difference between those classification ?als >> reporter: the chief stationary engineer which the department is proposing to upwards up to that classification is typically responsible for managing multiple buildings and surrounding grounds. while 27205 chief stationary engineer which is what the position in the current year is budgeted at, is responsible for less complex facilities and grounds. so, it's basically the 7120 is responsible for managing multiple buildings, multiple properties. and more complex. the 7205 is generally responsible for a single facility. i think the department alsos mentioned that they're undergoing a capital improvement program. >> a big one. >> yes. and our understanding is that as these things are, that is a short-term project.

it will expire over a period of time. and then the responsibilities will go back to just maintaining the facilities as they are. and there are other resources to manage the capital development of that building. >> thank you very much. thank you for your patients. >> thank you, chair. just a follow-up question. i noticed that the city spends $58 per visitor to the asian art museum in subsidy from the general fund and the target is $45. and for last several years, that target has been missed and i'm trying to understand why the target has been missed and why we continue to subsidize at such a higher amount. >> thank you, supervisor. i think the asian museum occupies a very special place in the community of san francisco. we are bringing the vast range of cultures from asia as well

as asian-american cultures which are mostly not so familiar to the public at large. so that calls for tremendous effort to make that accessible engaging to our public and also we are the custodian of the second most valuable assets of san francisco. that's the value of our collection that i'm constantly reminded of. so i think they were clearly working very hard to make that lower the cost of -- to the city. but, on the other hand, with must the city covers less than one-third of our operating budgets. as the city increases and the operating sbunlts getting smaller. our objective over the years, we decreased a percentage of city support. eventually we get to whether ideally we all want to get to. thank you. >> thank you.

it is an important part of san francisco, fabric of our city. it's just hard for me to recognize the department's request as opposed to the b.l.a. recommendations when our other museums are only receiving about a $10 per visit or subsidy. so, that is my comments and what i noticed in looking for my documents. thank you for your answer. >> thank you very much. what do you say in response to what the b.l.a. recommendations are. >> thank you for the opportunity. i would like to express our thanks to the committee and to b.l.a. staff for the great care and the time spent in and the work of the asian museum. it would be $70,000-plus. we are only recommending a different route by which to

achieve the savings that b.l.a. staff wants to achieve. i think we're fundamentally aligned and knead to say that is a 70,000-plus. and alternative to recommendation not to grant the two upgrade substitutions, we'll respectfully request that we funded two substitutions with additional attrition. savings which we managed to achieve. we currently have four open positions out of a total 58 and the net budget will be exactly what a b.l.a. commands. we're just asking for different routes and i must say for the deputy director who's in charge of the entire generating operating, including tutorial, including education, including the conservation, including the order of public programs, this

is the most accord division. and as correctly pointeded out, although our city is very, very small, we have about total staff size 260 or so converting to [inaudible] so the majority of the staff is foundationally funded. in terms of working reality, there is no difference between a city employee and foundation employee and deputy director. the same thing goes for our superintendent which i would like to increase because because it is a landmark beauty in the county of san francisco. we all know the museum is exceedingly complex. i dare do say operating museum is somewhat like hospitals. it is a long-term addition of

13,000 square feet special exhibition space plus another 10,000 square feet of terrace, plus the renovation of existing spaces. so, the need for maintaining existing buildings as well as added the new facility with us asking for new f.t.e.s, i think it is an equitable solution. in alignment with b.l.a.'s recommendation, we must achieve saving and respectfully request to achieve saving by attrition. >> by attrition. ok. by the same amount. >> same amount. >> i just want to say that i understand your justification to the higher grade level because i understand that you have only so many city employees, 58 city employees and then you have a lot of other employees that are funded through foundation money and that they still have to be supervised in some ways. i hope this board is in

agreement that what we're hearing is that he agrees with the savings from our b.l.a., but he would like the take that money out of attrition. i'm agreeable to that. i want to thank you for coming up with that solution. are we in agreement, too? so, mr. controller. could you please note the following -- that it is the committee's intention to step b.l.a.'s recommendations through attrition our asian art collection. and thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your beautiful building you are going to be building. >> looking forward to welcoming you to the new facility next year. >> we can't wait. thank you very much. all right. oh, hi, naomi. good to see you. and madame clerk, can you please call item number 15, which is training legislation.

[reading item number 15] >> thank you very much. let's -- before we hear from city administrator, if you wouldn't mind, let's hear from the b.l.a. will you please also read the report for item 15 as well as the b.l.a. recommendations on the budget cuts? >> i certainly will. and the -- as you might have seen, we passed out a revised report on the proposed budget which i will be reading from after i read about item 15. >> thank you very much. >> ok. so, item 15, which is found 19-0642 is a request by the city administrator to release $26,200,000 of the $29,387,433 on budgets and finance committee reserve to partially fund furniture, fixtures, equipment, information technology and moving costs for the relocation of city departments to 49 south van

ness avenue. 11 city departments or sections of departments are scheduled to relocate to 49 south van ness beginning in the summer of 2020. the board of supervisors approved the issuance of up to $321.8 million in certificates of participation or cops, in 2017. that was file number 17-4068 and approve the cops proceed to fund the construction of the city office building at 49 south van ness avenue. that was file 17-0464. the board of supervisors placed $29,397,433 on budget and finance committee reserve pending a detailed budget for the furniture, fixtures and equipment to be funded by the $29, 397,433. a breakdown of the cost as provided by the city administrator is shown on page 13 of our report. the total budgets for furniture, fixtures and equipment, information technology and moving costs is

$39.1 million. funded by $26.2 million in cops funds on reserves. city department funds and capital planning and koit funds. expenditures include $23.9 million for work station and furniture, $11.5 million for information technology and $3.7 million in moving costs. we recommend approving the requested release of $26,200,000. regarding the city administrator's office, proposed budget, the department's proposed $526,370,919 budget for fiscal year 19-20 is $50,224,318 or so.5% more than the original fiscal year 2018-19 budget of $476,146,601. the proposed budget for fiscal year 20-21 is 1.4% more than

the mayor's 2019 budget. our recommended reductions for proposed budget total $753,191 in fiscal year 19-20. of the $753,191 in recommended reductions, $553,191 are ongoing savings and $200,000 are one-time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of $49,471,127 or 10.4% in the department's 19-20 budget. our reserve recommendations total $308,515 in fiscal year 19-20. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget for fiscal year 20-21 total $581,670 are

ongoing savings and allow an increase of $6,742,427 or 1.3% in the department's fiscal year 2020-21 budget. our reserve recommendations for 20-21, total $565,548. my understanding is that we have agreement with the department but i will let them speak to that, too. >> good morning, supervisors. naomi kelly. we're in agreement with the legislative analysis. >> that is great. supervisor yee. >> can you explain from the b.l.a.'s point of view the -- how did you -- how did you get the differences between the original report that we received versus the revised recommendations?

so that is a question for b.l.a. >> so the changes were -- so, we had come to agreement, i believe, yesterday and there was a miscommunication in one of the, i think one or two of the reductions. and we were just -- those were technical clarifications. i can check real quick. i don't think there was any change to the bottom line number. but i can check real quick. >> there is a change of about $1 million bottom line number. >> it looks like the difference

is about $300,000 and -- excuse me. i'm refamiliarizing because this was handled by other staff so i'm just catching up. >> i'm looking at both reports and there's a difference of total savings. the original report had $1 million more. >> so, the original report had a total recommended reductions of $1,049,600 and the new revision -- >> that's for year one, yes. and year two -- >> let me see. year two. ok. >> i think, and we're trying to make sure we're all looking at the same numbers, we had agreed to put the 3 p.l.a. positions on reserve, pending signing the city-wide p.l.a. agreement and

that may be the difference in the delta. >> but that's equal $1 million. >> so it looks like a difference of about $800,000. so, combined over the two years. so, i see that the reserve recommendation -- i see. sorry. >> you have the original report? >> i have a copy. i'm just trying to review it real quick. sorry. >> i'm sure there is some explanation. i just have to know what it is. >> i just want to make sure that we're all looking at the same document.

>> it also looks like there is a recommendation for -- to deny an upward substitution of purchaser to senior purchaser on the original report. total savings in the second year were worth $330,000. it looks like that we -- looks like that we removed that recommendation. in the revised. that looks like the delta, the completion of a delta in addition to the reserve of $565,000.

>> if he needs a few minutes to figure it out, why don't we go to the next department. >> would it be ok if supervisor ronan asked her question? >> oh, yeah. yeah. >> supervisor? >> thank you so much. i had a question about the moving costs. $3.7 million -- >> for 49 south van ness? >> yes. if i look at the line by line

costing out, it just seems so excessive. you know, almost $1 million to manage the move. over $1 million to dispose of existing furniture. kout -- could you just walk me through itsome it seems so high. >> yes. we are -- the scope of this project, it is like nothing we've ever done in the city of 1800 employees moving from 10 to 11 departments, more than that, moving from multiple locations over a constrained time period and also moving to new furniture because we have a much different floor prints that is much efficient in terms of the space allocation and one of the things that we learned from the prior moves is that the move coordination is important up front. and that is the cost you see there, about $1 million of the costs.

we went out to bid through the contract administration. they put out a bid for us to move coordination and we have been working with that vendor to be able to really figure out what the magnitude of this move. one of the various requirements under our various regulations and environmental policies are to use the virtual warehouse, trying to find out furniture that we can move from the old building to other purposes and provide to the community. so that effort requires us to do a lot of extra work. for example, one of the things we're beginning next month is to go through an inventory and bar code all of the work stations and all the various pieces of furniture to put it on the virtual warehouse and go through a whole early process and go through making it available internally and then externally. that alone is a major effort for us to undergo.

some of the other costs that we're looking at are the -- well, the physical mover costs. again, it is multiple locations over a series of weekends. that will be additional costs for that. we have specialty equipment we're moving and moving a mix of computers, multifunction devices, plotters, other specialty equipment from multiple locations so we have the costs and small i.t. staff in some of those departments that can't manage the move over a weekend, hundreds of employees. so we have costs for the disconnect packaging, moving, even if it is a few blocks, reconnect and working with i.t. we also have additional costs for site itself because we will be doing this at the same time that we'll be doing final work on the site so we have to pay

additional labors for night deliveries, night elevator operators, security, weekend cost. we have to provide additional cleaning post the move in as part of that. and it is in all this -- at the end, whatever furniture we have left, we have to find a way to get rid of because our responsibility from all of our current lease buildings to remove all the furnishings and that includes removing white bores and everything off the walls and back into a certain state. so, we have tried to fund this at a level that we feel like we can be as successful as possible to do this in a two-month period. as that's currently on the budget. >> ok. it's just $3.7 million is a hefty price tag. >> i will not disagree with you. it is.

you feel it is the cost to do it right. -- unfortunately it is the cost to do it right. >> thank you very much. while the b.l.a. is gathering information, let's take public comments on item number three. are there any members of the public that would like the comments on item number 15, i meant. not three. 15. mr. wright. thank you. >> sounds like a lot of money. but it is justs a drop in the bucket compared to the multitrillions and billions of dollars of tax-free money that twitter and a minimum of the nine other high-tech companies have gotten and i realize that this same amount of money has been given to biotech companies as well. i move to have you prosecute in the same manner that prosecuted down south is doing to wells fargo bank. i pointed out how wells fargo bank was running a scam to the

executive directors, at tndc and none of them would listen to me. three and a half years later, the information got to the prosecutor down south and then all of a sudden you start clawing back multitrillions and billions of dollars because of scandalous activity. i move to have you do the same to twitter and all the other high-tech companies and any other company that's been getting multibillion dollars of tax-free money. it's not fair. it is not fair and an insult on everybody's intelligence. so because of reasons thereof, not only should that money be used to pay the expenses that you are talk about here today, but also earlier where you are talk about putting half the funds for city employees and and a half reserve. you have a conflict of interest there. because i employees with the housing authority and then you have employees with the city.

so, you have a situation enjoyed by one set of employees but not by another. so you have a conflict there with your funds as well. >> thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. do you have a response for president yee? >> i believe i do. i have an update on -- if you are looking at the original report, the first recommendation is the same for the professional specialized services, savings of $100,000 in both years. the second recommendation is the same, the -- looks like they were some changes in positions, senior administrative analysts and junior administrative analysts. reduce -- changing and classification from 1824 to 1923. and reducing one position in

1820, we removed the adm-3 recommendation at the bottom of page 50. the -- we proposed eliminating two positions. and we removed that recommendation. adm-4 on the original report, we moved that to reserve. those are two contract compliance positions and an analyst position. the next recommendation, it says adm-6 at the bottom of page 51. we recommended deleting a payroll and personnel clerk. we removed that recommendation on the original report is material supplies for $100,000 and that remains the same. i believe that's what accounts for the change in the two

reports and i'm sorry, it looks like we added $100,000 recommendation for membership fees under office of contract administration. >> president yee, does that meet your -- >> yeah. thanks. thank you for the explanation. >> thank you. what i see -- what i'm hearing today is that we have accepted the recommendations in the agreement here. so we also, mr. controller, will you please note that this committee -- that it is this committee's intention to stedt b.l.a. recommendations for this department and then i'd like to make a motion to approve item number 15 that does not have to be sent to committee because that is on our reserves in budget at finance committee. could i make a motion, please, to accept a -- give a positive recommendation to approve the expenditure on item 15. seconded by president yee and take that without objection. thank you very much. >> madame chair, can you please

file item number 15 as well? >> yes, i'd like to make a motion to file item number 15. supervisor mandelman, without objection, thank you very much. thank you, city administrator, for all of your work. now let's have the department of technology. could we have the b.l.a. report, please. >> dan gonchar. the proposed budget for fiscal year 19-20 is $15,582,268 or 12% more than the original budget. the department's proposed to $135,045,524 for fiscal year 20-21 is $4,177,078 or 30% less

than the mayor's proposed fiscal 20-19 budget. a recommended reduction to the proposed budget totals $96,854 in fiscal year 19-20. all 964,854 are one-time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of $14,617,714 or 11.8% of the department's fiscal year 19-20 budget. in addition, we recommend closing out prior year unexpended incumbrances, $10,234 of this of which are derived from the general fund. for a total savings of $740,499 in nongeneral fund savings of $239,986. a recommended reductions to the proposed budget in fiscal year

20-21 are $50,000. all $50,000 in recommended reductions are ongoing savings. and i believe we have an agreement with the department. >> we're in agreement. >> thank you very much. so, mr. controller, can you please note the committee's intention to stedt b.l.a. recommendations for this department? thank you very much. thank you very much for your service. now let's have public works. do we have director newar here? hello! madame clerk, can you call number nine? >> authorizing the expenditure of state development act, article 3, pedestrian and bicycle project, funding for fiscal year 20-20. >> mr. b.l.a., could we hear a report please on c.p.w. and also item number nine. >> madame chair, we do not have a report on item number nine. >> ok. thank you very much. >> i can give you a report on the department's proposed

budget. the department's proposed budgets for fiscal year 19-20 is $11,045,226 or 3% more than the original fiscal year 2018-19 budget of $374,137,829. the department's proposed $376, 921,740 budget for fiscal year 2020-21 is $8,261,315 or 2.1% less than the mayor's proposed 19-20 budget of $385,183,055. and recommending proposed reduction of $1 million in fiscal year 2019-20. of the $1,402 *shs 285 in recommended reductions, $110,000 are ongoing savings

and $1.2 million are one-time saving. these reductions would still allow and increase of $9,642,698 or 2.6% in the department's fiscal year 19-20 budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $1,292, 500 in ongoing savings for fiscal year 2020-21. and my understanding is we have agreement with the department. >> we do agree. >> you agree? >> yes. >> that's fabulous. >> questions? oh. >> would you like to present on item number 15 at all? >> we can. yes. >> good morning, supervisors. item nine, i believe, is an -- >> nine. sorry. getting my numbers mixed up. >> accept and expend resolution to authorize public works in

transportation development act article three state grant funds from the metropolitan transportation commission. article three dedicates 2% of that quarter statewide sales tax for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. and as we've done in the past, public works and m.t.a. are submit ago a county-wide application. m.t.a. will use $486,000 to implement one, two, three spot or quarter improvements related to pedestrian and bicycle safety and public works proposing to use $243,000 to repair public sidewalks and $243,000 to design, to plan and design programs. about 80 programs. these programs will be built with prop-k funds. the m.t.c. does not require local match and the funds will be used between fiscal year 19-20 and 21-22. >> thank you very much. president yee, do you haves a question on item number nine at all? ok. no. if you don't mind, i'd like to

take care of item number nine first. thank you for your presentation. so if there is no b.l.a. report on item number nine, we just heard from the department about item number nine and expenditure of funds. do we have any questions from my colleagues? seeing none concerning item number nine, but let's take public comment now for item number nine, which is training legislation. any members of the public? hello, michael. >> the only thing i have a major problem with this department is you're paying $184,000 a year, plus benefits, to a poop squad detail. you got employees going around with a broom and a dust pan sweeping up feces off the sidewalks and making that much money and you got employees that are exempt employees that have been working up to 25

years and not getting no medical coverage, no medical benefits, no retirement plan and then you turn around and create a job within this department paying them $184,000. $184,000 a year plus benefits. then you have part of the city cleaning employees who are making no more than $1 or $2 more than minimum wage that's doing the same type of work. that is another violation of the unequal pay act. it's disgusting. it's not fair to the city employees that are just missing [inaudible] and you have office employees doing clerical work and being assistant to supervisors like you and every department throughout the city and don't know if their job is going to be terminated the following day and they're doing the same work as permitted employees. it's not fair. it's not fair. and it's disgusting.

so rowan, you got employment experience and you pointed out that you got a bar license and employment discrimination. i'd like to see you address this. that's part of title 42 and title 7 of the united states code service, fe ral law pertaining to employment discrimination. it's unconstitutional. ok? it is not -- it is not equal protection under the law. you have a situation [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. wright. thank you, mr. wright. any other public comment on item number nine? seeing none, public comment is now closed. it is a hard job, though, michael. just f.y.i. i see that we have -- oh. let's -- let's have president yee -- >> let the remarks about item nine -- >> do you have any comments on

item number nine or is it a question about public works budget? >> it is a question about public works budget. not the right time? >> no, president yee first. >> great. >> so, from the b.l.a. report, the amount of $1,292,500 is identical for the year 2019-20 and 20-21. but one of them says it is ongoing, the other one says it is a one-time savings. i'm just wondering that was sort of a clerical error or not. >> could you repeat your question? >> so, the -- in your recommendations, i'm with the intent page -- >> page 64? >> 62. and you read it out that way,

too. so the $1,292,500 is the same amount both years? >> actually it's not. i apologize if that is the way i read it. we have $1,492,500 in recommended reductions in fiscal year 19-20. $1, 292,500 are ongoing. and -- sorry. sorry. $110,028 are ongoing and $1,292,500 are ongoing savings. so -- >> it says one-time savings. >> and that totals $1,402,000 in the first year. >> so, my question is, the first year -- for that

$1,292,000, if it is one-time savings then the second year the same amount is ongoing savings. i'm just questioning whether you just reversed -- >> i think we did. >> ok. it seems like it should have read that the $110,000 -- >> you are absolutely correct. thank you. >> just wanted clarification. thank you. >> excuse me. madame chair, i would like the make a brief announcement. there are currently six supervisors in the chamber and we're now convened as a special meeting of the board of supervise so evers. -- supervisors. >> thank you very much, madame. supervisor haney? >> hello, budget committee. thank you for all your hard work. i know these are very long meetings and you are doing a tremendous job. director, i have just a few -- just general questions about your budget. and i apologize if some of these might have been covered in your first appearance.

i wanted to ask about the money added for the pit stops. and would love to have a sense -- i've had some sort of differing understandings of exactly how much money is added for pit stops and what specifically. i know that there were seven pit stops that were announced and i'm also wondering exactly what the mraeen is for extended hours and how much money is put in and if there is any sense or plans for how extensive the changes in hours might be and how much funding there is for that. >> so, we received $3.7 million towards the pit stop. what that will get us is seven new pit stops and give us extended hours in some of our pit stops and those seven

locations, we have a list of areas and those lists are determined by requests of calls and request for service and things of sort. and then ours, we know certain locations, some of them in the tenderloin where we will increase the hours of operation. >> so, you said $3.7? >> $3.7. >> and so how much of that $3.7 is to cover the new seven pit stops and how much is set aside for extended hours? or iss that indetermined yet? >> i can give you the breakdown. i don't have that. that involves cost of paying for truck drivers who transport the pit stop. it involves staffing of the pit stop. it involves purchasing of the pit stop. >> douf a sense of, you know, how many can have extented hours and for how many hours during that time or, i mean, will -- there is a tlaot are

out there. we are talking about a handful will get an additional two hours a larger number will get -- do you have a plan and how will you decide? >> most of the pit stops that are going to be receiving extend hours are the ones located in the tenderloin and they will go into the late hours of the night. but not 24 hour. >> and do you have -- i know we talked a lot about this. but from currently from the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., we don't have any that are open. there's one that's open to 10:00 p.m. i think the one on 6th street. do you foresee any of the pit stops that we currently have or the funding available to you here to be used to extend beyond 10:00 p.m. at any of the -- >> at this point, we don't. however, we do want to pilot to see if we'll get that many flushes. pit stop locations are one of the criterias we've seen where we get a huge number of, you know, of flushes.

so i think we'll pilot one where we believe the need is and that might be the one at golden gate and hyde area that we might pilot that one to see what it does. at 10:00, most people are already sleeping and so we don't think we'll get that many flushes but we'll pilot one. >> so, you'll pilot one that goes to what time? >> we've heard people wants the 24-hour service. we're going to try one and see. but just for a short period to see if we get a lot of flushes. so you're -- >> if you are asking me what i believe, i don't believe we'll get -- the service between 10:00 and 5:00 in the morning, we won't get that much use. >> so, you are planning to pilot a 24-hour pit stop at golden gate and hyde with the money you are going to get. >> one of the things that we will be doing, yes. >> that you will be doing. ok.

that is great. and that pilot will be -- do you know how long that will be? if it is for one or two days, people may not know that. >> first of all, for three months. >> well, please keep me updated on that. because this has been something that a lot of people have been pushing for and have wanted to see and so we'll want to make sure that people who might use it are aware of it and that word is out among providers and especially people on the street. thank you for that. a question about the cigarette abatement fee. it was my understanding that cigarette litter abatement fund -- it is my understanding that there was some money left over from 17-18. the number that i had here was $350,000. were those funds reappropriated? was there -- how do you deal with that when you have

leftover funds from that particular purpose? >> those funds are given to us via a work order with the department of environment. the question is better addressed to the department of environment. >> so they actually collect it and give it to you to spend? if there was a fund balance, they would hang on to it? it might be something to look at. >> that's correct. the treasure tax collector collects the funds and goes to the departments of environment and then it's work ordered jointly to public works and then there is a small administrative fee that goes to the treasure tax collector for collecting those funds. if there is a fund balance, i would be with the departments of environment. and i don't have that number. >> got it. ok. were there any increases to the -- any of the corridor routes

in this budget? >> yes. there was an increase to fund many of the nonprofits. so, sustaining the afternoon cleaning of block sweepers in the tenderloin is part of this. a couple of additional block sweepers for china town cleanup. and the south of market. most of the funding is for block sweepers who are similar to corridor workers. >> so, that is like for the t.l. clean or the -- add an afternoon shift for them. >> we are specifically added an afternoon shift to the tenderloin clean because we realized after 5:00, there's nobody out there on the streets others than public work staff responding to calls so we added about eight new block sweepers to take some of the routes. >> so, it is a little different

than the corridor program. it is more of the -- >> they're pretty much the same. just difference time of employee. you know, they do the same thing. the block sweeper or corridor worker, they are given about five city blocks and sweep them on a regular basis. and the corridor worker is a city employee and the block super is a nonprofit employee. that is the difference. >> got it. last question. i know that you generally are not doing the steam cleaning of sidewalks. as pardon of your responsibility. but there are some areas that you are either because they were done add-backs or do you have an outline of where those areas where steam clean is

happening now and has that changed at all on the sidewalks >> that is done through 3-1-1 calls and we work with many neighborhood groups to provide street cleaning when they ask. most are responding to feces or urine so that is a priority. when we get those calls we will respond to because of health concerns. we have a nonprofit that we work with and they do all the city cans and we have a balance in terms of needs. in your area, like in the tender loin, the tenderloin benefit district has been cleaning and they would be the agency that would work with the property owner. the way the city ordinance reads property owners are responsible for their property. and so washing down sidewalks would be a property owner responsibility. >> great. i know there are additional

trash cans in the budgets but those will go through oewd or -- >> they are about 100 new big belly cans that are being proposed. the fix it team and o -- >> oh, fix it team. >> yeah. they have a partnership in terms of the -- and they work with us to decide where those trash receptacles will be located. >> you have a very hard job. and thank you very much for all of the work that we do in our district. we see staff out every single morning in upper market and dolores mark cleaning up after folks and making those neighborhoods more usable for residents and visitors.

i hesitate to ask this question. but last year, i think the budget included a pretty significant increase in funding for street cleaning. i think on the order of more than $10 million. and i know -- i love the pit stop program and i -- and i know that my constituents want more street cleaning, want more sidewalks, steam cleaning. also have the suspicion that we can double our street cleaning budgets and as long as we have this very significant challenge of folks who are shelters in our neighborhoods, particularly when large numbers of folks are dealing with serious mental health issues and substance use issues that it is going to be very hard for your department to make it look like san francisco has clean streets. i just wondered if you had thoughts on, as we allocate scarce resources, increasing

funding for street cleaning, when the causes of having dirty streets are not anything that your department can do anything about. >> i think i will start by saying -- and i've said this all the time -- we can't continue just by adding street cleaning because it really does not make sense to clean a street three, four, five, six times a day. that is not the norm. but i think we're being smart with the investment in terms of cleaning that we're providing job opportunities to the partnership we have with many of the nonprofits and a lot of the individuals receiving the benefits of the additional money that we have got and as in this budgets, mostly from nonprofits that many of these individuals, some of them actually who have been on the

street and so the relationship and coordination with those on the street and doing the work is helpful to helping us get people to the right service. either through public health or treatment. so when you hear of this increase, the chunk of that money is actually not going to build more street cleaners, it is investing people who would otherwise not have a job and par of the community and can give back to the community. >> ok. thank you very much. in the $8 million of street cleaning, what is the plan to actually serve other areas of san francisco also? >> what happens to us now is what we call the firefighter mode. and so when people come in to

work, a good chunk of their time has to go to service the downtown area. a lot of the funding that we have received is to work with nonprofits in the downtown area so those individuals can stay in the areas where they are supposed to be in other parts of the city and do the jobs that they're supposed to do. so, this is a good balance for us. it relieves many of the public works staff to be able to stay in what we call the zones where they are -- you know, the parts of the city while the nonprofits partner with the team that's down here to be able to cover those areas. >> thank you. it looks as though we have heard item nine so i'd like to make a motion to send item nine with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> for clarification, would you like to send it to the full board at the next board meeting

or next meeting? or the july 16? >> july 16. thank you very much. >> if we could get it for the next meeting. >> i've been corrected. this is confusing. this is like worse than taking three children to safeway all under the age of 8. ok. here we go. so i'd like to make a motion to move item number nine with a positive recommendation to the next full meeting of the board. can i have a second on that? supervisor stephanie, you can take that without contingency. thank you very much. objection. and mr. newar is in agreement. mr. controller, will you please take note of the committee's sfwoention set the b.l.a. recommendation for this department? thank you very much for the job you do. it is a very, very hard job. >> thank you also. thank you to the mayor's budget office, the budget legislative analyst. it is a great process. >> yeah. they're fabulous, too. thank you very much. thanks. all right.

[please stand by]

gonch . >> the department's proposed $216,282,082 budget is 1.6% less than the mayor's proposed budget. our proposed recommendations -- recommended reductions to the

proposed budget total $368,667. of those, 265,717 are ongoing savings and 102,950 are ongoing savings. in addition, the b.l.a. recommended closing out unexpended encumbrances for total generated savings of 481,25 481,259. of the $291,577 in recommended reductions, 25 our understandi

is we have agreement with the rec and parks department. >> chair fewer: mr. ginsberg, do we have agreement? >> that is correct. i do want to thank the b.l.a., in particular, juliet wilson, who worked with my staff, and in particular, kelly kirkpatrick, and severin campbell. >> item number 10 permits the department to impose flexible pricing on guest berthing fees at our marina harbor. it's 30 days or less, and prime

yearly used by regional and traveling boaters throughout the year. an example of the flex pricing would be a $2 current rate going to $4, and the $4 would be applied generally during the fall and early -- summer and early fall, when we have special events at the yacht harbor. the fee increase will allow us to provide greater service of events during high use. item number 11 permits the department to apply flexible pricing at our specialty gardens and the coit tower. the plexible pricing would allow us to increase prices by 50% or lower prices by 25% only on nonresident adult fees. this flexible pricing would not apply to any residential fees or any nonsenior and new fees.

the reasonables for the proposal is we want to ensure quality of service and quality of atmosphere at these specialty gardens and at coit tower. increasing fees will help us manage or encourage attendance at lower peak times to spread out the attendance so that we're not greatly impacted nor would the neighborhood around toyota tower be greatly impacted. item number 12 permitted the department to apply a $1 surcharge on adult nonresident admission fees to the japanese tea garden. the funds will go into a maintenance fund to help repair the pagoda rehabilitation project. as many of you know, pagoda is

falling into disrepair, and the cost of repair is estimates to be 1. -- estimated to be 1.5 to $2 million, and we're working with a renouned architectural firm to rehabilitate the pagoda. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so we don't have a b.l.a. report on these items, so any comments, questions from my colleagues. i will just open this up for public comment, then. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on items 10, 11, and 12. >> fees, you've got fees all over the place. we just had a hearing at the beginning of the week where you're charging $1 a month. come to find out, it's $1 a year. then, you've got fees that you're proposing for the