>> it do you mean if you do not appropriate the funds now, do you lose the opportunity to appropriate the money in the future? i am not a controller, but i would assume that that money just remains someplace in the budget and can be appropriated at a later time. it still has to be used for the purpose for which the bond was issued. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. a quick question. it sounds like in this situation, because we have beach chalet eir pending, and the other one going through the mitigated negative process as well, there is nothing in actions before us that we cannot take because of the pending action. we continue to authorize the sale of the bonds, but in any case, it the department cannot spend money on either one of those projects and the environment to process is completed -- >> that is right. the department is bound to wait until the ceqa process is complete, whether your appropriate the funds are hold them in reserve. supervisor chu: ok, so we could take the action, but it would still have to go through the board process. with beach shelle

appropriate dollars. appropriate dollars. it says in the constitution, we talk about the constitution in section 9, article 1, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. that's us. that's us. so this is what we do. and in addition to that, we're supposed to oversee the spending of that money. this isn't the whole budget. this is only about 38% of it. but it's over $1 trillion. and at a time when we're borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend, maybe the people of the country have a right to expect that we take up each one of these 12 appropriations bills, that we have our hearings on them, that we oversee the spending. and if we want to add to nuclear modernization, we vote on that. and if we want to cut out the solyndra contract, we vote on that. but we do our job of appropriations, and we do our job of oversights. senator pryor, the senior senator from arkansas, asked me what was my reflection upon this senate. i have seen it for a long time. i came here in

in fiscal year 2010, the port appropriated bonds to provide $7.5 million for this project. we have a total appropriation of 7.65. the release of the reserve funds today of $130,000. and the small allocation sale that you will continue to complete funding for this project. i would be remiss, the executive director would not like it if i did not acknowledge that the 2008 gl bond was the first time that we received a voter support in tax dollars for park improvement. we're very excited to deliver the first set of these improvements to link the city with the waterfront in a continuous, positive, walkable environment. supervisor chu: thank you. >> madam chair, i fail to report on 15, 16, 17. for the record, according to the 2012 letter, not to exceed $76 million of general obligation bonds to have an annual interest rate of 6% over approximately 20 years. the bonds would result in debt service payments of $137 million, including 3767035 in the $5,000 of principal, with an estimated average debt service payment of $6 million. single-family residence would be assessed with an asse

entitlements were a third, we appropriated two-thirds.out of that third, we appropriate more than half for defense. now, we have cut $100 billion off of domestic discretionary spending. not military, just domestic. we have cut $100 billion just since i've been chairman. and to put that in somewhat of a perspective, normal discretionary spending is somewhere around $180 billion. we've cut $100 billion off. that's a significant cut. we have cut spending for three years in a row, which has not happened since at least the wind down of world war ii. so in the meantime, with the growth of the entitlement spending, we are seeing debt go out the ceiling. $1.3 trillion just this year. if you zeroed in all of the spending because of entitlement spending, we would still be in the red every year. the problem is not discretionary spending. we have done our job. the problem is with the automatic spending of cruise control entitlements. >> chairman, the house just passed and the senate expects to pass next week. is that going to expire? should we brace

i feel it makes sense to appropriate the money, because the appropriations for play fields as part of a larger appropriation for the rec and park departments. i feel comfortable with moving the forward, but i feel we should proceed with caution about what is still left at the table in terms of the program and how the money will be spent on our different play fields in san francisco. it seems like a bolt of the money will be going towards minnie lovie rec center and the beach chalet soccer fields. it is important to see if there are other possibilities that funding around san francisco as well. since we do not have a real line-item appropriations or line-item sense of how that $7.7 million will be appropriated between those two projects as well as potentially other projects in the city, i feel most comfortable putting part of that money on research, pending a report from the rec and park department about how the money will be spent and pending any environmental review process happening around those play fields. if we get a real sense of how that money will be allocated, we can make tha

that is appropriate. we do have a few proposed special use districts that would overlay this area. you can see the dark line around the southern half of the plan area from harrison street to south of bryant street. we are calling that the south's, -- the south soma sud. we are saying that new development would need to be primarily commercial or have a major commercial or office component. as we discussed, this is an important area to grow the job base. it is difficult in terms of visibility to build office buildings on small lots. we feel that preserving the few larger lots there are is important to make sure we have space to grow. -- to grow the job base. that is the primary objective. the exact nuances of the triggers and requirements are to be worked out but that is the gist of it. the other area is an entertainment special use district between 4th street and sixth street. the key component of the west some a plan which is moving forward is to allow entertainment uses in this part of south of market is

to appropriate those proceeds for even years. this is one example of a special fund. there are others. they are all in article 10 of the admin code where all of our special funds are listed. but there are other special revenue funds. for the purposes of accepting private gifts for other public uses, such as parks, street cleaning, and we have gift funds for both of our hospitals. in all those cases, the board has specifically appropriated for a specific use or authorized its use for a set of expenditures through the fund. supervisor kim: i know that recently the bennihoff's made an appropriation for the homeless fund. in my memory, there's arctic -- an article about the dave matthews and donated to the mayor's fund. >> that is correct. in this case, this fund is authorized by the board of supervisors to automatically appropriate revenues coming in to eligible uses, as defined in the section. so they do not come back to the board in this case, because the board in establishing the fund in the first instance authorized automatic ap

basic to the good of appropriateness was required for the work. in appraising a proposal for certificate of appropriateness, the historic preservation commission considered the factors of architectural style, design, arrangement, texture materials, color, and other pertinent factors. section 1,006.7 of the planning code provides a relevant part as follows. the proposed work shall be appropriate for a consistent with the a fluctuation of the purposes of article 10 of the planning code. the proposed work shall be compatible with the historic structure in terms of designed materials, for, scale, and location. the project will not detract from the architectural character. for all the exterior and interior were proposed, reasonable efforts have been made to preserve and enhance or restore and not to damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the subject property which contribute to its significance. as we typically do, for today's hearing, we will hear from the appellant to up -- have up to 10 moments in told to describe the grounds for a

we of three items before the committee, one supplemental appropriation into reserved releases to make funding available for key waterfront projects, namely the cruise terminal at pier 27, and the street wharf project. the supplemental appropriation for 4.4 million is from interest earned from the water mark land in condominium sales that occurred in 2003. the ordinance passed in 2003 directed the proceeds and interest earnings from this transaction to the brannan street wharf project and crews and terminal project. the release of reserved requested, 8.45 for the cruise terminal and 9,000,004 brandon street combined with the supplemental appropriation would make all sale proceeds and interest-earnings available for those intended projects. both of these are -- planned waterfront improvements in both associated now with the 34th america's cup as a delivery dates are required at that event. march 2013 for the cruise terminal project, and june of 2013 for the brannan street wharf park project. we cannot deliver these improvements without the city's environmental progress and a very strict

number five, six, and 7 are all de-appropriations of sellers or fringe benefits and re appropriations two overtimes to of those items do not require additional general fund support. item eight, the department of public health, however, does have a level of general fund reserve that would be required in order to make that action whole. i just wanted to note that. from the mayor's budget office, we have someone here. do want to provide opening comments or it would like to turn it over to departments? >> thank you, supervisor. i do not think we have any comments. we're happy to let the department's comment. supervisor chu: for item five, we have the fire department budget. >> did afternoon. i am from the san francisco fire department. before you, which as it did earlier in items three and four, we are seeking reallocation from a line-item in our salaries to overtime. it is important to note that we're not regret sending -- requesting additional funds, as you stated. with the number, $8.5 million, we came up with that initially based on the the six-month controller's report. additionally,

the cruise terminal and 9,000,004 brandon street combined with the supplemental appropriation would make all sale proceeds and interest-earnings available for those intended projects. both of these are -- planned waterfront improvements in both associated now with the 34th america's cup as a delivery dates are required at that event. march 2013 for the cruise terminal project, and june of 2013 for the brannan street wharf park project. we cannot deliver these improvements without the city's environmental progress and a very strict schedule before this committee. as chair to mention, the project is have a certified e.i.r. -- as chair chiu mentioned, the project does have a certified e.i.r. these appeals are scheduled to be heard jewelry 24. as a result, we will ask the city to consider the supplemental appropriation and forward without recommendation, and to continue the release of reserved for the cruise terminal project, and nine, to january 25, that way these items will be acted upon by the board, only if the board of supervisors upholds the planning commission of the oe.i.r. we concur

to put these projects on this appropriations bill. a think the senator from utah as on the floor now. another project that is not authorized, i will filibuster the bill until i am -- until i fail to do so. i wrote a letter to the senator from utah in september 1997. i said i am writing about the recent efforts to add funds to appropriations measures for the 2002 olympics. i went on to say, i recognize the proper preparations are vital. it seems the best course of action would be to require the committee in coordination with congress to prepare and submit a comprehensive plan detailing the funding anticipating from the taxpayers. please call me so we could start work immediately to establish some rationality in the process of preparing for the olympics of that. in a surprising breech of senatorial courtesy, the senator never responded. i wrote him another letter a year letter asking for the same and never got a response. the gao determines that $1.3 billion, $974,000 for the utah state. the agency network, $3 million to olympic regiona

appropriation for cost of issuance. we agree with this recommendation. i'm here to answer any other questions you might have. >> thank you very much. why don't we go to the budget analyst recommendations. >> madam chair, members of committee, debra newman from the budget analyst's office. we would note issuance of the $502,200,000 bond also carry a total interest cost of $772.5 million, at an estimated interest rate at 6% for a total debt service of 1.3 billion over a 30-year period. as noted in the report and shown in table four on page eight, the airport will be combining the requested 500 million issuance and appropriation with the prior slightly over a million -- $100 million of issuance for combined total, which would provide for the cost of issuance that reflects our recommendation for the $41 million. our specific recommendation is that the requested appropriation for $502,200,000 be increased by the $41 million to $543,200,000 to provide authority for individual costs. the individual ones are specified on page t

appropriation bills to the floor under an open rule. we didn't get it all done last year. we ended up with an omnibus as mr. van hollen shows on his table. this year we are committed, given the floor time, we're going to bring every appropriation bill to the floor under an open rule so that every member who has a problem with any provision can offer an amendment to have that removed. it's been said that this is constitutional. mr. van hollen said, so let's take that argument away. not necessarily and not so quickly. in conversations with members of the third branch of government, the judiciary, they have concerns. that this may be unconstitutional. because what's required now is that the president presents the judicial request for appropriations but he can't change it. he just passes it on to congress. this gives the president a say in line iteming specific provisions in the judicial request which may violate both u.s. code and be unconstitutional. so that question is still out there about the constitutionality of this. i will tell you,

then the board of supervisors would have appropriated $33 million. that is about 53.1% of the phase one budget of $62.3 million for the pier 27 cruise terminal project. we recommend you approve the request and release of the $8 million. the reserve by the board of supervisors. whereas a recommendation now shows your final determination pending the final appeal, you have already done that yesterday at the full board. we have an unqualified recommendation to release the reserve funds. supervisor chu: thank you. when we open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor avalos: motion to release. supervisor chu: motion to release those reserves. second. without objection. item for. >> item 4. ordinance re-appropriating $1,846,265 of general fund reserves for state revenue loss to backfill federal funding reductions to hiv/aids programs at the department of public health in fy2011-2012. supervisor chu: we have a representative from the department of p

i apologize we are coming in pieces for the appropriations. if you will look to this chart, you can see we currently have $35.1 million appropriated. the subject of the release is in yellow, the 8.45. in february, we will be proposing a supplementary appropriation ordinance which is already gone to the capital planning committee, for a total of $5.2 million. this will a corporate fund balance of existing in the ports of accounts, and will be purpose 2010 debt for the project. these protests -- proceeds will be repaid if the bond is successful in 2012. then we are working with the office of public finance, the comptroller's office, mayor's budget office, on our 155 additional contribution to the project. it has been long assumed we would issue debt for $15.5 million. the vehicle has been what we are working on. the mayor's office of public finance and the controller have agreed we will use a crp, which the port harbor fund will be paid. we will be seeing that transaction in april or may. project proceeds in june. then there is the city contribu

just to clarify, the thing that has changed is the appropriation, 7.2.here is no longer a source of the additional $2 million that was supposed to come from the reimbursement of the america's cup, given that so many things are changing at this point? >> i would not want to characterize it as no longer a source. the source would be the event authority reimbursing us, or it would be deport revenue capacity supporting that $2 million, so there will be a source. he is just because the negotiations are continuing, and we're going to look for a revised plan. we are not certain of the sources. chair chu: in terms of the balance of the 7.2, with a 3.4, that is still available in the fund balance, and you are saying this is necessary at this moment in terms of cash flow issues. >> yes, what we issued in 2010. chair chu: ok, and then in terms of the remaining balance, the over $5 million, do you have any update on this? i know you were in agreement with a budget analyst to come back with a report to provide us with information about how they will get to balance. d

that is the appropriations process. ith is all about putting the -- donald trump is not asked to pay one penny more. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the lance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, again, next week is 4th of july and we will be celebrating independence day and i would like to say i don't believe the job of the federal government is to provide things to citizens, but to preserve our liberty. and that's what next week should be reminding us of. house republicans are aware of the clear mandate the american people gave us. our charge is to reduce the crushing debt that our country is currently carrying. according to the senate budget committee, debt grew times four times fa faster than clinton or bush and amassed more debt than president bush did. today the national debt is over $15 trillion which amounts to nearly $48,000 for every man, woman and child in america. it's clear that without a change in leadershi