supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public that would like to comment? >> good morning. i am speaking in favor of the ordinance. the present system, as you know is broken. it is not sustainable. this is a small step to eliminate that situation. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. other members of the public that wish to comment on items six and item seven? seeing none, public comment is closed. i believe there is an amendment to one of the pieces of legislation. either the city attorney or department, could you elaborate on what that would be? >> in light of the comments regarding the plan, what we suggest the committee do is add to the very end of the proposed ordinance, because that's the provided in response to the recommendation of the executive director of health service system, the board approves the vision plan all reduce the long as it contains a provision that makes its implementation subject to the comptroller's determination that the city is administratively able to do so. sup

supervisor chu: thank you. >> i am not convinced the current lease keeps the community in mind. i do not think that these jobs to leave san francisco. supervisor chu: thank you. please say whether you support, opposed, or are neutral towards the legislation. >> good morning. i am in support of it. my name is meant [unintelligible] i am the co-founder of a san francisco-based granola family. we currently work with your take a family and have found it to be a very synergistic partnership. we are all about healthy, sustainable food for adults and children. they support the same constructs. we founded a good partnership and we support stow lake. supervisor chu: thank you. >> thank you for your time. my name is david miskie. one of the advantages for us is that this has helped us to grow our business. providing jobs to the city as well. i support this project and thank you for your time. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good morning. my name is denise. i am here on behalf of the harvey milk democratic club,

chair chu: thank you. >> good afternoon, madam chair, supervisors. my name is paul. i am a manager for recology's landfill and composting facilities. chair chu: if i could ask you to speak into the microphone? >> sure, if there is one thing that i want to qualify, this is a fully permitted landfill. we currently accept the waste from san francisco by truck, but we choose to go with the more environmentally friendly and state solution, and that is transporting the waist by -- and safe solution, and that is by transporting the waste by rail. we truly providing cleaner and safer alternative, of to three times or four times more -- up to three times or four times more. they have provided studies that suggest that there are environmental benefits, even above rail haul, but it just does not add up. what waste management is proposing, they clearly marked in distribute things from their landfill -- clearly market and distribute things. this is essentially akin to a shell game. from a philosophical perspective, we

supervisor chu: thank you. is there a motion to release? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to release. supervisor chu: can we do so without objection? without objection. thank you very much. item number five, please. >> item #5, hearing to consider release of reserved funds for the port commission, fy2009-2010 youth employment program in the amount of $75,000, to fund the sheriff's garden project and maritime immersion internship program. supervisor chu: thank you. we have elaine from the port. >> i am here to request a release of reserve funds for the sheriff's apprentices -- apprenticeships program and maritime internship program. your budget analyst did a good job describing the beginning and evolution of the development program. we initiated the program in 2005 with the board of supervisors for $150,000. we went out for a selection process and selected the san francisco converts -- conservation corps. under a new contract with the conservation corps that brought the number from 50 to 20. last year, working with

supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analysts report. >> as we pointed out on page 5 of our report, these 117 properties sold at the minimum bid would fine the city realizing $1,100,000. the general fund would accrue $781,928. really, this is the annual sale, as you know, attacks the faulted property where persons of delinquent taxes -- there is nothing unusual except that, for the first time, you are being asked to authorize the treasury tax collector to sell timeshare properties at or below the minimum bid if they do not get the minimum bid without requesting an additional public auction sale. i believe that that is reasonable. that there are problems with these time shares each year. we set it as a policy matter only because it is the first time you would be given the authorization to sell below the minimum bid. supervisor chu: i believe that we have a question. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you to the tax collector treasurer's office. curious, what would be a market guest at the real property val

chair chu: thank you. next speaker. >> a legal defense fund, of which i am with the san francisco bay chapter of the you know which club. i was referred to by mr. beso as an on-again/off-again situation. it was a dispute, and i do not know that we need to go into that again. a color version of a chart that basically documents the bay area landfill capacity. there is really no need on the part of citizens in san francisco and businesses for a landfill outside of the bay area. san francisco is also not alone. they are very strong at recycling efforts, and there is cooperation to get a more effective regional operation, and i think there is time with the testimony that has been given about the usefulness of the existing contract with altamont, getting away from what is being portrayed as binding the department of environment, so you do not need to feel bound. take the time to make the proper public decision. san francisco is not in ireland into itself. it is part of the san francisco bay region. i was a resid

supervisor chu: thank you very much. there any other members of the public who would like to speak on item number one? seeing non-, public comment is closed. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. i do think it is important for the public to understand -- from my perspective, of course this is a renovation i want to go forward. but given there are other people with disabilities, it makes sense to fund those other priorities first. maybe if you want to summarize that, but -- because those are questions we get from the public on this issue. >> so, the issue is we have two different categories of renovation. under the transition plan -- which is required by the americans with disabilities act -- every state and local government has to survey public right of way in its own facilities to see whether there are access barriers in those facilities. after the survey is done we come up with a plan for removing those access barriers. in san francisco, we are doing exceptionally well with that work. our records department is our

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: in terms of that usage question, is it tied to the consumption of water? >> i suspect is tied to the consumption of water, waste water, and rainfall. supervisor mirkarimi: out is that usage compare with in the previous contract time? i'm curious as to where we are as a city that requires this level of protection based on water consumed and water used through waste water and how that compares with previous practice. >> best months are based on information given to us -- the estimates are based on information to been to us and one of the other factors, not just the use of water and waste water, that would be equipment. to the extent that there are repairs and improvements to reservoirs, etc., the chemical would also be used for that. so it is difficult for us to talk about water usage. supervisor mirkarimi: do you want to answer this? i am curious because looking at our population statistics, you'd think relative to water usage, the population statistics on potable

chair chu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is -- and i am with the development term that is building harrison. some issues. first of all, about the park. that park was basically designed by the neighbors. there were eight major meetings conducted by is a bow wave -- by isabel wade to serve the neighborhood. secondly, from a cost point of view, it is not just the city that is concerned about the maintenance. the fha, where i have just come from, they are extremely concerned. there is a sinking fund that cannot be touched. they will restrict any fees coming from the project. everybody has influence over this park, making sure in this properly run. we need to have something that will work from a public park point of view. chair chu: just a question. >> we have to work up the details. we have already had a bunch of these. chair chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to comment on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] i believe we have a number of am

chair chu: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, honorable supervisors. i am a lifelong resident here. i was an officer on the port commission for some time. the recology contracts, on a encourage the competitive bidding -- i encouraged the competitive bidding process -- i encourage the competitive bidding process. whether in rai l -- it be rail or barge at pier 96, both are considerably cheaper most of transportation, and they are used to further decrease the carbon footprint of any other mode that you have considered so far. this could assure interesting -- existing jobs, almost entirely held by people in a zip code, and they would not be vulnerable to displacement. this was funded, of course, by san francisco taxpayers or ratepayers. the logical thing would be to shift this away from san francisco, and do not forget, recology has the ability to opt out for one of the aspects of what they do with just a one- your notice -- a one-year notice. we should all be preserving maritime in the port of san franci

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim: normally, i would feel very uncomfortable raising a competitive process for such a huge event that we will be hosting here in san francisco. it is fortunate we went through a process recently in the same area. i just wanted to clarify. some of it has already been asked. i want to clarify again. so, this esa, its main offices housed in san francisco? >> correct. supervisor kim: the bulk of employees were cure. how did you know half of the employees reside in san francisco? >> it is information we asked. supervisor kim: that his information they give in the bid process. were they the lowest bidder? i & they were the most qualified. >> i will let edgar discuss that. >> for professional services, we do not ask for that. we asked the most qualified in the negotiate. supervisor kim: the price is not part of the bidding process. >> correct. supervisor kim: city staff will require that the amendments meet the enterprise goals. what will that requirement be? >> right now, it is

supervisor chu: thank you. >> this is very shameful. supervisor chu: next please? seeing none, public comment is closed. one of the things, if i could request -- i think there is an interest from the perspective of the board to understand better workforce development strategies across the city. not only are their activities through citybuild, the health care program to the office of workforce development, but also programs through the hsa. i think it would be helpful to get a larger perspective of the work force investments the city makes and to perhaps share that information with the members of this committee at a later time. we can have a hearing at a later time to go through those. >> absolutely. i would be happy to share that information. supervisor mirkarimi: may i add to that? it was about three years ago that we took this up to consolidate work force efforts in the city. departments like hsa and others came on board but we were not successful in consolidating every board. that makes it a challenge for the office of work force development. for lack of a bette

supervisor chu: item one please. >> item 1. hearing to receive an update from the controller's office on the six month budget status report. >> thank you, chair chu, members of the committee. i am the director of budget analysis. i am pleased to give this update on the six month report. can we have a laptop on the screen? it is nice to bring a bit of good news in this budget environment. we will see how much more we will be able to get as we go through. our six month report in terms of the bottom line, showed an updated general fund balance of $89.2 million, which is $43 million in improvements from our three month report. if you look at the assumptions the mayor's office had been using in their last shortfall projections, there were already some of these improvements factored into those, so this represents a $14 million improvement from the assumptions in the mayor's office deficit projections, taking into account their midyear savings plans. i want to emphasize as always, with these figures, these are projections and their un

supervisor chu: thank you. again, this item is an item, from my understanding, there had been new news with regard to the purchaser of the property. i know john will give us an update on that. just so committee members know, i will be introducing an amendment for the whole of this piece of legislation that will require it to be continued for a week. so we will not be taking any potential action on this item today. >> thank you. this item is regarding the potential sale of surplus fire department assets at 909 tennessee street. following a declaration of surplus by the fire commission, real estate was asked to complete its due diligence requirements to proceed with the sale of that, including an appraisal, which was concluded in the spring of 2010. the upraised knife of the asset was $340,000. that considered the nature of the asset, requiring a lot of rehabilitation. the fact that it is a potentially contributing structured to the historic fabric of the neighborhood, and thus, somewhat limiting redevelopment op

>supervisor chu: thank you very much. we are adjourned. >> in this fabulously beautiful persidio national park and near golden gate and running like a scar is this ugly highway. that was built in 1936 at the same time as the bridge and at that time the presidio was an army and they didn't want civilians on their turf. and the road was built high. >> we need access and you have a 70 year-old facility that's inadequate for today's transportation needs. and in addition to that, you have the problem that it wasn't for site extenders. >> the rating for the high viaduct is a higher rating than that collapsed. and it was sapped quite a while before used and it was rusty before installed. >> a state highway through a federal national park connecting an independently managed bridge to city streets. this is a prescription for complication. >> it became clear unless there was one catalyst organization that took it on as a challenge, it wouldn't happen and we did that and for people to advocate. and the project has a structural ratin

supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> good morning, supervisors. my name is douglas yep. i have lived intemperances go for 59 years. i was glad to hear the mention of the department of public health. the facts that were mentioned earlier do not surprise me. for the record, i would like to remind everybody that the board of supervisors has consistently, through different committees, absolutely refused to hold hearings into the department of public health, in regards to suspected misuse of money, especially metical, at san francisco general hospital, where i worked for 20 years. i would also remind everybody for the record that the comptroller's office, in my opinion, has been uncooperative to push for a follow up financial audit of san francisco general hospital financial practices that was originally issued in 2003. in that report, my own department was faulted numerous times for problems, and i myself, think those problems still exist and we are

supervisor chu: thank you. can we have a motion to send this item for with recommendations? without objection. item to police. >> resolution authorizing the office of economic and workforce development to retroactively accept and expend a community services block grant in the amount of $750,000 from the california state department of community services and development, through the economic opportunity council, to support citybuild, the summer youth employment program, and ramp sf. supervisor chu: would you also call item 3? >> ordinance authorizing the office of economic & workforce development to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $238,000 from the united states department of labor employment and training administration to fund the green jobs workforce development training project, and amendin. >> the second item on the agenda, and the community services block grants, we received this grant late in our program. and these were stimulus dollars that were basically sub-granted to our office

supervisor chu: is their language and you can read into the record? >> it is not approving any of the improvement at this time. the board finds that the city, including the general manager, retains absolute discretion to approve or disapprove. and they will be subject to all applicable laws and regulations including review under the california environmental quality act. supervisor mirkarimi: madame deputy city attorney, i thought that might be coming. it is where they get to make those -- doesn't get reported back to the commission? >> i believe they go through the general manager. but i don't want to speak on his behalf. whatever nature of review is required he will make that determination, and it is always available to the board of supervisors. -- appealable to the board of supervisors. supervisor mirkarimi: and there is no confusion or misunderstanding that that process will come back to us through planning? >> the board will not be the one to sign off on the blueprint. the only way that you will see it is if there is a determination. it is under t

>supervisor chu: thank you very much. we are adjourned. >> the public wants to access particular information about your house or neighborhood we point them to gis. gis is a combination of maps and data. not a graphic you see on a screen. you get the traffic for the streets the number of crimes for a police district in a period of time. if the idea of combining the different layerce of information and stacking them on top of each other to present to the public. >> other types of gis are web based mapping systems. like google earth, yahoo maps. microsoft. those are examples of on line mapping systems that can be used to find businesses or get driving directions or check on traffic conditions. all digital maps. >> gis is used in the city of san francisco to better support what departments do. >> you imagine all the various elements of a city including parcels and the critical infrastructure where the storm drains are. the city access like the traffic lights and fire hydrants. anything you is represent in a geo graphic space

supervisor chu: ok. just to reiterate, i think the proposal supervisor mirkarimi is asking for is to release an amount that would not enter the department's ability to hire and recruits, but to answer the question of community policing, which i think is a fair question. we will ask the comptroller's office to release only the amount that is needed through gene -- june. supervisor mirkarimi: 2 first. -- june 1. supervisor chu: the department is coming back -- supervisor mirkarimi: i do not want to confuse it with their budget. supervisor chu: do you have a figure of how much need to get through to that time? >> yes, $6 million. supervisor mirkarimi: sorry for interrupting. relative to your discussion with the budget analyst based on what is needed -- supervisor chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i have some questions to help specify what would be helpful. what needs were prior to this france -- grant that we were not able to do with the existing budget, whether it was the number of town hall meetings in

chair chu: thank you. i believe that supervisor kim has a question, and then we will go to the analyst's report. supervisor kim: your priorities? >> to my knowledge, there is no priority list, but it is the rincon hill. it is under option, and we're trying to move fast to be able to preserve it. supervisor kim: the projected date when the infrastructure improvements would happen is potentially year four, when residents would start to see that. >> specifically for the first increment, that would allow us to purchase the park and hopefully commence construction shortly thereafter. supervisor kim: and in terms of us making long-term commitments to these, have we begun to look at these four rincon hill -- for rincon hill. we started looking at that for the other commitments, with rec and park, dpw, and others. >> there can be additional tools, public-private agreements. where we have one single property owner who receives such a benefit from a particular improvement. so that could be done opportunistic lead. i

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: you answered a few of the questions i was going to ask. i am curious, based on recent reporting on how foreclosures have delayed the impact -- have a delayed impact, especially in san francisco, are those showing up in these figures, with regard to the impact be realized before us, or are those impacts that will also be delayed in the presentation figures a few months from now? >> the appeals we are factoring in were filed through january 14, -- really, september was the deadline last year to give people pause 2010 appeals. as of january 2010, they get their notice and an appeal through september. so we have a full listing of those. we know what has been decided, what is pending. based on where we think the market was, we have an idea of how much to set aside. so the impact of any sort of foreclosure is now, changes in for their property value will be felt in future years with the volume of appeals we will get next year. so we are reserving

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: mr. benson, thank you for being here. it really has to be, for extraordinary reasons, we elect to waive against the process of competitive bidding for of this contract. i would like you to expound just a little bit more. i think that the pursuit of us making sure we have our ducks lined up on ceqa is companion to the notion that the city and this event has to be in full ceqa compliance. there can be no mess up in timeline. there can be no mess up in teaching the process so the net effect is san francisco and america's cup is in full compliance. it is a big role of the dice, one that i co-sponsored and am willing to make happen, but i want to hear more about the fact that we're not just gambling on this idea that san francisco along the way, because we sold- sourced, somehow we decide we have to cut corners. i want to hear more on that. >> sure. i think that our recommendation to the committee -- and i thank you for your cosponsor ship on thi

chair chu: thank you. this is the one that shows the cost comparisons. we have met, probably, many of us with different sides of this issue. as well as the proposed and community organizations on this issue. one of the things that is brought up as the issue about the fees, the fact that the $14.66 are currently not being paid. explain to me why you are including that in this comparison? >> these fees are now not being paid because when san francisco entered into the contract with waste management for the landfill, these fees were instituted after that contract and were grandfathered in. if we went with the waste management option, san francisco would be subject to those fees, even though we are not right now. chair chu: ok, so the reason we are not subject to those fees is that we entered into the contract prior? >> yes. chair chu: and we do not have any expectation that those fees would be waived? what about other counties? >> we do not have any expectations that those fees would be waived, but even if so

supervisor chu: one final question. there is a release of reserve that has been requested for about $44 million in salaries. i know that had been submitted across multiple departments. the criteria was to really take a look at where state revenues, federal revenues would have come in, based on the six month report. would you foresee? do we have enough revenue to release the reserve? i know that will be a further conversation, the base and the report. >> what we called the uncertain revenues at a time when we passed the budget, the comptroller issued the revenue letter, and again in the three month report, were primarily state and federal revenues, most of which were at the part of public health. at this point in the six month report, we made a final assumptions about what is and what is not coming in. we have assumed a chunk of revenue from the state hospital fee will not be coming in, along with some mental health revenues at the health department. so all the revenues that we had previously been considering uncertain a

supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> i live in yuba county, california. assumptions. assumption 1 -- permits for the rails for are in place in yuba county. not true. assumption two -- you but county fees will be static at $4.30 per ton. not true. assumption 3, you county is satisfied with the current ostrom road landfill permit. not true. san francisco is immune to a recology shell game tactic. not true. you have been given complete data. not true. yuba county has been used. san francisco has been used. as a former supervisor of placer county said to me recently, san francisco is a wholly owned subsidiary of recology. this record i told i and my hand is from the board of supervisors yesterday morning in view of county, documenting all the facts of this. the original use permit is under question now, and one supervisor accepts that it is a consideration for us to close the ostrom road landfill. now, you have an obligation to the people of san francisco, not to recology. recology has no obligation t

supervisor chu: thank you. we have susan from the office of the mayor -- from the mayor's office of disability. >> we do have a slide show to briefly present item. i will talk about the history and design, dpw director at risk in can talk about the finances and topline. to begin the history, i will just give you a brief history of this project. the key points are, in the city hall renovation of 1998, required access for improvements throughout the building. this was an item that was not forgot or deemed exempt. it was simply that there was not a design found that was agreeable to historic preservation committee -- community and disability community. between 2004 and 2008, and larger array of boards, commissions, and experts that multiple designs. we got a consensus from the mayor's disability council, city of preservation commission, landmark preservation board, planning commission, an historic preservation commission on the final design that we are presenting to you in september of 2010. the bourse supervisors

chair chu: thank you. that last point, i appreciate it. i know we often do not have the resources to maintain the facilities and do the job that they want to in maintaining the parks, to create more parks in another area adds to their burden, so seeing where we are with the general fund, i understand that is a potential source that we have identified here, but i would rather prefer the we have public-private partnerships or other sources of income. >> i think we are very keenly interested in pursuing those agreements. chair chu: thank you. >> the final page of my presentation, these are criteria the city should consider, the board should consider, when approving future ifd's. this was based on input received from the capital planning committee, and this is good. proceeds passed directly to the general fund, and only be diverted or allocated to the ifd funded by a specific action of the board. so what does that practically mean? if the electors approve and this board adopts the ifd, a portion has to be incr