the department does not have one specific grants person. it depends on the grant. for example, one would come through our traffic unit. we have one that is human trafficking right now, and that comes through investigation. it really depends. supervisor mirkarimi: and on a separate category, what about work orders could providing service or other departments? >> departed -- providing services for other departments comet it is about $15 million for next year, and the missouri services on a specific basis, over and above the usual police activities offered. supervisor mirkarimi: does that include mta? >> i believe the enterprise numbers are being finalized this week, and we do not have any numbers. these are preliminary korea we are still talking with almost every single department about the level of service next year and what they are requesting. supervisor mirkarimi: do we have what a budget looks like on special events and officers being used for that activity could >> that budget is approximately $1 million that we put in every year. there is really a huge variety

grant from the treasury tax collection office. >> good morning. in the policy legislative manager for the office of tax collector manager. it is my pleasure to bring this ordinance before you. it will authorize the treasury tax collector to except $240,000 for the direct deposit program and will fund one position. as supporting documentation shows, the goal is for all employees to access wages electronically and more fully participate in the mainstream. it will create an employer out reach mechanism to increase access to electronic pay while simultaneously supporting low- income workers. the program will set thousands of working families on the road to financial security with access to mainstream banking and reducing waste by no longer issuing paper checks. it is designed to build a pipeline for further asset building strategies in demonstrating that the workplace is an important venue for this work. this is actually a fallout project from a number of items that the office of assessment has been working on since 2005. when we implemented the worki

the challenge grant program sets its own criteria for how they select. so, we would have to ask them what their criteria is and how they disperse their grant funds. supervisor mirkarimi: in very basic terms from where we sit, you could see that potentially with varying degrees of strength, they may have more of the wherewithal and the ability to secure transplants. whereas communities that do not have cbd's do not. i am probing to determine if this might merit some kind of protocol, potentially, or a ground rule, so that the process is made to seem that much more fair. i can think of a number of neighborhoods that are not ready for these and may not what one. yet, they would love to compete for community challenge grants, capital or non-capital oriented. i am wondering if this is something -- it has been referenced that it is something we should explore in terms of setting up particular guidelines. we do not want the unintentional of fact of the big fish dominating the playing field where the little fish are not getting any bites. >> without any statisti

they have a small grant fund called the community benefit fund. our role is to review what they have done. we have worked with at the comptroller's office and the service auditor division, looking primarily at the financial portion. together we reviewed their annual budget, sources of income, variants between budget amounts and actual expenses, and plans for carry over from year to year. as you can see, in terms of their annual budget, yerba bueana cbd stayed pretty close to their annual -- original budget. 60% goes to the sidewalk operations and beautification. about 15% for district identity and streetscape improvements. in terms of other sources of funding, they do not meet the requirements of raising five% of their budgets from other sources. they raise between 1% and 4% for the first two years. only in operation for three months of 2008-2009, they were definitely below what they budgeted. for 2009-2010, they were still ramping up programs, so they were under budget there. as of the end of fiscal year 29 -- 2009-2010, but they had done in -- w

they did not necessarily get the grant yet. i want to be cleared supervisor mirkarimi:. this has not -- i want to be clear. supervisor mirkarimi: this is more of a general issue. >> i would be happy to provide more information. supervisor mirkarimi: all right, thank you. supervisor chu: just a quick follow-up question, lisa. you had mentioned that many of the supervisor mirkarimi: pot -- many of the cbd's do not have a capital budget. is that a legal restriction? >> each one has its own management plan. . some districts do not have enough funding for certain projects in their original plans, so they apply for a grant in those cases to supplement their assessment budget. many districts spent all of their money on maintenance. so, they have to fundraiser for streetscape improvements. but that is not every district. each one is different. supervisor chu: so, there is possibility for improving and larger -- approving a larger capital budget? they would have to change their management plans? >> correct. many of them have to -- many of them require all of the votes to do so. s

recently, we submitted a grant on april 4 for a preliminary engineering grant to continue the work for phase two. this is under the high-speed rail federal funds. we are looking for about $2 million. that concludes my report. director ford: quick question. go ahead, vice chair. director ortiz: how will the federal funds impact phase one and to a wheel? >> the $400 million grant is already in place, so it has been obligated, and we do not expect there will be any sort of impact from the budget discussions on that. on the future grants we have been applying for, it is not totally clear yet right now whether or not they will be impacted or not. all of that money -- it has not been decided what will happen with the new money. the moneys applied most recently are the funds that were returned from other states for the high- speed rail. they made it available in grant form, so we do not have any further information on whether or not -- >> but it does look good? >> absolutely. director ortiz: refresh my memory -- what was the reason we extended the cowas it high-spee? we will continue with the

they did not give 100% to the grant. the costs are charged directly to the grant instead of a budget projection of the costs. this is the expectation when they return next year, they will be able to see the corrective actions. we received a cash advance with the stimulus grant for the program, a large volume of units. we were not able to draw down the $300,000 advance, and so -- we began gathering interest, with the computer oversight in accounting in the system, the accounting staff did not realize we were accruing $100 of interest. we have returned this interest, and we have reviewed the cash advance procedures. this will not happen in the future. >> this is great, thank you for your work. >> mr. chairman, supervisor. overall, we are concerned about the appropriate qualified management personnel in the finance area and we continue to work with everyone in the department with their own financial statements, and those working with us across the city. we continue to do training and we are looking at this issue. we do have

they received a grant. supervisor wiener: of the $5.7 million reduction, taking that pool of grants, how much of that be you think was made up? not made up, but how much money from the competitive process is going to those organizations? in other words -- >> the add back? supervisor wiener: the $7.5 million. for those organizations, how much are you proposing that they received through the competitive process? >> a majority. many of them were early care and education. the large one that we just completed included the team programs. those had added categories combined. it was close to half of that add-back. supervisor wiener: are there any of the organizations or categories that are being impacted beyond other categories? >> i do have to say that last year, which suffered a $10 million reduction. $8 million at the end of the day of reductions in the budget that came from both the children's fund and the general fund. because of that, we had $8 million left to give back to the community. we could not fund all

the strategic plan, the grant is -- i do not know if you are familiar with ms. walker. has a lot of experience on the national front in terms of foundation work. she is also on the local level in soma and citywide issues, so she will be looking at us in that context and coming up with outcomes regarding soma. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. the speaker. >> i am the executive director of asian neighborhood designs. i wanted to speak in support of this measure. we are a soma-based nonprofit provide architectural planning and green contruction trading services throughout 7 cisco. this initiative would really help us as an organization set up of market by providing greater strategic planning and resources. -- throughout san francisco. given all of the cuts, we need as much support as we can get. my comment -- asian neighborhood designs have been working with the stabilization fund and the union for a number of months to try to bring this great opportunity to fruition. we have a contract with the stabilization fund right now. we are providing soma-target residents with

the grant rule. due to the unexpected delays in making the expenditures, the city actually made some money. and this money will have to be returned. this was not returned during the year. there were not timely with respect to the advance. >> and this was a lack of understanding for the rule? >> we can certainly look at this. the next finding related to the capitalization grant for the funds -- this was administered by the port, with 51 of 91 items -- we had 51 certified payrolls to see if the court received those payrolls, -- port received those payrolls and found 21 instances where they paid in advance of receiving this. you are at risk if you find that the wages were not paid -- and you have actually made the payments to the contractors. we were wanting everyone to make certain that payment was withheld. the last item had to do with the immunization. whenever the city passes money through, to these recipients, they have to tell them that this is a federal grand. there was a delay in the process, an

they were hired from the grant funding. chair chu: so what i hear you are saying is that if you are to meet the additional 10% contingency, where you go would be a lay off, and the first officers to go would be the grant funded positions because they have the least at the moment could >> correct, and they do not come out of our general fund chair chu: . and there is no savings because they come out of the general fund. what $6.1 million, what does that represent? that would be the money the fed have already spent. supervisor chu: we would be for fitting the money because they're not meeting the staffing level? >> correct. the 79 would be for the $11.3 million. the reality is it comes up to 171. we can work with the federal government as far as the $6.1 million and possibly negotiate with them. we are looking at that also. the reality is when you have almost 90% of the budget that pays for salary, there is no reduction we can have on the budget but police officers. supervisor chu: if there is a fair way to think about this,

>> i would move that we grant jurisdiction. he has to file. i'm sorry. >> do you want to make that motion with the finding that you are granting a because the city inadvertently misled the requestor into not believing he had the right to appeal? >> thank you. that is exactly right. >> on that motion by the vice president to grant the request. commissioner fung: aye. president goh: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. that motion is granted. mr. flanaga, you have five days to file an appeal. it will and the close of business monday, april 25. please be aware of that time frame -- timeframe. you can send somebody on your behalf to file if necessary. ok. we will move on to item 4c, another jurisdiction request. subject property at 1550 and 1552 jones street. letter from eric montoya, requestor, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa number 2011/02/02/9512, which was issued on february 15, 2011. the appeal period ended march 02, 2011, and the jurisdiction request was received at the board office on march 23, 2011. pe

we will have to grant funding equipment. and we will comply with the inventory. >> we get the feeling that the board is on top of this that has been identified. thank you for coming in giving us that presentation. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> is there any other department that is here to address anything else that we have left out? >> we have ktmg that needs to go over the findings and the airport and the mass transit authority are here. >> good afternoon. i am the partner responsible for the work with the city and county of san francisco. we did complete the audit with the standard, unqualified opinions. there were no significant difficulties. i do want to comment on the deficiencies noted in a couple of the reports that were provided. on the financial statement, there was one statement of cash flows. this was not a huge concern. this is the first year doing the single audit, and we have three comments included. one of them had to do with cash management. there were amounts repaid from the contractors, with oversigh

i'm inclined not to grant jurisdiction. i wish there was some way we could codify what seems to be an arrangement that would prevent someone from standing on that deck and looking toward the window. all that is left to us to do is to hope that we are dealing with someone who is honorable, and we have no reason to think he is anything but honorable, and will do just what he said here. as for jurisdiction request, i would be inclined, with the others who have already commented, to not grant jurisdiction. >> i don't have anything to add. commissioner hwang: the timing of the notice and the change of ownership makes for a sympathetic set of circumstances. for that reason, i would be inclined to grant the request for jurisdiction. but, i will probably be shot down here. commissioner fung: i would make a last comment that there was a time period of about a month in which the appellant could have and did not. i think that is what is going to sway me. >> is their emotion, commissioners? commissioner fung: i move to not grant jurisd

of public works and allowed us to accept and expend a grant funds. in november of 2009, the county transportation authority awarded a grant for the drive stairway improvement project. it was programmed as part of the regional transportation improvement priority thickets submitted to the metropolitan transportation commission. with the proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies, it makes sense for them to assume project management and grant management. the transfer has been approved by the metropolitan commission as well as the redevelopment agency commission. in january, the california commission allocated $112 for the design. on the implementation side, this is already moving. we request that you would approve the transfer from redevelopment to ecw. i would be happy to answer any questions. i also have someone with me from the redevelopment agency. supervisor avalos: very good. thank you. if any member of the public would like to comment, please come forward. this is about the mtc grant for the walkway. we will close public comment. a motion to mo

we think it is improper to grant the exemption. if this ends up in court, the schedule would have to present substantial evidence to support the granting of this exception. we submit there is not substantial evidence and the record to support this. we can suggest to take more time whether it is or isn't. >> good evening. i am working with the project sponsor. >> this will be the first private platinum office building in san francisco. it bears mentioning that i have been working on this project for five years. those five years have included one direct meeting where they were shown the plans and they have included a key public outreach meetings. they included a planning commission hearing on the ceqa and where we got approval. the first time that we heard objections was two days before the planning commission. they are entitled, that is the way things work in this city and we respect the fact that they have the right to object. it would have been easier for us to deal with those objections. >> the plans were available to everyone an

that is a $300,000 grant. we will be able to get pricing, just thematic level, which will allow our office to actually prepare a draft infrastructure financing plan. an identical to the plan that will sketch out the funding strategy for the next 30-plus years. if the project is approved, we will be able to move forward with actual formation in 2012, and that means that money will become a reality. peter l. but also mention the loan, something you are probably familiar with. it is possible that we could utilize that program as bridge financing to get us from the future ifd, where the increment accumulate slowly, just such a building those improvements, way ahead. with that, i would like to just close in saying that tier 5 is the next vision. parkmerced is the project before you today, obviously, but you cannot get to tier 5 without tier four. if you have any other questions, all of us are available. supervisor mar: i really appreciate the materials. very thorough. there were a couple of sites that you said the

the grant creates no new positions, and there are no matching funds required. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. supervisor mirkarimi: any comments or questions? seeing none, i think we are fine. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we take this without objection? so moved. thank you very much. anything else to add? ok, thank you. please read the next item. >> item two, hearing on assembly bill 109, regarding criminal justice realignment. supervisor mirkarimi: excellent. i had called for this particular hearing because we have been hearing a great deal about this issue in the press for some months now. it is related to governor brown and the state pose a desire to realign our state prison population -- the state's desire to realign our state prison population. it asks the state to return a certain amount of prisoners, state population back to the municipality of san francisco. there have been random reports of what that number actually looks like, and that seems to be couched in the question of what kind of fu