take item three. >> is there anyone that would like to comment on item three, the dignity fund community needs assessment? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor cohen: okay. i'd like to make a motion -- oh, excuse me, supervisor yee. i didn't see your name. >> supervisor yee: sherreen, and this is where i'm seeing some issues, and not just your needs assessment, it's the timing of the needs assessment and what we're trying to do in this budget procedure. >> right.

>> supervisor yee: as you know, there's quite a few asks to add back or increase for seniors or people with disabilities. so this makes it real awkward, i can't figure out whether in your needs assessment, whether or not some of these programs that are being asked to be funded would be part of that -- the result of the needs assessment or not, because then, we're faced with -- we decide to somehow get other funding for these programs or would they come out of, you know, whatever you have to allocate for -- for the needs assessment. >> okay. so two answers to that, supervisor. the first thing is that needs assessment is intended to

inform our process going forward for the next four years, so we'll send the next year really looking at that needs assessment and using it to develop our service allocation for the full dignity fund $54 million -- approximately $54 million. that he had is, we did use the needs assessment to put together our service allocation plan for 18-19 which just includes the $3 million added to the overall dignity fund. and so for example, one of the things that came up from the community that i know is on the list that you're looking at is an ability to really advertise services because we know that people don't know about those services. that's in our service allocation plan for 18-19. looking at behavioral health needs, so there was a request for case management for people with a higher level of need. that's something that we've put in to look at, and we've put

some money into, like, study the need for that and figure out what the best approach is in our plan for 18-19 out of that 3 million. also need for more services for younger people with disabilities. we put some money in for home delivered meals because we know there's a huge wait list, and there was a request for that. so we're trying to address needs out of the community needs assessment with that $3 million, absolutely. it's not enough to cover all of the ask, though. >> supervisor yee: okay. thanks for your explanation. >> supervisor cohen: all right, colleagues, is there any other questions? all right. i'd like to make a motion to approve and send this need assessment with a positive recommendation to the full board. second by supervisor fewer. supervisor yee, can we take that without objection? all right. we'll take this without objection. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor cohen: all right. now back to items one and two.

so at this point, i read down the list of departments that are in agreement. i would like to ask for the b.l.a. to speak -- to speak on behalf of these departments and discuss with us their proposed cuts. and after we hear from the b.l.a.'s report, we will then hear -- i will ask departments if they are in agreement, and if they are in agreement, then, we will take action. >> good morning, chair cohen and members of the committee.

>> supervisor cohen: good morning. >> so i'm just going to readout our recommendation for each of these departments. >> supervisor cohen: yes, please. >> so for health services system, the budget and legislative analysts recommended reductioned in the proposed action totaling $84,000 in 18-19. of these reductions, all of them are one time savings, they would still allow an increase of 1.7 in the department's 2018-19 budget. in addition we recommended closing out unencumbrances, and in year two, we recommend reductions to the pros budget of 87,558. of those reductions, they're all ongoing, and none are one-time. these reductions would still allow an increase of 1.8% in

the department's 2019-2020 budget. for the assessor-recorder, we recommend reductions to the proposed budget total 1,017,829 in 18-19. of these reductions, 215,508 are ongoing savings, and 128,321 are one time savings. they would allow an 11.5% savings. b.l.a. recommendations to the proposed budget in 19-20 total 384,988. all of them are ongoing savings. these reductions -- actually, that's for the assess oor, and

then, for controller's office our recommended reductions for year one are 120,000. of these, 100,000 are ongoing savings and 20,000 are one time savings. this would allow an increase of 1.3% in the department's 18-19 budget. in addition, we recommend closing out extended encumbrances of 126,000 for a total general fund savings of 321,126. in year two, rerecommend reductions of $100,000, and all of them are ongoing savings. and then, elections, we

recommend reducing the proposed budget by $115,000 in 18-19. of these reductions, 70,000 are ongoing and 45,000 are one-time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of about 3.7 million or 25 .4% in the department's total budget. in 19-20, we recommend $175,000 of reductions. all of these are ongoing savings, which still allow an increase in year two of about

3.1 million or 16.6% in the department's budget. fine arts museum, i believe we -- for fine arts museum, we recommend reductions to the proposed budget of 15,703 in 18-19. all of these reductions are one-time savings. these reductions still allow an increase of 249,117 or 1.1% of the department's 18-19 budget. and in 19-20, we recommend reductions to the proposed budget of $50,000. of the $50,000, they're all one-time, again, all one time, not ongoing. these reductions would still allow an increase of 565,820 of

the department's 19-20 budget. for the asian art museum, we recommend reductions to the proposed budget that total 16,119 in 18-19. of the 16,119 in recommended reductions, they're all ongoing. they would still allow an increase of #.9% in the department's 18-19 budget. and public works. for the department of public works, we recommend our total recommended reductions are

$1,386,262. of those reductions, 926,554 are ongoing and 459,708 are one-time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of $17,416,830 in the department's 18-19 budget. for 19-20, we recommend reductions that total $990277. of that, 941,331 are ongoing and 48,946 are one-time savings. for the department of emergency management, we provided a revised report for emergency management which has been handed out. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> and our -- >> supervisor cohen: let me ask a question. has the department had a chance

to look at these revised changes? >> yes. our understanding is that they agree. >> supervisor cohen: okay. they agree. please proceed. >> so for department of emergency management we recommend reductions of 427,999. >> supervisor cohen: what's the -- >> i'm sorry. i read off the old report. let me just read the revised. so take two for department of emergency management. the budget and legislative analyst's recommendations reductions total 405,491, 52,689 are ongoing and 352,802 are one time savings. these would still allow an

increase of $7,289,894. in addition we recommend closing prior year unencumbrances. and in 19-20, we recommend reductions that total $53,732, and all of those are ongoing savings. so the next is superior court. for the superior court, we recommend total reductions of $21,000 in 18-19. all of the $21,000 in recommended reductions are ongoing savings. these would still allow an increase of 243,274 or 0.9% in the department's 18-19 budget.

in 19-20, we recommend again the $21,000 which are ongoing savings. for adult probation -- >> supervisor cohen: and this is also a revised recommendation? >> yes. the cut sheet was revised. it was just a minor technical issue. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> for adult probation, we recommend our total reductions to the proposed budget are $828,904 in 18-19. of that, 750,998 are ongoing savings, and 77,906 are one time savings. this would still allow an

increase of 14.9% in the department's 18-19 budget. in addition, the budget and legislative analyst recommends closing out prior year unextended encumbrances. in 19-20, our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $750,998, which are ongoing savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of 2.1 million or 5% in the department's 19-20 budget. budget and legislationtive analyst's total reduction to juvenile probation are all one time savings. we don't have any

recommendations for 19-20. for the treasurer tax collector, the b.l.a. recommendations to the proposed budget total 389,469 in 19-18. 25,000 are ongoing, and 364,969 are one time savings. in addition, the b.l.a. recommends closing out prior year unextended encumbrances for a total general fund savings of 619,528. in year two, we recommend reductions that total $528,000. all of those are ongoing

savings. [inaudible] >> -- all of these recommended reductions are one time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of 4,587,000 in the department's 18-19 budget. in addition we recommend closing out prior unextended encumbrances, and we have no recommended reductions in 19-20 for the arts commission.

for the war memorial, we recommend -- our total recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $36,174 in 18-19. of those reductions, $3,720 are ongoing savings and $32,454 are one time savings. these would still allow an increase of 584,152 or 2.2% in the department's 18-19 budget. in year two, our recommended rebucks to the proposed budget total 4,974. of those, 3,720 are ongoing, and 1,120 are one time. this would still allow an increase of 12.2% in the

department's 19-20 budget. for the department of children, youth, and their families, the budget and legislative analyst's total recommended reductions are $88,017 in 18-19. all of these are ongoing savings. thee reductions would still allow an increase of 25,436 -- i'm sorry. they're one time savings, not ongoing savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of 25 million or 11.9% in the department's 18-19 budget, and we do not have any recommendations for 19-20. for public health, for the department of public health,

budget and legislative analyst's recommended reduction to the proposed budget, 161,712 are ongoing savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of 170 million or 7.8% in the department's 18-19 budget. for year two, our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $1,769,153. of these reductions, 1,669,153 are ongoing savings, and 100,000 are one time savings. o for the board of supervisors,

the budget and legislative analyst's recommended reductions to the proposed budget total 53,357 in 18-19. all of these are ongoing saves. this would still allow an increase of 278,000 or 1.8% in the department's 18-19 budget. in addition, the b.l.a. recommended closing out prior year unextended encumbrances. in 19-20, we recommend reductions that total $23,636, all of the recommended reductions are ongoing savings. this would still allow an increase of about 23,000 or.1% of the department's budget.

and the last one we're going to go over at this moment is the department of police accountability. for the department of police accountability, the b.l.a.'s recommended reductions to the proposed budget total 225,000 in 18-19, all of which are one time savetions. this would still allow an increase in 1.1 million or 16.2% in the department's 18-19 budget, and we do not have any proposed reductions in 19-20 in the department of police accountability. i believe i got them all. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you very much. appreciate your due diligence. okay. so to the department heads, are we still in agreement? are you sure? don't feel pressured.

if you want to change your minds. if you have a sudden change of heart. it's like if you ever go to the christian church, and the past or calls you to the special altar. if you want to go tomorrow, we can hear from you tomorrow as well as monday. all right. sounds like we are all in agreement. congratulations. what do we do now? i don't know what to do now. we have so much peace going on. thank you to the b.l.a. departments that are all in agreement, you're dismissed, and thank you for being here. i just want to being national that d.c.h. and dcyf, we will see you tomorrow. >> madam chair? >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> ben rosenfield, i would ask that you make a motion to accept the department's recommendations, and that'll allow us to act on it as he go. >> supervisor cohen: folks, i'll introduce a motion if there's no discussion. the motion to accept the budget

and legislative analyst's recommended cuts. i saw a second from supervisor jeff sheehy. may we take this without objection? all right. we will take this without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. what's next? okay. we've got -- i want to call up h.s.a. h.s.a., we'll hear your b.l.a.

report. >> chair cohen, members of the committee, for the human services agency, the budget and legislative analyst's recommended reductions to the proposed budget total 1,701,295. of that -- sorry. okay. of the 1,701,295 in 18-19, 1,601,295 are ongoing savings and 100,000 are one time saves. these reductions would still allow an increase of 5.8% in the department's 18-19 budget.

budget and legislative analy . >> supervisor cohen: thank you. trent, i want to give you an opportunity. >> good morning, again, commit members. trent rohrer, human services agency. we are in agreement, however, we do have the one item, the dignity fund being on reserve, which director mcspadden spoke about earlier. we're in agreement with the completed monetary items, but we're not in agreement with the

items being put on reserve. >> supervisor cohen: sherreen, i am comfortable as i authored the dignity fund, got it to the voters, and been working on it since its inception. i am not comfortable with placing it on reserve. maybe you can articulate a little b little bit more as to why you're asking that it be removed. >> so the 3 million, i'm asking it to not be on reserve because it's not part of the legislation that it be on reserve and that the board ask to pass the allocation of the $3 million. you need to approve the community needs assessment, which you've now approved, and it'll move forward to the full board, but the allocation doesn't need to be approved by the board. >> supervisor cohen: so because the allocation doesn't need to be approved by the board and it's not detailed in the ordinance, but there's still -- there still should be like a spending plan. i don't have a clear understanding of where, how, or

how much, and what i understand from the needs assessment, that's going to be shaping the direction, so i'm going to assume even the department doesn't have a clear idea as to how the 3 million will be drawn down. >> no, we do have a spending plan, and that's what i presented to you last year when we presented our budget. that's the sheet we passed out to you so you have it. so yes, we have a very clear idea of what we want today do with that, the oversight and advisory committee has approved it, the commission has approved it, and that is the process that's laid out in the legislation that those groups need to approve it. i did put it in as part of our budget when i present it to you last week. if you have concerns about it, i'd be happy to answer any questions, but what i'm concerned is getting the money as quickly out the door as we can. we can start preparing for that if we can move forward with it. >> supervisor cohen: i think the way i understand the way the reserve works is you would

come back to this body and you would say this is where and exactly how much we're going to be spending this, and then, the allocation is immediately relinquished. i don't really feel like a gap of time. this is something we can start as soon as next week or in a few weeks, up coming weeks. i don't -- >> okay. i just -- because i came and present it had in april, and then came and presented it again last week, it just seems like it's not necessary to present it again. i'm happy to do that if that's the process. >> supervisor cohen: so you're saying that there are no changes. >> there are no changes. it's exactly what i presented last week, and if you still have it, it's in that sheet or i can recirculate it if you'd like. >> supervisor cohen: i don't know. let me ask my colleagues. dow a do you have any questions, supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: no. i remember the presentation about the spending plan, and at the time, i was comfortable with the plan itself. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> supervisor fewer: and yeah,

i'm comfortable with it, too, chair cohen. >> supervisor cohen: okay. it sounds like there may be a majority of support to move it forward, then. anyone, would you like to make a motion, supervisor? >> supervisor yee: sure. let's take the recommendations of the b.l.a. except for the amount they suggest to be put on reserve. >> supervisor cohen: okay. let's go ahead -- i want to go back to the b.l.a. could you speak to the reasons why you're suggesting that this remain on reserve? >> hi. good morning, chair. so the main reason why we recommended that these moneys be put on reserve is that the department has not spent down the money that was allocated this year. >> supervisor cohen: speak into the mic a little bit more. >> can you hear me now? >> supervisor cohen: yes, sir. >> so the main reason we recommended this money be put on reserve is the department hasn't spent down the moneys allocated this year. they do have money available, and we're seeing that they're not spending down at their projected pace, so why not put

this allocation for this coming year on reserve while the service allocation plan is formally approved, and they get a better sense of things. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. can you respond to that? >> yes. there is some money that has not been spent down yet, and that's just really a function of the fact that it takes a lot of time to get the r.f.p.'s out the door. we had to have two commission meetings this month just to get all of our items out the door. we had our final one yesterday, so that shouldn't be an issue. >> supervisor cohen: well, the issue is that you have money that you haven't spent down, and you said that you would like to -- you want this money so that you can spend it immediately, so i'm having a hard time with that. >> so the month notty that we haven't spent it allocated. it's still allocated to various things. it was a $6 million in the first year that we allocated to very specific items, and it just took a long time to get the money out the door. this new money for 18-19 is

being allocated for different things, so we're ready to get this out the door if we can. last year, we tried as much as we can to modify contracts when we could, we tried hard to get modifies to contracts done, but it's a very long process, so it took a while to get that out the door. but the new 3 million is for different programs and services than the existing 6 million in our current budget. >> supervisor yee: chair cohen? >> supervisor cohen: yes, supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: can i get clarification? >> supervisor cohen: yes, go ahead. >> supervisor yee: so the 2 million that was talked about are for potential contracts that are pretty much ready to go. >> right. >> supervisor yee: yeah, so it's going to be spent. and now -- now, you're ready to, i guess, do an r.f.p. for another 3 million? >> right, and we'll modify contracts where we can if we're already in contract with

somebody for that service, and if it's a new -- some of them are for new services, we'll have to go out and put a request for proposal out for those. >> supervisor yee: and how soon can you start it? >> how soon can we start? >> supervisor yee: mm-hmm. >> well, with the process of starting -- >> supervisor yee: if we approve everything, how soon can you start it? >> july 1. >> supervisor yee: okay. so you will be able to allocate the rest of the 3 million pretty soon. >> that's our -- that's our goal. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: is there any other discussions? so i -- i actually am comfortable with keeping the $3 million on budget reserve and accepting the recommendation from the b.l.a. at this point. so if we are prepared to vote on this, we can put it to a roll call vote. i'm comfortable with having discussion from my colleagues. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair cohen.

i would just -- since you were the author of this, your reasons for being comfortable with keeping it on reserve? >> supervisor cohen: because i don't see the budget reserve as a hindrance on allocation of dollars. if there's anything that needs to get out immediately, they've got 2.5 million, is that what it is? 2.5 million already in the department that they can spend immediately that would allow them to do their r.f.p., roll out the money. i understand the spending won't change, but if they have money already to spend, why wouldn't enthuse spend that first if before they go to the 3 million allocation. if i'm incorrect in my information to the b.l.a., please correct me, but that is he ahow i understand it. >> that's correct. >> supervisor cohen: okay. i don't know if you had a chance to just hear what i was saying. >> i did. >> supervisor cohen: okay. do you want to respond to it? >> it's fine. i was just actually trying to avoid having to come back and report the same thing to you

again. i'm happy to do that and have it go through the approval process if that's the will of the committee. >> supervisor cohen: all right. is there any other discussion? i don't know if this is a unanimous vote or not. >> supervisor yee: so i had a motion. you want me to withdraw my motion? >> supervisor cohen: if you'd like to withdraw your motion, yes. if you -- if you want to, we can take the motion -- you know, i don't want to be too heavy handed in this. >> supervisor yee: no, i understand. >> supervisor fewer: can we take a vote on supervisor yee's motion if it still stands? >> supervisor cohen: sure. supervisor yee, can you restate your motion? >> supervisor yee: sure. my motion was to accept the b.l.a.'s recommendations with the exception of putting the 3 million on reserve. >> supervisor cohen: with the exception? >> supervisor yee: right. >> supervisor cohen: with the exception of putting the 3 million on reserve, so you do not want it on reserve.

>> supervisor yee: yes. >> supervisor cohen: seconded by supervisor fewer. >> supervisor cohen: can we have a roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: there are two ayes, three knows, with supervisor stephanie, sheehy and cohen in the dissent. >> supervisor cohen: very well. that means that the item does not pass, that we accept the recommendations, and that this item -- i will make a motion that we keep this item on reserve. all right. can we take that without objection? we have a second? supervisor sheehy has indicated a second, and so the motion passes unanimously. thank you. all right. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> supervisor cohen: we're going to take public comment on items

four and five. >> no problem. do you want to hear about the golf first? >> supervisor cohen: it's probably easier. >> okay. >> good morning chair cohen. good morning budget committee members i'm director of property and permits with rec and park department. i'm here first before you to present legislation to adjust our tennis fees. these adjustments are the first time they have been adjusted in over 20 years. the new rate has been publicly discussed during community meetings as well as rec and park commission. the ordinance will enable and ensure equitable rates in our service and activity in the golden gate park tennis after it is renovated. the lowest possible rate for our

residents. if you have any questions. >> supervisor cohen: yes i do. supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: i like your senior rate. i would like to suggest that the seniors be identified as 60 years and older and rather than 65 years and older. was there a discussion about that? >> that never came up. that's what we've had all our senior rates across our other facilities. we were matching those. >> supervisor fewer: you identified, across all your programs, it's always 65? >> yes. wait, i'm 61. i get you. >> supervisor fewer: not to make it personal. i know that i joined the gold golden gate park senior center. their age requirement is lower than that. >> i'm pretty sure all our fees

across our entire system are marked at 65 historically. >> supervisor fewer: would you make an exception for this particular fee or has this been somehow, fiscally worked out that between 60 and 65, thanks a huge -- >> i think our desire is to try to remain consistent. this is not really ideological thing or fiscal thing. we try to keep our fee structure consistent across the variety of our programs and services. our preference would be to keep it as is. for that reason. >> supervisor fewer: okay, thanks. >> supervisor cohen: any other questions about the changes in fees? was there any feedback given from the public on the changes and fees.

>> i believe we submitted some letters from the tenants coalition. we held a community meeting at the county fair building. there were 400 people present. only suggestion we got to raise nonresident fee. which we did in response to that. at the commission meeting, it was discussed. >> supervisor cohen: for the record, could you tell us where the fees are and at what level you like to raise them to? >> just to note that the fees have not had a cost of living estimate in 20 years. they were not put in the code. all other fee have gone up, they haven't. these new fees will long go into effect after we have completed the renovation. current fee for residents is $3 an hour. it's going to $8 and

nonresidents $12. weekends and evenings where we will have lights country currently it's $4 and seniors is $4. usta matches goes from $10 to $18. >> supervisor cohen: i i'm going to take public comment. if there's any member of the public like to comment on three and four about the increase if fees for the tenant center and golf course. please come up. seeing none. public comment is closed at this time. colleagues, there's no further discussion. i like to make a motion that we send items four ai and five to e full board. >> you need to amend these items and continue them. because the amendment triggers a continuance to date certain next

week. next wednesday is probably the day. >> supervisor cohen: if we're going to continue to july 19th. madam clerk. >> clerk: can we continue to july 12th, budget and finance committee meeting? >> supervisor cohen: for what reason? >> clerk: the reason that fees need on july 12th, any time we change the current rate, we need to send out another public notice. >> there were two pieces of legislation. only one had an amendment to it. tenants fees don't need to be continued. just the golf where there was clerical error. >> supervisor cohen: i was interrupted but that's okay. i wanted to approve item four send it to full board. item five is one that needs the amendment. thank you mr. deputy city attorney. the motion i like to approve item four and send to the full

board with a positive recommendation. supervisor yee indicated a second. without objection. item five we will amend approve the amendment for item five. we'll continue to july 12th because recommendation of the clerk. is there a second. supervisor yee seconded that. we will see this again july 12th and we'll take that without objection. thank you. now on to the fun group. please. >> thank you supervisors. we have spent the week working with the budget analyst and we are prepared to accept the budget analyst recommendations. there are two outstanding policy issues. we only have a concern with one of them. that is a decision to put -- is do on reserve?

question about a substitution of a 2708 custodian position. we had a vacant position last year in our budget that we did a temporary exchange to a personnel clerk under dhr policies. we have an incumbent in that position. it was an important switch for us. we have an incumbent in it who is performing quite well. we prefer to keep the incumbent in that position. there's no fiscal impact to the exchange, i don't think. >> supervisor cohen: b.l.a. >> chair cohen. reason why we were looking at the substitution is because this

is for senior personnel clerk and the human resources division of the department. this division currently already has two full time personnel clerk and two senior personnel clerks. our understanding previously was that it was temporary. we've been corrected on that. that this substitution was done prior to board approval. we wanted to bring it forward to the attention of the committee. >> supervisor cohen: why did you do it prior to board approval? >> it's pretty standard at the department level. you can i can changes vacant position within a 15% salary differential of the position. we had a particular need in light of some of the system changes that were happening to people soft.