Remaining balance on the citys state revenue last reserve fund of [speaker not understood] 810,605. We point out we recommend approval of that 6. 6 million. We are recommending approval of 3,8,000,9 34 shown on page 5 of our report. And that is for monies that would cover unavoidable or already incurred costs. And then the balance of 3,580,4 61 which is shown in table 6 on page 36 of our report, we consider that to be a policy matter only because the board determines the priorities of what should be expended from the city state Revenue Reserve lost fund. So, our recommendation are on the bottom of page 36. We recommend that you amend the ordinance to delete the Human Service agencies, appropriation for inhouse supported Services Administration and reduce a million 114,76 total requested appropriation by 581,300. That would reflect revised total of 5 34,0 06 remaining for the department of Public Health. And we recommend that you amendedth proposed ordinance on page 2 to reduce ,169,175
Thank you. We have ms. Howard here from our Mayors Office of budget. Good afternoon, supervisors, kate howard, [speaker not understood]. Im here before you to approve an event over the supplemental thats before you appropriating fund from our state revenue lost reserve to a variety of programs that were reduced in the governors budget last year. I also have with me staff from the Human Services agency, the department of aging Adult Services, juvenile probation, the department of Public Health, and the Arts Commission in the event that there are specific questions about any of the appropriations. As you will remember, last year the governors budget proposed and it was adopted by the legislature a number of reductions in both local revenues and direct cuts to services that affect the city of San Francisco. In anticipation of those cuts, the city appropriated 15 million pending final approval of the budget and so those funds are set aside in the event of state cuts. We are recommending in
Addressed well and the deck, and a couple of other issues that were raised. I mean i realize that we have never considered parking impacts as an Environmental Impact and you know, that would be nothing different here, although, you know, there is in my estimate a shortfall that will be an impact from these additional cars for residents, but, you know, it is not to be considered as part of the neg deck or any Environmental Impact report and so therefore, that is a discussion that is better had during the time of the approval of the project itself. And, the serpintine issue, we have another project coming up today on third street which is noted for a rock also and i think that the mitigations are similar to other projects that are being built in areas in the vicinity of potrero hill which has a lot of rock and so i am happy, but i dont feel the appeal is warranted. Commissioner moore . I would like to suggest that we expand the conditions to verbatim and clear up the klaoe points that co
The city state Revenue Reserve lost fund. So, our recommendation are on the bottom of page 36. We recommend that you amend the ordinance to delete the Human Service agencies, appropriation for inhouse supported Services Administration and reduce a million 114,76 total requested appropriation by 581,300. That would reflect revised total of 5 34,0 06 remaining for the department of Public Health. And we recommend that you amendedth proposed ordinance on page 2 to reduce ,169,175 offsetting appropriation from state loss Revenue Reserve by the same 580,300 to 6,589,585. And our second recommendation is to amend the ordinance on page 2 to delete the 1,800,000 source of funding for the children with families commission. And on page 5 to delete that same 1,800,000 appropriation no longer needed by the commission. They have sufficient funds in their budget. So, its not under budgeting that. It would be fully it would be fully budgeted. Its simply that in this request its no longer needed. And
Thank you everyone. Miss miller could you please call item no. 3. Item no. 3 is an ordinance implementing San Franciscos Housing Preservation and production polices and goals. And this and the sponsors are supervisor Christina Olague and cosponsors supervisor kim, campos and myself. Supervisor olague. This is a piece of, i guess, a policy that we have been working on or i have been working on since i was on the Planning Commission and working at senior action network. At that time we approached and sue hester has been working on and advocating for this for a long time, as has Community Council for housing organizations and others. And basically its to try to set up a monitoring and reporting Program Within the Planning Department. Its an ordinance that would amend the admin code to implement a monitoring and reporting Program Within the Planning Department. Again, when i was at senior action network, this is another place we approached supervisor kims office to look into this. And this