brenda mcnulty present. madame chair, you have a quorum. that are not on the agenda. >> can i have the overhead, please? well, for the rest of the audience. thank you.

brenda mcnulty present. madame chair, you have a quorum. that are not on the agenda. >> can i have the overhead, please? well, for the rest of the audience. thank you. good morning, my name is jerry. first, i'd like to commend controllers' office for embedding the links for the supporting documents into each meeting agenda topic on the sfgovtv website, it's both useful and insures that supporting documents are available to meeting attendees. the benchmarking report that was discussed in the april meeting, it contained useful descriptive statistics, but in the 84-page report i could only find six slides that benchmarked the financial performance of san francisco against other cities, that would allow the reader to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of city services, which is the mission of the city services auditor. the first slide was page 27 of the report which dealt with street resurfacing cost. san francisco spends $1134 per square mile. actually, san francisco's overhead cost of $242 per square mile is 80% of seattle's total cost.

brenda mcnulty and i also commented on things from liaison meetings. one of the things, not surprising to me but noticeable to me was this supplemental appropriation process. the reason that, and correct me if i'm wrong, the reason that there was the requirement to say to the board of soups, was some of the projects were spending money more quickly, but some others were not spending it as quickly as they might have. rather than in a clean way transfer money from the ones that weren't going very fast to the ones going too fast, there was a supplemental appropriation process that went as far as the board of supervisors, i'm guess it's an staff intensive process. to what end. supposedly some language in the bond that says no, use it here but not over here, and otherwise watching the process pretty carefully. why would we not just trust staff to make that judgment? we, the taxpayers on whose behalf are here, are not getting any benefit from things being slow. we only get our projects delivered more slowly. so, i'm going to ask you to comment on what change