chairperson chu: thank you. >> good morning.e san francisco public utilities commission. i have a brief presentation and update to give you on our seismic upgrades as well as disaster preparedness as well as the of the three water supply system. on the city fraud, we have been making good progress with the comprehensive -- city front, we have been making good progress with the comprehensive review for the required repairs to the existing in the structure. we have been coordinating and working with our fellow city departments over the last several months. chief white, our general manager, and their representative from the water department and mr. ritchie from dpw are all working to make sure that we deploy these assets as best as possible for the city. the auxiliary water bond authorization has been covered. we are back for our second series of what voters have approved some time ago now. we are making good progress, and i will briefly highlight some of that. for the work before us today, specifically we are asking for approximat

supervisor chu: thank you. i appreciate the comment on the accountability component. i think that is something we all look for. the consumer protection dollars, roughly $5 million, but that leaves a balance in the pot of money. are there other eligible expenses he might be able to use out of that? i'm imagining it is not restricted to say it has to be for the city attorney? >> yes. i was thinking of one settlement, supervisor. i have more. supervisor chu: great. >> i have about $8 million there, but it is restricted. this goes back to the discussion with ms. howard. i appreciate all of her help. i appreciate a greatly expanded program. in your standing mayor wants to see how something will work -- i understand the mayor was to see how something will work. there are things it can be used for, but it has to be used on behalf of the city attorney's efforts. what i am telling you is in use -- i am willing to use that money for what our general fund responsibilities to help me investigate and prosecute and pursue co

chairperson chu: thank you very much. mr. rose? brecht's madam chair and supervisor avalos -- >> madam chair and supervisor avalos, at the bottom of page 3 we point out that the total design agreement is for $53 million and that represents 9.2% of the total budgeted 580 four million dollars laguna honda hospital replacement project. our recommendation is shown on page 5. we recommend that you amend the resolution to increase the existing amount not to exceed an amount of $50.8 million up to $51 million. the reason for that recommendation is as you know, there was another modification inadvertently being requested being approved. since it was less than $500,000, it was not subject to board approval. our recommendation simply reflects the fact that the four hundred $77,000 has previously been approved. -- $four hundred 77,000 has been previously approved. chairperson chu: are we in agreement with this recommendation? rex we are. chairperson chu: why don't we open this up to public comment? are there members of the public that wish to

chairperson chu: thank you.s of the public that wish to comment on items three and four? seeing none, public comment is closed.. do we have a recommendation to send this out? we have that motion and we will do it without objection. can we call the next two items? items five and six. >> item 5, a resolution authorizing the direction of sale not to exceed $4040,00 thousand dollars. item six, appropriating two hundred $10,000 of the earthquake emergency response to the public utilities commission in fiscal years 2011-12 for necessary repairs in order to better prepare san francisco for a major earthquake or natural disaster, and placing these in the controller's reserves pending the sale of the bonds. chairperson chu: thank you. >> nadia from the comptroller's office of public finance. we are asking for $4.4 million for the issuance of the bonds for the emergency response system. the voters have approved this in an amount not to exceed $412.3 million in 2010. this will be in a series. amortized over 20 years it wil

chairperson chu: aye. -- chairperson chu: thank you. next speaker. brecht's i'm here on behalf of the housing action coalition. -- >> i'm here on behalf of the housing action coalition. despite the payments, which we think are complex and a pretty extraordinary for the city, what is really before you is a simple land use decisions. what becomes of seawall landfill 3 havret 51? -- 351? does it remain as it is for the city, or is it preserved as a set of parking lots with its own set of financial realities? the financial benefit of most interest to us is the first $9 million housing in san francisco. that is the equivalent of a 25% inflationary rate. are you getting a better rate than that? particularly as housing has collapsed and subsidized housing is collapsing and a national level. this is serious money and is as close to being broke as is possible. this is an enormous benefit to the city, in addition to all the others. there is one outcome here that brings a lot of design changes and benefits and financial benefits to both the port and the city, a

supervisor chu: no. the motion fails. supervisor chu: thank you, colleagues. why don't we return to this item. i know it will be outstanding. let's continue to have conversations about the revolving loan fund. thank you. dbi. >> good morning. i am the director of dbi. i am pleased to present the fact we have worked with the budget analyst's office and come to an agreement on all of our terms of the proposed cuts to our budget, including the reserve for the positions. supervisor chu: from my understanding, the department is in agreement with the recommendation. is there anything you would add? >> no, i have nothing to add. supervisor chu: colleagues, any questions for dbi? why don't we take the recommendations? we have a motion. we can do that without objection. thank you. to the assessor's office. >> good morning. i also want to report that i am the chief administrative officer of the recorder's office. i would like to also report we are in agreement with the budget analyst. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rhoads, is there anything to add? >> no, there is not.

supervisor chu: ok. that is a point of clarification. you are bringing in fees or penalties or money that comes in for the purpose of $1.5 million? correct? >> no, that's incorrect, supervisor. let me tell you. there are two points. last year, i received settlements of $1.6 million, and in my effort to contribute to the general fund, i said, you know what? i will find $1.6 million. i will find that out of the penalties that i receive. so, you can take that away and you can use that for something -- not of better use, but i understand you have a budget situation and you can use it for something else. this year, i continue to do that. the mayor's office is continuing to fund -- in there proposal -- i'm already paying $1.9 million out of the city attorney's budget. what is it? about $800,000. historically, -- yes, that's right. that was me taking the responsibility of the general fund that had previously been there. supervisor chu: thank you. if i understand correctly, $2.7 million in general litigation exp

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: i just wanted to thank supervisor kim for reiterating my concerns. especially with the america's cup, and these large private ventures, it sucks up all the capacity and energy, not just in the planning department, but other departments swept up into the monstrosity of major projects like the america's cup. i am really nervous that small neighborhoods like visitation valley will be continually marginalized and pushed down the line. that is part of the reason that visitation valley is in such a fragile position because of the lack of city resources and planning that has happened. i just wanted to offer a cautious word that we not forget our neighborhood, particularly those that have been historically left off the table, disenfranchised, marginalized, however you want to characterize it. it is important we continue to ensure the neighborhoods that are struggling have that support and the resources needed for it to become a vibrant. that ultimately also

supervisor chu: thank you. i think that supervisor kim and supervisor avalos have a good point in wanting more clarity in the project, but i would not want to hamper the ability for the real-estate department to be about to finalize those leases and do negotiations. perhaps if i can ask the makers of the motion that there would be willing to intimate -- entertain perhaps half of it being on reserve, so $113,000 on reserve? to the makers of the motion, would that be something you would entertain? ok. so if you can, perhaps what we would like to do -- a seconder. so i will make a motion to reserve $113,000 of that funding on budget committee reserve. >> thank you so much. i appreciate it. supervisor chu: we will take that without objection. thank you. our next department is the police department's budget. from my understanding, the bulk of the recommendations are the police department's budget. however, there is one of recommendation, i believe, that is related to the occ, and that is on page 39. correct? >> corr

chairperson chu: and where are we, generally? >> i think we are 46. chairperson chu: thank you.u are never met with the budget analysts recommendations -- you are in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations? >> we are. and we thank them for their report. chairperson chu: let's go to the next report. >> it recommended reduction of 2013-14, a decrease that would still allow 5.9% in the department's 12-13 budget. we also recommend an extension of encumbrances which would allow $100,000 to the city of san francisco for plant project reserves. none of those are general fund reductions. regarding 2013-14, recommended reductions total $313,000. of that amount, ongoing savings would still allow an increase of 1.2% of the department's budget. of those recommendations in 2013-14, $3,879 our general fund reductions. chairperson chu: given that we have agreement on operations as well as the close out, do we have a motion? we will do that without objection. thank you very much. we will not require you to come back next week. health service systems. >> good morning, supervisors. i am

supervisor chu: thank you. we do have a number of items with us with regards to the department being in agreement. that is on page 29. do we have a motion to except those recommendations. two remaining items. the management item in the policy recommendation. supervisor avalos: motion to except on manager 1. i do not think it makes efficient cents to approve that position, especially when we want to be on board with the principles about not having positions of managers when there is no one there managing. supervisor chu: supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i was second at motion. supervisor chu: we will accept the budget analyst recommendation on manager 1 services coordinator. simply from my perspective, if we have a classification project that was done through the department of human resources were they actually took a look and careful detail about the skill levels necessitated by positions and have come up with a number of recommendations, some of them to stay the same classification levels and some to have a low

supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, any thoughts or questions? what i would suggest is that the budget analyst in the fire department cfo to get together and hire nine -- iron out the information. i want to make sure the levels we have in there are realistic and based on the position the department believes they have, because otherwise they will come back with a supplemental, which is not something i want to see. on materials and supplies, i want to make sure if we do have you operations opening up, that we do account for it. that being the case, i want to make sure we have the expenses we expect to have. supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: i appreciate more time to sort things out, but i would be ready to take this recommendation as it is, given that there is plenty of time to work out the differences, and it was not until the last minute that there was an effort to push back on this recommendation. i believe the department is facing retirement, savings that we can expect to have as well. i will wait unti

chairperson chu: supervisor chu, are you on the roster? supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i think it is a little disingenuous to include a private club as a part of a public benefit of the value. i would disagree with including that in the public's memory because it is not open to the public. putting the $12 million value should not be included, because we're also giving the value of a parcel that we are exchanging. >> if i may speak to that, supervisor kim, first of all, i agree with you that this is a gray area. the $12 million of improvements -- not land, but improvements to the facility for a new poll, they thought it was germane. maybe it should be put outside of the overall public benefits, but is still important to the area. some of the other differences are almost stylistically in terms of net verses growth analysis. you could say that i was trying to say that we are going -- for growing $7.3 million of land value. -- foregoing $7.3 million of land value. in turn, the items not included, you could see that the 63 bases of profit for the public. that

supervisor chu: thank you.good afternoon. supervisor chu: please begin. >> thank you. the mission of the public defender's office is to provide high-quality presentations every year. the right to counsel was guaranteed by the united states constitution. a mandated service that the city and county provides. as you might imagine, in this time, particularly given the economy, there has been a great demand for our services on every front. so, today i would like to give you an overview of our budgetary challenges and initiatives for the next two years. the second slide shows our budget over the next two years. you can see that. 92% of our budget goes to pay salaries and benefits. 3.5% goes to non-personal services. this includes the cost of our lease, and the space at 577 street, with reproduction mail services. only 25% goes to material and supplies. in terms of the major initiatives that the department will be engaging in over the next two years, i am very happy to announce that in july of 2012, we will be impleme

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. i have two questions. one relates to the trial team. >> you are pursuing your self- interest here. supervisor wiener: exactly, retroactively. i am glad it came up. it is a signal of a good portion of what the office does. a lot of times in the public perception, we think of the more affirmative cases, a code enforcement, and of course, the board we work with the advice side of things. but the trial team is so much of what the office does, and it is something we do not have as much control over. we're getting sued by people who want to sue us, and sometimes even the most baseless cases can cost the city an enormous amount of money to defend the city properly. and and we try not to pay out money in privileged cases because that sends a message and you will see the multiplication. so the cost benefit analysis for the trial team is very, it is not always as intuitive as it might be in other situations. i know that one thing -- when i was on

supervisor chu: whn'

supervisor chu: we are not recovering fully? >> that is correct. supervisor chu: thank you. anything else he would add? supervisor wiener: how you calculate cost recovery? that seems a little bit nebulous. there are an enormous number of hurdles, and i am wondering, that is a lot of cost recovery, a lot of cost to process one permit application. i know there is fingerprinting and the bonding and all sorts of other requirements. unless all of those are critical. >> thank you, supervisor. as you just heard, even 762 does not make us whole. i understand a few years ago, the board of supervisors moved the duties of investigation for garages and parking lots from fire department to the police department. in that time, it is a labor- intensive effort to do the investigation, the background, the fingerprinting, the permit, the hearings. we just recently had to hire a part-time employee to come back just to hear the cases. i think the $1,000 market is accurate. we were woefully underfunded when we assumed the duties. i think if you talk to the assessor and the tax collector, we have

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor avalos: i want to thank you for your work in helping to guide the department through this process. of course, i really want to thank -- i know people entered this discussion about how to create this office with a great deal of trepidation and concern. there was a lot that people had to -- to have a process that would lead to this. i really appreciate that. i know there are still a lot of pieces better getting worked out. -- that are getting worked out. i think this is a great event. i am really supportive. where i was not supported two years ago when this came before us because i did not think we had a process that was public, that really had the buy and from the departments. i feel like we are closer. i know there is not complete buy-in yet. but it will be a great example for other cities to follow. it will be a great benefit for the child care and feed and the early education field here in san francisco. thank you so much. i will be supportive of this office moving forwar

supervisor chu: thank you. if there are no further questions, i would like to proceed to the budget analyst report. >> good morning. what is before you today in terms of decisions are the purchase and sale agreement of the sea wall lot three under 51, the trust's exchange that would remain seawall lot 351, a 66- year lease for the public open space between the developer and the port and a maintenance agreement between the port and developer which the developer would commit to maintaining the open space improvement. also before you is the intent to form an ifd, a project area that was formally approved and discussed here. the actual funding and how the money in -- how the money would accrue to the general fund is not before you. that is a board of supervisors' decision. the other point was brought which is this just involves public property, but there is an intent for the poor to come back and include the private portion at some future date. we have very different testament on the fiscal benefit to the city from

supervisor chu: thank you. we still have outstanding issues and where the department went to work with the budget analyst to take a look at the details. with that, let's jump straight to the department. the health services system. >> thank you, catherine thought, san francisco health department's system. i want to thank the budget analysts office. we'll come to an agreement to an additional 46,000 to one report dollars in budget cuts for this is a year in for the house of $427 for the next fiscal year. we are pleased to work closely and on that agreement. supervisor chu: think you. just be clear, the department isn't approval of all of the budget recommendations? >> yes. >> madam chair and members of the committee, and i have nothing to add. to the a motion to object? we will do that without objection. thank you to the department for your agreement. to the public library. >> good morning, city librarian. the key to the budget analyst for the support. we are in concurrence with the deficit reduction. the only ou

supervisor chu: ok. the second one of the question, which is -- are there currently positions that could be civilianized which are not? >> where you would not need a police officer at all? i could look at that, but again, there are all the other officers that were added, so if we were able to do that, rather than go with one of the 1971, i would suggest we stay at the 1971 and put that officer in one of those other places. supervisor chu: so would you take a look in your organizational -- organizational structure? i think that is a question i would like to understand better. thank you. supervisor kim: also, i assume you will be coming back. when you come back, to the question about the 28 positions, there are 340 that are funded. 312 that are filled. it the find out if this 28 are vacant or filled by a uniformed officer, it would be helpful. i think you said that some are vacant. some are uniform officers. so if you could get an accurate count. you did not have to get it today, but if we could get that n

supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is levitan and baum. i am the director of health services. i am asking the board to restore 5 under thousand dollars for funding for hiv-positive you that lots due to cuts. as you know, the mayor restore the ryan white part aid funding and we are hoping the board will restore the part b funding for youth and insure uses for positive you remain intact. larkin street serves about 80 youths every year with a conference a set of services designed to keep you healthy, connected to medical care, and to help them to transition into adulthood. we survey the record of class with a high level of need. if replacement funding is not secured, there will be no youth- specific h.i.v.-testing in san francisco. we anticipate this will mean you would get tested later, know their status later, and put their and their partners held at risk. if this funding is not replaced for hiv-positive youth, we risk losing war greatly reducing our nursing car

supervisor chu: great. supervisor avalos: i want to make sure -- i am going to be looking to see how the neighborhood commercial corridors are benefiting from invest in that neighborhood spirit we have not really seen the kind of investment in our neighborhoods that happened in other places in san francisco were a lot of neighborhood dollars come in and are focused on in those areas. i think we need to compensate for the lack of investment that happened elsewhere, from other sources with city dollars. i want to see if there's some way we can see those types of improvements in the neighborhoods like mine. >> you will see the list of proposed neighborhoods. we will start working with the mine august and september. the last position we are requesting is a high level deputy director to sort of oversee all of the neighborhood economic development. when you think about it, there are so many initiatives either being enhanced or proposed. when you think about the bayview in central market is being stand-alone initi

chairperson chu: mr. young, would you call items one through four? >> item number one, proposed budget of preparation of expenditures to the department of the city and county of san francisco as of may 1st, 2012 for the fiscal years ending june 30th, 2013 and june 30th, 2014. item number two, an annual salary ordinance any meriting positions in the annual budget appropriation ordinance for the fiscal years ending june 30th, 2013 and june 30th, 2014. item number 3, an ordinance amending the san francisco fire code section 1 13.10 and 1 13.21 to increase fees for certain fire department services. item number four, an ordinance amending the san francisco police code sections two 0.26 and to two 0.27 to increase the permit application fee. chairperson chu: a note to the members of the public, there are those here to listen to the proceeding and provide support to the apartment, but i want to make a quick note that we will not be hearing public comment today. we will simply be hearing from our departments and our budget analyst. we will not be hearing com

supervisor chu: budget analyst? >> madam chair, members of the committee, we have no recommendations for this fiscal year. supervisor chu: thank you. there are no recommendations for this department at this time. i just want to stress, even if it is a small apartment, we would like to hear more about the work you're doing collaborative late with dhr to make sure that our civil service process fees are as smooth as possible. at some point it might be worthwhile to have a briefing with supervisors about the efforts you are working on. even though it is a small department, it is important for our general system to work better, and have to emphasize, even though we do not have any recommendations for your department, everyone can do something to improve their work. we would like to hear more of those efforts, going forward. colleagues, given that, we will not be requiring this department to return. going on to the next apartment, public library. -- department, public library. >> good morning, city librarian. supervisors

supervisor chu: we will not -- >> thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. department on the status of women. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i know that i am standing between you and a well-deserved break. i have six slides. you have a handout. in joined today by a fiscal analyst. the first slide is about our two year budget outlook. it is basically the same over the course of the next two years. on the blue expenses aside, our program is the violence against women prevention and intervention programs. on top of that is our staffing. the other is mostly rents, work orders to other departments. in terms of our revenue, we are heavily dependent on general funds. a small portion is for a marriage license fees. in terms of percentages, yes, the total dollar amount for the grant is exactly the same. the 1% difference in percentage points is just a rounding error. it really is the same level of funding. by want to thank the mayor for his two year commitment. i want to thank members of the board who publicly supported the mayor's commitment. in terms of our major

supervisor chu: thank you. budget analyst report. mr. rose, a community the area where there is disagreement when you go through the report? >> madam chair, members of the committee, in general, for all departments we have not yet finalized agreements or disagreements, in general. so we report to you today that most of these recommendations, and there are some exceptions, are preliminary in nature, and we work with the departments and report back next week. with respect to the city attorney, our recommended reductions3 total reductions69 -- $369,000 plus, and it would still allow an increase of 3.8% in the department's 2012-2013 budget. then our recommendations totaled $383,506 for 2013-2014. those recommendations are ongoing savings and would still allow an increase of 4% for the budget. the disagreement as noted are the positions that are shown on page 64 of our report, and we will work with the department and report back to you next week. supervisor chu: thank you. in terms of page 65, the recommendations, t

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. with respect to the earthquake preparedness position, can i just ask is that a $60,000 saving over two years? if i am not mistaken? >> let me turn back to that. supervisor wiener: correct me if i'm wrong. i saw in the report, there was not enough detail provided about the program. can i just ask what the rationale is for the recommendation of manager 2 versus manager 4? >> supervisor wiener, we were given a description. the reason we recommended manager 2 was the scope of the program. they had not developed yet. they had not come up with any detail. it is a $400,000 budget. we did not see this a significant program to justify the higher level manager. since they are now saying they need someone with higher level technical skills, that is not information provided to was previously. supervisor wiener: would you have come to a different conclusion? >> i think it is new information. part of the reason for recommending the service is that we

supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose, did you have any recommendations on item 8? and madame chair and members of the committee, on that item, we suggest a not to exceed amount of $240,869,365, and we recommend to approve the resolution as amended. supervisor chu: ok, let's go to the next item. >> human services care fund? annually with our budget, we are required to report on our care fund and get approval approving our expenditure plan. this is, of course, the funding mechanism for care not cash, as laid out by initiative proposition n. it allocates four -- what is the total expenditure? $14 million, i believe, towards all of our initiatives under care not cash, which is largely single occupancy supportive housing sites. single adults on public assistance. the sources of the funds are from a caseload decline that we have experienced since 2004 as well as the reduction in grants for individuals who are in our shelter system. supervisor chu: great, and i believe this is not have a budget analyst items or recomme

supervisor chu: we will see you next week. final department of the day, but also the largest department of public health. >> good afternoon. great to be here for the budget discussion. i do want to recognize the mayor's office. we do not come here with major cuts in our budget because the mayor's office support for the services. that helps us with the beginning of next year. the health-care reform issue will require us to invest in people in our department and in technology. we do have federal requirements. we have been working on that for the last two years. we have received federal dollars for that. we do have revenue challenges in realignment as well as reductions in services. particularly in the hiv area. we also have major capital projects going on with the rebuild of san francisco general hospital. to review on our revenue issues, we have always been pretty aggressive on looking at revenue increases and trying to do our best internally. however, we do have some challenges without. we do have a $42.5 million from the gove

supervisor chu: thank you. we took comment on the entirety of the budget and with the public comment on the enterprise department budget. do we have a motion to merge items 3 and 4 into items 1 and 2? we have that motion and can do so without objection. now we have one aao and one aso for the department's budget. we will be hearing from a number of departments this week. today, we are following up with regards to some of the outstanding issues recommended by the budget analyst. so we have most of the departments coming back today. in addition, we also have a brief update from the mta about their budget. if you recall, when they came forward, there were some changes from labor negotiations, among other things, and they wanted to fall back up with the committee on. they will be doing a presentation for us today. city planning department will be called out of order as well as the treasury tax collector, because of conflicts in their schedule. >> john ram, planning department. i do have a board meeting at 11:00 as

supervisor chu: thank you very much. to the budget analyst, is there anything the you would add to the presentation? ok, thank you for the presentation. given that there are no recommendations, we will not be requiring you to come back. why don't we go to the fire department? >> good afternoon, chairman, members of the budget finance committee. we have approximately 10 slides that we have prepared for our presentation. we would be happy to answer any questions. i wanted to acknowledge my chief financial officer. i also wanted to acknowledge and thank the mayor's budget office for their assistance. we worked closely with them. certainly, thank you to the good work of the comptroller and budget analyst, mr. rose. flip to the next slide. this is, as you requested, a high-level budget. the department's proposed budget for 12-13 is approximately $327 million. the largest majority of the budget is allocated to salary and fringe benefits. two-thirds of the department overall budget support comes from the general fund, with the

supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning. i am the director of external affairs for the san francisco symphony. i ever present hundreds of large and small arts organizations and respectfully request your support for the mayor's budget. joining me today are educators, volunteers, students, and staff, from seven of those organizations, san francisco simpson a a,ct, odc, san francisco performances, valley, san francisco opera, and the exploratory him. we have organized our testimony so you will be hearing from three students, two educators, and one volunteer board member today, but we all speak on behalf of the hundreds of large and small arts and cultural organizations that deliver educational services to thousands of students in all of our public schools and direct our communities. supervisor chu: thank you for consolidating the public comment. >> my name is robert. i am representing the exploritorium and the san francisco arts alliance. it is great to look around here, looking at all the

supervisor chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: there are valid reason for why we are pulling the trigger. i understand mechanically we can because we projected a deficit of more than $100 million. having a look at the department of budgets, i see some large increases, sometimes up to 152%. while i think a lot of those requests are about in terms of job creation, schools are also a priority. i think we will be hearing a number of valid questions being raised over the course of the next few weeks as to why we are pulling the trigger and whether that can get reduced at all. especially because of the state cuts we are seeing in our public education system, and another reduction of our school year, this year, they are proposing a four additional days that they will shorten the school year by which tremendously impacts our student's ability to learn and for us to close the achievement gap, which is our cities number one priority. i do think we need to ask questions about the priorities we are putting in our budget this y