We are the custodian of the second most valuable assets of San Francisco. Thats the value of our collection that im constantly reminded of. So i think they were clearly working very hard to make that lower the cost of to the city. But, on the other hand, with must the city covers less than onethird of our operating budgets. As the city increases and the operating sbunlts getting smaller. Our objective over the years, we decreased a percentage of city support. Eventually we get to whether ideally we all want to get to. Thank you. Thank you. It is an important part of San Francisco, fabric of our city. Its just hard for me to recognize the departments request as opposed to the b. L. A. Recommendations when our other museums are only receiving about a 10 per visit or subsidy. So, that is my comments and what i noticed in looking for my documents. Thank you for your answer. Thank you very much. What do you say in response to what the b. L. A. Recommendations are. Thank you for the opportunity. I would like to express our thanks to the committee and to b. L. A. Staff for the great care and the time spent in and the work of the asian museum. It would be 70,000plus. We are only recommending a different route by which to achieve the savings that b. L. A. Staff wants to achieve. I think were fundamentally aligned and knead to say that is a 70,000plus. And alternative to recommendation not to grant the two upgrade substitutions, well respectfully request that we funded two substitutions with additional attrition. Savings which we managed to achieve. We currently have four open positions out of a total 58 and the net budget will be exactly what a b. L. A. Commands. Were just asking for different routes and i must say for the Deputy Director whos in charge of the entire generating operating, including tutorial, including education, including the conservation, including the order of public programs, this is the most accord division. And as correctly pointeded out, although our city is very, very small, we have about total staff size 260 or so converting to [inaudible] so the majority of the staff is foundationally funded. In terms of working reality, there is no difference between a City Employee and Foundation Employee and Deputy Director. The same thing goes for our superintendent which i would like to increase because because it is a landmark beauty in the county of San Francisco. We all know the museum is exceedingly complex. I dare do say operating museum is somewhat like hospitals. It is a longterm addition of 13,000 square feet special exhibition space plus another 10,000 square feet of terrace, plus the renovation of existing spaces. So, the need for maintaining existing buildings as well as added the new facility with us asking for new f. T. E. S, i think it is an equitable solution. In alignment with b. L. A. s recommendation, we must achieve saving and respectfully request to achieve saving by attrition. By attrition. Ok. By the same amount. Same amount. I just want to say that i understand your justification to the higher grade level because i understand that you have only so many City Employees, 58 City Employees and then you have a lot of other employees that are funded through Foundation Money and that they still have to be supervised in some ways. I hope this board is in agreement that what were hearing is that he agrees with the savings from our b. L. A. , but he would like the take that money out of attrition. Im agreeable to that. I want to thank you for coming up with that solution. Are we in agreement, too . So, mr. Controller. Could you please note the following that it is the committees intention to step b. L. A. s recommendations through attrition our asian art collection. And thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you for your beautiful building you are going to be building. Looking forward to welcoming you to the new facility next year. We cant wait. Thank you very much. All right. Oh, hi, naomi. Good to see you. And madame clerk, can you please call item number 15, which is training legislation. [reading item number 15] thank you very much. Lets before we hear from city administrator, if you wouldnt mind, lets hear from the b. L. A. Will you please also read the report for item 15 as well as the b. L. A. Recommendations on the budget cuts . I certainly will. And the as you might have seen, we passed out a revised report on the proposed budget which i will be reading from after i read about item 15. Thank you very much. Ok. So, item 15, which is found 190642 is a request by the city administrator to release 26,200,000 of the 29,387,433 on budgets and finance committee reserve to partially fund furniture, fixtures, equipment, Information Technology and moving costs for the relocation of city departments to 49 south van ness avenue. 11 city departments or sections of departments are scheduled to relocate to 49 south van ness beginning in the summer of 2020. The board of supervisors approved the issuance of up to 321. 8 million in certificates of participation or cops, in 2017. That was file number 174068 and approve the cops proceed to fund the construction of the City Office Building at 49 south van ness avenue. That was file 170464. The board of supervisors placed 29,397,433 on budget and finance committee reserve pending a detailed budget for the furniture, fixtures and equipment to be funded by the 29, 397,433. A breakdown of the cost as provided by the city administrator is shown on page 13 of our report. The total budgets for furniture, fixtures and equipment, Information Technology and moving costs is 39. 1 million. Funded by 26. 2 million in cops funds on reserves. City Department Funds and Capital Planning and koit funds. Expenditures include 23. 9 million for work station and furniture, 11. 5 million for Information Technology and 3. 7 million in moving costs. We recommend approving the requested release of 26,200,000. Regarding the city administrators office, proposed budget, the departments proposed 526,370,919 budget for fiscal year 1920 is 50,224,318 or so. 5 more than the original fiscal year 201819 budget of 476,146,601. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2021 is 1. 4 more than the mayors 2019 budget. Our recommended reductions for proposed budget total 753,191 in fiscal year 1920. Of the 753,191 in recommended reductions, 553,191 are ongoing savings and 200,000 are onetime savings. These reductions would still allow an increase of 49,471,127 or 10. 4 in the departments 1920 budget. Our reserve recommendations total 308,515 in fiscal year 1920. Our recommended reductions to the proposed budget for fiscal year 2021 total 581,670 are ongoing savings and allow an increase of 6,742,427 or 1. 3 in the departments fiscal year 202021 budget. Our reserve recommendations for 2021, total 565,548. My understanding is that we have agreement with the department but i will let them speak to that, too. Good morning, supervisors. Naomi kelly. Were in agreement with the legislative analysis. That is great. Supervisor yee. Can you explain from the b. L. A. s point of view the how did you how did you get the differences between the original report that we received versus the revised recommendations . So that is a question for b. L. A. So the changes were so, we had come to agreement, i believe, yesterday and there was a miscommunication in one of the, i think one or two of the reductions. And we were just those were technical clarifications. I can check real quick. I dont think there was any change to the bottom line number. But i can check real quick. There is a change of about 1 million bottom line number. It looks like the difference is about 300,000 and excuse me. Im refamiliarizing because this was handled by other staff so im just catching up. Im looking at both reports and theres a difference of total savings. The original report had 1 million more. So, the original report had a total recommended reductions of 1,049,600 and the new revision thats for year one, yes. And year two let me see. Year two. Ok. I think, and were trying to make sure were all looking at the same numbers, we had agreed to put the 3 p. L. A. Positions on reserve, pending signing the citywide p. L. A. Agreement and that may be the difference in the delta. But thats equal 1 million. So it looks like a difference of about 800,000. So, combined over the two years. So, i see that the reserve recommendation i see. Sorry. You have the original report . I have a copy. Im just trying to review it real quick. Sorry. Im sure there is some explanation. I just have to know what it is. I just want to make sure that were all looking at the same document. It also looks like there is a recommendation for to deny an upward substitution of purchaser to senior purchaser on the original report. Total savings in the second year were worth 330,000. It looks like that we looks like that we removed that recommendation. In the revised. That looks like the delta, the completion of a delta in addition to the reserve of 565,000. If he needs a few minutes to figure it out, why dont we go to the next department. Would it be ok if supervisor ronan asked her question . Oh, yeah. Yeah. Supervisor . Thank you so much. I had a question about the moving costs. 3. 7 million for 49 south van ness . Yes. If i look at the line by line costing out, it just seems so excessive. You know, almost 1 million to manage the move. Over 1 million to dispose of existing furniture. Kout could you just walk me through itsome it seems so high. Yes. We are the scope of this project, it is like nothing weve ever done in the city of 1800 employees moving from 10 to 11 departments, more than that, moving from multiple locations over a constrained time period and also moving to new furniture because we have a much different floor prints that is much efficient in terms of the space allocation and one of the things that we learned from the prior moves is that the move coordination is important up front. And that is the cost you see there, about 1 million of the costs. We went out to bid through the contract administration. They put out a bid for us to move coordination and we have been working with that vendor to be able to really figure out what the magnitude of this move. One of the various requirements under our various regulations and Environmental Policies are to use the virtual warehouse, trying to find out furniture that we can move from the old building to other purposes and provide to the community. So that effort requires us to do a lot of extra work. For example, one of the things were beginning next month is to go through an inventory and bar code all of the work stations and all the various pieces of furniture to put it on the virtual warehouse and go through a whole early process and go through making it available internally and then externally. That alone is a major effort for us to undergo. Some of the other costs that were looking at are the well, the physical mover costs. Again, it is multiple locations over a series of weekends. That will be additional costs for that. We have Specialty Equipment were moving and moving a mix of computers, multifunction devices, plotters, other Specialty Equipment from multiple locations so we have the costs and small i. T. Staff in some of those departments that cant manage the move over a weekend, hundreds of employees. So we have costs for the disconnect packaging, moving, even if it is a few blocks, reconnect and working with i. T. We also have additional costs for site itself because we will be doing this at the same time that well be doing final work on the site so we have to pay additional labors for night deliveries, night elevator operators, security, weekend cost. We have to provide additional cleaning post the move in as part of that. And it is in all this at the end, whatever furniture we have left, we have to find a way to get rid of because our responsibility from all of our current lease buildings to remove all the furnishings and that includes removing white bores and everything off the walls and back into a certain state. So, we have tried to fund this at a level that we feel like we can be as successful as possible to do this in a twomonth period. As thats currently on the budget. Ok. Its just 3. 7 million is a hefty price tag. I will not disagree with you. It is. You feel it is the cost to do it right. Unfortunately it is the cost to do it right. Thank you very much. While the b. L. A. Is gathering information, lets take Public Comments on item number three. Are there any members of the public that would like the comments on item number 15, i meant. Not three. 15. Mr. Wright. Thank you. Sounds like a lot of money. But it is justs a drop in the bucket compared to the multitrillions and billions of dollars of taxfree money that twitter and a minimum of the nine other hightech companies have gotten and i realize that this same amount of money has been given to Biotech Companies as well. I move to have you prosecute in the same manner that prosecuted down south is doing to Wells Fargo Bank. I pointed out how Wells Fargo Bank was running a scam to the executive directors, at tndc and none of them would listen to me. Three and a half years later, the information got to the prosecutor down south and then all of a sudden you start clawing back multitrillions and billions of dollars because of scandalous activity. I move to have you do the same to twitter and all the other hightech companies and any other company thats been getting multibillion dollars of taxfree money. Its not fair. It is not fair and an insult on everybodys intelligence. So because of reasons thereof, not only should that money be used to pay the expenses that you are talk about here today, but also earlier where you are talk about putting half the funds for City Employees and and a half reserve. You have a conflict of interest there. Because i employees with the Housing Authority and then you have employees with the city. So, you have a situation enjoyed by one set of employees but not by another. So you have a conflict there with your funds as well. Thank you very much. Any other Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Do you have a response for president yee . I believe i do. I have an update on if you are looking at the original report, the first recommendation is the same for the professional specialized services, savings of 100,000 in both years. The second recommendation is the same, the looks like they were some changes in positions, Senior Administrative analysts and junior administrative analysts. Reduce changing and classification from 1824 to 1923. And reducing one position in 1820, we removed the adm3 recommendation at the bottom of page 50. The we proposed eliminating two positions. And we removed that recommendation. Adm4 on the original report, we moved that to reserve. Those are two contract compliance positions and an analyst position. The next recommendation, it says adm6 at the bottom of page 51. We recommended deleting a payroll and personnel clerk. We removed that recommendation on the original report is Material Supplies for 100,000 and that remains the same. I believe thats what accounts for the change in the two reports and im sorry, it looks like we added 100,000 recommendation for membership fees under office of contract administration. President yee, does that meet your yeah. Thanks. Thank you for the explanation. Thank you. What i see what im hearing today is that we have accepted the recommendations in the agreement here. So we also, mr. Controller, will you please note that this committee that it is this committees intention to stedt b. L. A. Recommendations for this department and then id like to make a motion to approve item number 15 that does not have to be sent to committee because that is on our reserves in budget at finance committee. Could i make a motion, please, to accept a give a positive recommendation to approve the expenditure on item 15. Seconded by president yee and take that without objection. Thank you very much. Madame chair, can you please file item number 15 as well . Yes, id like to make a motion to file item number 15. Supervisor mandelman, without objection, thank you very much. Thank you, city administrator, for all of your work. Now lets have the department of technology. Could we have the b. L. A. Report, please. Dan gonchar. The proposed budget for fiscal year 1920 is 15,582,268 or 12 more than the original budget. The departments proposed to 135,045,524 for fiscal year 2021 is 4,177,078 or 30 less than the mayors proposed fiscal 2019 budget. A recommended reduction to the proposed budget totals 96,854 in fiscal year 1920. All 964,854 are onetime savings. These reductions would still allow an increase of 14,617,714 or 11. 8 of the departments fiscal year 1920 budget. In addition, we recommend closing out prior year unexpended incumbrances, 10,234 of this of which are derived from the general fund. For a total savings of 740,499 in Nongeneral Fund savings of 239,986. A recommended reductions to the proposed budget in fiscal year 2021 are 50,000. All 50,000 in recommended reductions are ongoing savings. And i believe we have an agreement with the department. Were in agreement. Thank you very much. So, mr. Controller, can you please note the committees intention to stedt b. L. A. Recommendations for this department . Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your service. Now lets have public works. Do we have director newar here . Hello madame clerk, can you call number nine . Authorizing the expenditure of state development act, article 3, pedestrian and bicycle project, funding for fiscal year 2020. Mr. B. L. A. , could we hear a report please on c. P. W. And also item number nine. Madame chair, we do not have a report on item number nine. Ok. Thank you very much. I can give you a report on the departments proposed budget. The departments proposed budgets for fiscal year 1920 is 11,045,226 or 3 more than the original fiscal year 201819 budget of 374,137,829. The departments proposed 376, 921,740 budget for fiscal year 202021 is 8,261,315 or 2. 1 less than the mayors proposed 1920 budget of 385,183,055. And recommending proposed reduction of 1 million in fiscal year 201920. Of the 1,402 shs 285 in recommended reductions, 110,000 are ongoing savings and 1. 2 million are onetime saving. These reductions would still allow and increase of 9,642,698 or 2. 6 in the departments fiscal year 1920 budget. Our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total 1,292, 500 in ongoing savings for fiscal year 202021. And my understanding is we have agreement with the department. We do agree. You agree . Yes. Thats fabulous. Questions . Oh. Would you like to present on item number 15 at all . We can. Yes. Good morning, supervisors. Item nine, i believe, is an nine. Sorry. Getting my numbers mixed up. Accept and expend resolution to authorize public works in Transportation Development act article three state grant funds from the metropolitan transportation commission. Article three dedicates 2 of that quarter statewide sales tax for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. And as weve done in the past, public works and m. T. A. Are submit ago a countywide application. M. T. A. Will use 486,000 to implement one, two, three spot or quarter improvements related to pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and public works proposing to use 243,000 to repair public sidewalks and 243,000 to design, to plan and design programs. About 80 programs. These programs will be built with propk funds. The m. T. C. Does not require local match and the funds will be used between fiscal year 1920 and 2122. Thank you very much. President yee, do you haves a question on item number nine at all . Ok. No. If you dont mind, id like to take care of item number nine first. Thank you for your presentation. So if there is no b. L. A. Report on item number nine, we just heard from the department about item number nine and expenditure of funds. Do we have any questions from my colleagues . Seeing none concerning item number nine, but lets take Public Comment now for item number nine, which is training legislation. Any members of the public . Hello, michael. The only thing i have a major problem with this department is youre paying 184,000 a year, plus benefits, to a poop squad detail. You got employees going around with a broom and a dust pan sweeping up feces off the sidewalks and making that much money and you got employees that are exempt employees that have been working up to 25 years and not getting no medical coverage, no medical benefits, no Retirement Plan and then you turn around and create a job within this department paying them 184,000. 184,000 a year plus benefits. Then you have part of the city cleaning employees who are making no more than 1 or 2 more than minimum wage thats doing the same type of work. That is another violation of the unequal pay act. Its disgusting. Its not fair to the City Employees that are just missing [inaudible] and you have Office Employees doing clerical work and being assistant to supervisors like you and every department throughout the city and dont know if their job is going to be terminated the following day and theyre doing the same work as permitted employees. Its not fair. Its not fair. And its disgusting. So rowan, you got employment experience and you pointed out that you got a bar license and employment discrimination. Id like to see you address this. Thats part of title 42 and title 7 of the United States code service, fe ral law pertaining to employment discrimination. Its unconstitutional. Ok . It is not it is not equal protection under the law. You have a situation [inaudible] thank you, mr. Wright. Thank you, mr. Wright. Any other Public Comment on item number nine . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. It is a hard job, though, michael. Just f. Y. I. I see that we have oh. Lets lets have president yee let the remarks about item nine do you have any comments on item number nine or is it a question about public works budget . It is a question about public works budget. Not the right time . No, president yee first. Great. So, from the b. L. A. Report, the amount of 1,292,500 is identical for the year 201920 and 2021. But one of them says it is ongoing, the other one says it is a onetime savings. Im just wondering that was sort of a clerical error or not. Could you repeat your question . So, the in your recommendations, im with the intent page page 64 . 62. And you read it out that way, too. So the 1,292,500 is the same amount both years . Actually its not. I apologize if that is the way i read it. We have 1,492,500 in recommended reductions in fiscal year 1920. 1, 292,500 are ongoing. And sorry. Sorry. 110,028 are ongoing and 1,292,500 are ongoing savings. So it says onetime savings. And that totals 1,402,000 in the first year. So, my question is, the first year for that 1,292,000, if it is onetime savings then the second year the same amount is ongoing savings. Im just questioning whether you just reversed i think we did. Ok. It seems like it should have read that the 110,000 you are absolutely correct. Thank you. Just wanted clarification. Thank you. Excuse me. Madame chair, i would like the make a brief announcement. There are currently six supervisors in the chamber and were now convened as a special meeting of the board of supervise so evers. Supervisors. Thank you very much, madame. Supervisor haney . Hello, budget committee. Thank you for all your hard work. I know these are very long meetings and you are doing a tremendous job. Director, i have just a few just general questions about your budget. And i apologize if some of these might have been covered in your first appearance. I wanted to ask about the money added for the pit stops. And would love to have a sense ive had some sort of differing understandings of exactly how much money is added for pit stops and what specifically. I know that there were seven pit stops that were announced and im also wondering exactly what the mraeen is for extended hours and how much money is put in and if there is any sense or plans for how extensive the changes in hours might be and how much funding there is for that. So, we received 3. 7 million towards the pit stop. What that will get us is seven new pit stops and give us extended hours in some of our pit stops and those seven locations, we have a list of areas and those lists are determined by requests of calls and request for service and things of sort. And then ours, we know certain locations, some of them in the tenderloin where we will increase the hours of operation. So, you said 3. 7 . 3. 7. And so how much of that 3. 7 is to cover the new seven pit stops and how much is set aside for extended hours . Or iss that indetermined yet . I can give you the breakdown. I dont have that. That involves cost of paying for Truck Drivers who transport the pit stop. It involves staffing of the pit stop. It involves purchasing of the pit stop. Douf a sense of, you know, how many can have extented hours and for how many hours during that time or, i mean, will there is a tlaot are out there. We are talking about a handful will get an additional two hours a larger number will get do you have a plan and how will you decide . Most of the pit stops that are going to be receiving extend hours are the ones located in the tenderloin and they will go into the late hours of the night. But not 24 hour. And do you have i know we talked a lot about this. But from currently from the hours of 10 00 p. M. To 7 00 a. M. , we dont have any that are open. Theres one thats open to 10 00 p. M. I think the one on 6th street. Do you foresee any of the pit stops that we currently have or the funding available to you here to be used to extend beyond 10 00 p. M. At any of the at this point, we dont. However, we do want to pilot to see if well get that many flushes. Pit stop locations are one of the criterias weve seen where we get a huge number of, you know, of flushes. So i think well pilot one where we believe the need is and that might be the one at golden gate and hyde area that we might pilot that one to see what it does. At 10 00, most people are already sleeping and so we dont think well get that many flushes but well pilot one. So, youll pilot one that goes to what time . Weve heard people wants the 24hour service. Were going to try one and see. But just for a short period to see if we get a lot of flushes. So youre if you are asking me what i believe, i dont believe well get the service between 10 00 and 5 00 in the morning, we wont get that much use. So, you are planning to pilot a 24hour pit stop at golden gate and hyde with the money you are going to get. One of the things that we will be doing, yes. That you will be doing. Ok. That is great. And that pilot will be do you know how long that will be . If it is for one or two days, people may not know that. First of all, for three months. Well, please keep me updated on that. Because this has been something that a lot of people have been pushing for and have wanted to see and so well want to make sure that people who might use it are aware of it and that word is out among providers and especially people on the street. Thank you for that. A question about the cigarette abatement fee. It was my understanding that cigarette litter Abatement Fund it is my understanding that there was some money left over from 1718. The number that i had here was 350,000. Were those funds reappropriated . Was there how do you deal with that when you have leftover funds from that particular purpose . Those funds are given to us via a work order with the department of environment. The question is better addressed to the department of environment. So they actually collect it and give it to you to spend . If there was a fund balance, they would hang on to it . It might be something to look at. Thats correct. The treasure Tax Collector collects the funds and goes to the departments of environment and then its work ordered jointly to public works and then there is a small administrative fee that goes to the treasure Tax Collector for collecting those funds. If there is a fund balance, i would be with the departments of environment. And i dont have that number. Got it. Ok. Were there any increases to the any of the corridor routes in this budget . Yes. There was an increase to fund many of the nonprofits. So, sustaining the afternoon cleaning of block sweepers in the tenderloin is part of this. A couple of additional block sweepers for china town cleanup. And the south of market. Most of the funding is for block sweepers who are similar to corridor workers. So, that is like for the t. L. Clean or the add an afternoon shift for them. We are specifically added an afternoon shift to the tenderloin clean because we realized after 5 00, theres nobody out there on the streets others than public work staff responding to calls so we added about eight new block sweepers to take some of the routes. So, it is a little different than the corridor program. It is more of the theyre pretty much the same. Just difference time of employee. You know, they do the same thing. The block sweeper or corridor worker, they are given about five city blocks and sweep them on a regular basis. And the corridor worker is a City Employee and the block super is a nonprofit employee. That is the difference. Got it. Last question. I know that you generally are not doing the steam cleaning of sidewalks. As pardon of your responsibility. But there are some areas that you are either because they were done addbacks or do you have an outline of where those areas where steam clean is happening now and has that changed at all on the sidewalks that is done through 311 calls and we work with many neighborhood groups to provide street cleaning when they ask. Most are responding to feces or urine so that is a priority. When we get those calls we will respond to because of health concerns. We have a nonprofit that we work with and they do all the city cans and we have a balance in terms of needs. In your area, like in the tender loin, the tenderloin benefit district has been cleaning and they would be the agency that would work with the Property Owner. The way the City Ordinance reads Property Owners are responsible for their property. And so washing down sidewalks would be a Property Owner responsibility. Great. I know there are additional trash cans in the budgets but those will go through oewd or they are about 100 new big belly cans that are being proposed. The fix it team and o oh, fix it team. Yeah. They have a partnership in terms of the and they work with us to decide where those trash receptacles will be located. You have a very hard job. And thank you very much for all of the work that we do in our district. We see staff out every single morning in upper market and dolores mark cleaning up after folks and making those neighborhoods more usable for residents and visitors. I hesitate to ask this question. But last year, i think the budget included a pretty significant increase in funding for street cleaning. I think on the order of more than 10 million. And i know i love the Pit Stop Program and i and i know that my constituents want more street cleaning, want more sidewalks, steam cleaning. Also have the suspicion that we can double our street cleaning budgets and as long as we have this very significant challenge of folks who are shelters in our neighborhoods, particularly when large numbers of folks are dealing with Serious Mental Health issues and Substance Use issues that it is going to be very hard for your department to make it look like San Francisco has clean streets. I just wondered if you had thoughts on, as we allocate scarce resources, increasing funding for street cleaning, when the causes of having dirty streets are not anything that your department can do anything about. I think i will start by saying and ive said this all the time we cant continue just by adding street cleaning because it really does not make sense to clean a street three, four, five, six times a day. That is not the norm. But i think were being smart with the investment in terms of cleaning that were providing Job Opportunities to the partnership we have with many of the nonprofits and a lot of the individuals receiving the benefits of the additional money that we have got and as in this budgets, mostly from nonprofits that many of these individuals, some of them actually who have been on the street and so the relationship and coordination with those on the street and doing the work is helpful to helping us get people to the right service. Either through Public Health or treatment. So when you hear of this increase, the chunk of that money is actually not going to build more street cleaners, it is investing people who would otherwise not have a job and par of the community and can give back to the community. Ok. Thank you very much. In the 8 million of street cleaning, what is the plan to actually serve other areas of San Francisco also . What happens to us now is what we call the firefighter mode. And so when people come in to work, a good chunk of their time has to go to service the downtown area. A lot of the funding that we have received is to work with nonprofits in the downtown area so those individuals can stay in the areas where they are supposed to be in other parts of the city and do the jobs that theyre supposed to do. So, this is a good balance for us. It relieves many of the public works staff to be able to stay in what we call the zones where they are you know, the parts of the city while the nonprofits partner with the team thats down here to be able to cover those areas. Thank you. It looks as though we have heard item nine so id like to make a motion to send item nine with a positive recommendation to the full board. For clarification, would you like to send it to the full board at the next Board Meeting or next meeting . Or the july 16 . July 16. Thank you very much. If we could get it for the next meeting. Ive been corrected. This is confusing. This is like worse than taking three children to safeway all under the age of 8. Ok. Here we go. So id like to make a motion to move item number nine with a positive recommendation to the next full meeting of the board. Can i have a second on that . Supervisor stephanie, you can take that without contingency. Thank you very much. Objection. And mr. Newar is in agreement. Mr. Controller, will you please take note of the committees sfwoention set the b. L. A. Recommendation for this department . Thank you very much for the job you do. It is a very, very hard job. Thank you also. Thank you to the mayors budget office, the budget legislative analyst. It is a great process. Yeah. Theyre fabulous, too. Thank you very much. Thanks. All right. [please stand by] gonch. The departments proposed 216,282,082 budget is 1. 6 less than the mayors proposed budget. Our proposed recommendations recommended reductions to the proposed budget total 368,667. Of those, 265,717 are ongoing savings and 102,950 are ongoing savings. In addition, the b. L. A. Recommended closing out unexpended encumbrances for total generated savings of 481,25 481,259. Of the 291,577 in recommended reductions, 25 our understandi is we have agreement with the rec and parks department. Chair fewer mr. Ginsberg, do we have agreement . That is correct. I do want to thank the b. L. A. , in particular, juliet wilson, who worked with my staff, and in particular, kelly kirkpatrick, and severin campbell. Item number 10 permits the department to impose flexible pricing on guest berthing fees at our marina harbor. Its 30 days or less, and prime yearly used by regional and traveling boaters throughout the year. An example of the flex pricing would be a 2 current rate going to 4, and the 4 would be applied generally during the fall and early summer and early fall, when we have special events at the yacht harbor. The fee increase will allow us to provide Greater Service of events during high use. Item number 11 permits the department to apply flexible pricing at our specialty gardens and the coit tower. The plexible pricing would allow us to increase prices by 50 or lower prices by 25 only on nonresident adult fees. This flexible pricing would not apply to any residential fees or any nonsenior and new fees. The reasonables for the proposal is we want to ensure quality of service and quality of atmosphere at these specialty gardens and at coit tower. Increasing fees will help us manage or encourage attendance at lower peak times to spread out the attendance so that were not greatly impacted nor would the neighborhood around toyota tower be greatly impacted. Item number 12 permitted the department to apply a 1 surcharge on adult nonresident admission fees to the japanese tea garden. The funds will go into a Maintenance Fund to help repair the pagoda rehabilitation project. As many of you know, pagoda is falling into disrepair, and the cost of repair is estimates to be 1. Estimated to be 1. 5 to 2 million, and were working with a renouned Architectural Firm to rehabilitate the pagoda. Chair fewer thank you very much. So we dont have a b. L. A. Report on these items, so any comments, questions from my colleagues. I will just open this up for Public Comment, then. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on items 10, 11, and 12. Fees, youve got fees all over the place. We just had a hearing at the beginning of the week where youre charging 1 a month. Come to find out, its 1 a year. Then, youve got fees that youre proposing for the crookedest street in the world. How much you going to charge tourists to go to lombard street. Youve got them for housing. Youve got fees for residents and nonresidents. Youve got fees for renting a brandnew studio apartment. Youve got fees you cut in front of me to get an apartment, and then, you want to charge people thats born and raised and worked in San Francisco and pay taxes, and when you get an apartment, either youre paying a rate of 3,000 for the same type of apartment, but if i sneak in the United States and come in here illegally, i can get the same apartment for 3 a month, 3 a month for the first months rent, and 3 a month for the last months rent, and 3 a month for the deposit. You think thats fair . You see anything on the a. M. I. Scale to say youve got to make this much money to be a tenant