mr. comptroller, which like to add to that? >> just one point of commentary to add to the presentation. sometimes lost in this debate at the moment nationally is many things can all be true once. i think this is true in san francisco as well. we can have a well-performing retirement system that is generally beating its peers and seeing significant returns in the investment funds. we can have a health benefit plan taking significant steps to try to control costs in the future. and nonetheless, as a city, we can face significant cost pressures over the next four years and beyond because of the impacts of other things that are at times within our control and up times outside of them. all of these things can be true and that appears to be the scenario we face in san francisco at the moment. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we open this item of four public comment? are there any members of the public to wish to make comments on item number one? none? public comment is closed. if i can ask any members of the committee', if we can move to file adhering -- if we can move to file the hearing

mr. levinson from the comptroller's office, and i will just continue on the baselines that are in our chart, which are a part of our aggregate discretionary revenue. that is count deleted as the general fund revenue net of transfers, fees -- that is not counted as the general fund revenue, net of transfers, fees. this is another way of looking at what supervisor chu asked about before. it was about $1.90 billion out of the general fund, so about 70% in that case. even the so-called discretionary revenue, there are different ways of looking at what is extorted, as was mentioned. that will find things like police department staff and benefits that we may have limited discretion over, but that is our baseline. but that $1.90 billion number. -- it is that $1.90 billion number. this was originally set up as two separate. it is really fungible from the perspective of the mta, that together add up to 1.96% of discretionary revenue, and you can see the numbers, about $175 million from the budget. and then the library has the other base line, -- baseline, $44 million. we see what actually comes in,

mr. levinson from the comptroller's office, and i will just continue on the baselines that are in our chart, which are a part of our aggregate discretionary revenue. that is count deleted as the general fund revenue net of transfers, fees -- that is not counted as the general fund revenue, net of transfers, fees. this is another way of looking at what supervisor chu asked about before. it was about $1.90 billion out of the general fund, so about 70% in that case.

mr. wagner is here from the budget office and the comptroller's office might add a few words. >> thank you very much, madame chair. members of the committee. i will walk you through the high level picture of where things are right now. kate howard from my office is going to talk to the state budget picture. just to kind of frame where we are right now in the process for the last several years it has been an ongoing process, balancing the budget in the budget year. where we are right now is the apartments have submitted their budgets and have been going through the submission process for the last couple of months. they have submitted their budgets to the mayor's office. i guess that this marks the official starting point of the process of digging into those department proposals and policy implications and what they mean for the budget. right now we are still looking at things at a very high end broad level. the chair had asked if we could summarize what we are receiving in submissions, although i think it is early for me to be able to paint an accurate picture of that for you. we will dig t

you request the comptroller to return any of needed funds for the calaveras dam replacement project to a budget and finance committee reserve. >> thank you -- supervisor chu: thank you. mr. harrington? >> first of all, we want to thank mr. vote rose for his work and we thank you for the recommendations. it is difficult to build a dam in california, as you might imagine. we talked about the issues with environmental organizations, regulatory issues. i am pleased to report that at the planning commission, many different organizations spoke in favor of the eir. when this was completed, we were in complete agreement with the organization's of which we work. we are improving the fisheries and the lives of people who are over there. happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on items three, four, or five? >> good morning, supervisors. bright line defense project. there were discussions about how to maximize opportunities for residents, while balancing the interests of regional repairs and project impacted communities. as a result, the sfpuc had put for many innovative ideas and staff has provided input