|
Title:
|
Pursuant to Charter Sections 2.103 and 3.100(7), and Administrative Code Section 2.11, the Mayor shall answer the following eligible questions submitted from Supervisors representing District's 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. The Mayor may address the Board initially for up to five minutes. Discussion shall not exceed five minutes per Supervisor.
1. The proposed California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) expansion offers the City an opportunity to potentially improve the health care options available to its residents. This expansion could also result in the loss of critical services to some of our most vulnerable citizens. Six Supervisors have publicly indicated that they will not support a CPMC deal that does not include a Community Benefits Agreement that is acceptable to the various community coalitions that have been negotiating with CPMC for the past two years. I understand that there has been much progress made towards drafting a Development Agreement between the City and CPMC. However, a Development Agreement, for legal reasons, cannot contain some of the provisions that are of most importance to the community, such as giving the community the ability to enforce whatever agreements that are made in the Development Agreement. Are you willing to require that CPMC enter into a Community Benefits Agreement before their proposal is approved by the City? (Supervisor Mar, District 1)
2. A series of pilot projects on Market Street in the past few years has reduced MUNI delays and improved safety for people walking and bicycling while also supporting local business with increased foot traffic. Given these successes and the fact that most San Francisco drivers already know to avoid the lower Market Street gridlock, do you support a trial diversion of private automobiles from Market Street downtown except to cross it, and the implementation of additional pilot projects to significantly increase the priority and safety of people using public transit, bicycling, and walking on Market Street? Specifically, what on-the-ground pilots should happen soon while long-term planning process continues on San Francisco's most important transit, bicycling, and walking street? And by when should these pilots occur? (Supervisor Chiu, District 3)
3. As a result of AB 109, and Realignment, San Francisco is projected to receive $5.7 million from the state in FY2011-2012 to help accommodate approximately 700 additional criminal offenders. Adult Probation Chief Wendy Still estimates that a combination of state and local funding does not cover the costs of San Francisco’s realignment plan. Chief Still projects that the City will be $1.5 million to $3.5 million short of meeting local realignment funding objectives. How do you propose to address this funding gap? (Supervisor Mirkarimi, District 5)
4. Please discuss the current status, progress, and future of the Central Subway Project? (Supervisor Elsbernd, District 7)
5. The Controller’s Office found that City departments overspent their budgeted overtime by 40 million in FY2010-2011. The top 10 City departments that use the most overtime (SF Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Fire, Police, Public Health, Sheriff, Public Utilities Commission, Airport, Public Works, Emergency Management, and Recreation and Park) account for 97% of total Citywide overtime hours. The SFMTA alone represents 42% of overtime overruns. I, along with Supervisor Farrell, introduced legislation to require departments that propose spending more on overtime than previously budgeted to first obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors in the form of a supplemental appropriation. We also urged the SFMTA, whose budget line items the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor cannot change, but whose overall budget we can approve or reject - to create an overtime spending reduction plan. Will you support our good governance legislation? As we seek funds to improve service for MUNI riders, how will you ensure that the SFMTA decreases its overtime overruns? (Supervisor Campos, District 9)
6. The Board of Supervisors and Mayor approved a process for question time that has led to a very scripted interaction between our two bodies. I do not believe this was the intent of the legislation. What are you willing to do to change the format to make it a truly interactive, substantive, and dynamic exchange? (Supervisor Avalos, District 11)
|