as the budget analyst report said, this appears to be the best option. i think that was on the -- in the summary of the budget analyst report. at least the best option for lease space. there was concern raised by the budget analyst i think appropriately if we were to execute the option to enable the landlord to undertake improvements for us in the second phase, the first phase they cover at their cost but the second as an option where we could have them do it and finance it for us. that the interest cost was too high and probably not in the best interest of the agency, we agree with that. and finally a recommendation or concern raised that this causes a six-month overlap where we will be paying rent in two places. i guess what i would say to that is first of all we budgeted for a six-month overlap. looks like at this point that we could probably get that overlap down to three months. gone, when you consider the time lines involved with moving this kind of operation, the due diligence we have to do, decisions we make in terms of setting up work orders wit

but it was not the budget analyst statement. that is why i did say in the recommendation that it is a policy matter. i relied on their statement, but we made no verification of that whatsoever. finally our recommendations on page 13 of our report, as mr. risken has indicated and he stated and concurs with recommendations is they report back to the board on this report that they are doing for the real estate and tax facilities vision for the 21st century report. and also that the sfmta, if they decided they need improvements, which probably they will, as we understand it, that they would pay for that up front. of course that will be another budget expense rather than paying exorbitant interest rates of 9% to 10%. so overall we consider approval of the proposed resolution as recommended by the two recommendations to be a policy matter by the board of supervisors. we would be happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you, mr. rose. supervisor campos. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i want to thank the transportation director

of the budget. since then we have spoken to the controller's office and have been assured the controller would certify funds before they could be encumbered and spent against the contract. so recommending the approval of the contract at the full amount of $36 million we would consider to be a policy matter. >> that wouldn't be appropriated but still get the same control we are talking about? thank you. if we don't have comments, why don't we open this for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item one? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we have this item before us. i think given the fact the controller's does have control this is pretty typical for other department where is we have multi-year large contracts where full funding is not available immediately. the controller's office controls an makes sure the department does not spend what their appropriation authority is. i would suggest that rather than reduce it down per the budget analyst's original rec

the original budget was 2.7 million. through design decisions, we are using furniture and incorporating existing design features of the building, the department originally reduced that budget to $2 million, achieving a savings of over $700,000 from the original budget. even with the value engineering and fundraising efforts the department still had a shortfall on the budget to complete the needed tenant improvements. our original request was for the full amount offered by hudson properties of $244,400. in working with the budget analyst, we did recognize their concern for amortizing the full $244,000. so over the last several days we have made additional decisions to lower the costs by 68,000. in addition, we hosted a reception with potential donors for our capital campaign last week and were able to secure additional commitments and strong potential interests, totalling 51,000 as well. so taking into consideration the budget analyst report, our value engineering and additional fundraising, we are proposing amendments to

. >> well, the two ways are part of the qualitative criteria that accompany the budgets and again the first one is that the description of the shadows that could be found to be non-adverse and are within the budgets are that profiles of the shadows, the time of day, location in the park, the time of year, the extent on the park, that matches the analysis that was done for these buildings, so it is -- essentially it is for the plan area and secondarily, that an additional criteria would be that the public good of projects analyze that might take some of this benefit would be considered in the public good of the plan, of this plan as a whole. >> so, are we doing that also quantitatively where we're saying we're increasing union square's shadow by x, that's for the transbay plan? i mean, it's not just as qualitative analysis, we're saying this allocation is for the transbay plan? >> you're not allocating any portions of the budget, you're setting some criteria for future allocation, so it's there but it's not aztec -- as technical as you're considering it. >> is there an issue where we s

fill cough made, the sentence would read any budget that increaseses the operating budget above this level we'll be supporting. >> i find that acceptable. * >> any other comments? >> i just had one final on the report card as well. i had sort of a similar question around just whether there could be some quantitative -- i mean, i don't really have a solution, but something that kind of says this is an area that [speaker not understood] at a glance. i'm not sure the parks score card is quite right, but i think it's moving in that direction where it says [speaker not understood] has moved from whatever percentage it was down to 14 parks that still need attention. so, some way to be able to at a glance look at this and say, well, community sustainability piece needs a little bit of work or something that is more -- >> i think the policy is what you're actually adopting today. the score card is something we will use in the budget process as a tool and we'll refine that over time based on your comments. we'll be coming back to you. that's not what you're adopting, just a policy [speaker not

but first, we wanted to see just how bad the budget situation is in our schools. and how it got that way in the first place. pbs news hour correspondent spencer michaels takes a look. >> in schools around the state, there's a feeling that the ax is about to fall. and if and when it does, san francisco school superintendent will have to act. >> we have our doomsday plan. part of that is lopping days off of the school year. and it can be up to ten days next year. that's two weeks off of the school year. >> richard caranza says his district, though well supported by voter-passed bond measures and parcel taxes, has suffered as the state's economy tanked and, along with it, state support. >> we are a bare bones organization. and we're just able to keep the lights on, the doors open and the teachers in classroom. >> californians are about to vote on two competing initiatives, 30 and 38. they are both temporary tax increases aimed at funding public schools. caranza supports prop 30 and fears if it fails -- >> there is no worse scenario. it's -- it's def-con 5. >> from cit

. >> the next report is augmented budget and business services committee. commissioner mendoza. >> thank you. >> so we went through our regular administrative approved kresolutions. we had the state budget update in particular the prop 30 contingentcy plan and so there is a list of items that we will look at should prop 30 not pass. and then there was a presentation prepared for the mandated cost block grant. but we decided to hold off on that presentation because it was requested by commissioner wynn and we wanted to make sure that she was present and there was no urgency in it. but it sounds like there is good news in that. we got a little taste of. and then we had an update on some potential support that will or that is expected to be introduced by commissioner kim on a supplemental appropriation from the city. >> i am sorry, what did i call her? >> supervisor. >> commissioner. >> and then we had a conversation about some potential future agenda items. i think that one of the things that deputy superintendent lee and i are working on trying to do is to ha

rain in my shoes searching for the school budget you in the cold kentucky budget rain in the cold kentucky budget rain bring some change, city school change and you will be glad they came ♪ ♪ we need you school budget now more than words can say we need you now now and every day and every way we budget need you need you now. ♪ supervisor mar: thank you, mr. paulson. is there anyone who else would like to speak? seeing none, public comment closed. i would like to ask for comments, questions from clige colleagues. nancy, thank you very much for the service to children and families in the city and school district and best of luck in d.c. as well. i know will you do incredible things for people in d.c. as you have done for our city. thank you very much. colleagues, any questions or comments?

the budget -- creating the budgets doesn't preclude the commission's further discretion in evaluating the specific shadows and entitling the specific projects but it sets the sort of maximum envelope of what can be considered in the future and sets the qualitative criteria by which you will evaluate those projects. >> just setting the project does not mean you approve the budget for any particular project at this particular time? >> that's correct. >> that's one thing and the other question i had was for commissioner wu, i think we already have allocated 9 million dollars for park improvements in chinatown, i think what you were asking to do was to earmark that money and the first money that was brought forth from the exaction and fees to be used for those parks that might be most impacted by any shadows that need the most, is that what you're asking for? >> yes, that's correct. i think probably to keep it the most flexible to now is to allocate that money for the chinatown parks and leave it at that and at the time of implementation for the planning department to work with community

more than the combined defense budget of the next 17 largest defense budgets. more than china plus russia plus germany plus france plus spain plus israel plus the united arab emirates and a few more i can't remember. >> reporter: do we really cant to skimp on defense with china an emerging superpower making offensive moves in the south china sea and those islands in japan? >> we want to have enough defense to protect ourselves but the question is how much defense do we really need and how much can we afford to be the cops of the world? the thing that strikes me about the defense budget is how large the component decisions are so take this one question. how many aircraft carriers are enough? the congress has told the navy they have to have 11 aircraft carriers. that's about ten more than any other country has. and the navy says we need to replace one aircraft carrier every five years for the rest of my life and then some. each aircraft carrier is $11 billion. it's as much money as we spent to replace 750,000 shoulder, knee, and hip joints for people on medicare.

i don't think we should balance the budget on the back of the workforce, and there was prop c.prop b was the adachi measure and proper c was a lot of pension reform where the unions and the workforce came forward and they made a lot of sacrifices. so i think when we start to talk about this issue, we really need to take into consideration that we're talking about the police force. that we're talking about the firefighters. these are all public safety issues. and this past year we have had to deal with a lot of the fact that we don't have enough police officers currently in place. and that is why we're trying to fund a lot of these police academy courses to start to fill that gap. but i think there are other ways to balance the budget and i don't believe it's on the back of the workforce. >> thank you. miss selby. >> yes, i think that proposition c was a great start. and what i really liked about proposition c and this is very much who i am. i look at ted over here when we talked about lake albert and that they got everybody together at the table. so it was not a matter of the h

this is the first time city and county is considering approving a two-year budget. the public education enrichment fund was enacted in 2004 and the money first came in, in 2005 and '06. so what you see here is the allocation of the piece dollars starting $10 million the first year, $71 million the current year. school districts share so the school districts share its infancy of the program at $7 million and is now at $47 million. this bolded amount is the deferral amount, so this is the amount of the trigger that was pulled in those years, first time was in fiscal year 89. '8 million deferred and $10 million for two years and $11 million in the current years and next two years we're estimating $12 million. so the cumulative value of that is $62 million but that includes the next two years. in-kind allowance, value of that. and then the net contribution from the city. above and beyond the actual cash that is provided to the school district, the charter requires the city maintains the value of the services provided before it was enacted. d.c.s. used to provide services

plan and the rapidly evolving romney/ryan budgetnd tax plan. a lot of open questions there. i expect vice president biden's going to come out ready to hold his feet to the fire on specifics. and congressman ryan has other challenges, you know? he's not well-known on the national stage, so this will be a new introduction for him. and he has to pass the commander in chief threshold so there will be foreign policy questions tonight. he'll have to hold his own there. he also has to energize conservatives but also appeal to moderates, and that's something that i think the ryan/romney ticket has been having trouble with in recent days specifically around women's reproductive health and other issues. should be an interesting night. >> michael, is this a case where the vice presidential candidates are worried about protecting the talking points for mitt romney and president obama? are they defending their own records in the case of wrien in particular or do they talk of only try to refocus it to the. of the ticket? >> well, i think for bide

>> you're not allocating any portions of the budget, you're setting some criteria for future allocation, so it's there but it's not aztec -- as technical as you're considering it. >> is there an issue where we specify the amount, the percentage that we're increasing and that it's for -- the reason we're doing it is for this plan area? >> no, i mean, the resolution that's before you discusses the reasons why this is being undertaken, because of the the plan and so forth, but you can't allocate it to buildings that aren't before you yet. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you, my understanding and this was presented quite well by staff is there was an environmental analysis of buildings that are proposed for the area in consideration and based upon their design and i can tell you that they have not just the transit tower but a number of them have been sculpted and working with staff and others to make sure that their impacts are minimized but given the plans that have been brought forth, although they are not specifically before us, we were able to figure out what these impacts would be a

♪ twin peaks mountain high ♪ bring the budget home ♪ >> thank you. o comment on item one. seeing none, public comment is closed. can we send this forward with recommendation? okay. we have a motion and we will do this without objection. thank you. item two. >>the clerk: item two, resolution authorizing department of environment to retroactively accept and expend grant in amount of 156,000 from california public utilities commission through pacific gas & electric to reduce and demand reduction of energy in san francisco during 2012. >> thank you. we have guilmo rodriguez from department of environment. >> thank you. guilmo rodriguez from the department. the department requests the committee's recommendation for approval of a & e item in amount of $156,000 to support the city's energy watch program. since 2010 when the city initiated the energy watch program the departments provided about 5.2 million in incentives for over 1,600 businesses and multifamily buildings in san francisco, resulting in a savings of about $6.8 million annually for energy needs.

the recent cuts department of technology budget have not been because of a lack of performance but the result of budget deficits across the board and i think they have born the massive bruntd of this within the technology world. >> i agree. >> finding number four -- the finding we were asking to react to. another consequence of dt for departments and participate in city wide initiatives and give up operational independence and for this i state that i agree. because other departments haven't had full faith in dt and not willing to give up operational independence. >> i would agree with that and i think that talks about the structural things we were talking about and structural issues and i look forward to the dialogue going forward and i think there are changes to be made here. >> number five and coit policies and changes and not communicated effectively to the mayor and coit and for this i would -- actually i think i partially agree. i would say partially disagree and i state while coit policies and city wide initiatives are communicated clearly there is no follow up or deadlines to ca