up on the emerging issues. >> thank you. commissioner clinch: can you explain -- i'm not familiar with the strong motion fund. is that state or city? >> it is a fee required by the state, of which we keep a small portion, and the rest gets transferred back up to the state. it is for emergency seismic disasters sort of training and issues. essentially, the whole project that started. it is also a long-term project, funded by strong motion. this is what we will use for our disaster recovery unit. the idea is that we need to keep

up with the other activities that we are required to do by the mayor's office and the department of emergency management to plan and, you know, go through exercises and then we actually prepare for kind of the inevitable issues that we are going to have in this region. we not only have budgeted positions. we also have budgeted the emergency supply so that we can make sure we have adequate, you know, materials and supplies in our -- what is called the doc, which is the department operations center, and that we have access to, and that we keep recycling, if you will, because things take time out. we feel that, you know, it is a good use of that funding, and

so, that is basically how it works. commissioner clinch: have you collected permit applications? >> it is an additional charge that we have to collect on permits. every time you come in, you pay a strong motion fee. as i said, we have to return it on a quarterly basis -- some of it -- back to the state. just one of those things. [laughter] we also have other state- mandated fees. commissioner hechanova: if my math serves me right, on inspection services where payments from other departments have sort of -$25,000, is that reflected in those numbers under sub total? then, when i look at the permit services side, where payments from other departments are

subtracted from services from other departments, the sub total -- the subtotal is not consistent. >> can you tell me what page you are on? commissioner hechanova: on the summary, next inspection services at the top. services of other departments. 2010-2011. then payments from other departments. it reflects their the sub total -- it reflects there the s ubtotal. >> what happens is this -- it is a really weird way of doing the accounting. what happens is -- commissioner hechanova: that is the part i do not understand. it is weird, and i'm reading

numbers directly, and when i look at the next page, the $114,880 on payments from other departments are not -- are subtracted from and shown on the sub total. >> let me tell you how this works. instead of taking -- i will give you an example. i'm going to pay you to do my vehicle maintenance. instead of me reflecting my payment to you as a revenue, you are reflecting it as a rejection to expenses, so you spend $114,000, and then, i give you $114,000, and you update the expense. instead of showing it as revenue, we show it as a

reduction to expense. it is the way that the internal service department is doing it. internal services are department of technology, central services, that sort of thing. we are not in -- so, if i'm understanding -- since there are also services of other departments, and that is -- so the first one is from your perspective -- the first one is i'm paying you to do something, and the second perspective is you are paying somebody else to do something. you are paying department of technology to do something, and the services of other departments, so payments are shown as a reduction to expenses, and services were shown as an ex so we are not -- we are going up by

$31,000 for services of other departments. we are not changing payments of other departments, so that is why it is zero. it is still -$25,000. so there is no change between each year. does that -- am i getting -- or are you saying that the subtotal is not taking into account? commissioner hechanova: yes, that is the part i'm not tracking correctly or properly in your accounting system. where it is reflected -- not reflected in the subtotal for inspection services, but on permit services, and it does get subtracted out. >> i see. ok. so -- commissioner hechanova: that is the part of the creative accounting here that i do not follow. again, those are only the bracket type of numbers that i

could at least see where are the sum total, where they are reflected or not reflected, and if not, why. >> ok, so, i'm trying to do things really -- commissioner hechanova: similarly on materials and supplies, the variants there. there is a significant jump from the 2010/2011 to 2011/2012, over $100,000. but let's get back to both permit services and services to the other departments that are not reflected consistently on the sub total. -- subtotal. >> sorry, i'm trying to do some math quickly.

so when you add up the 2010- 2011, when you take the 3.425, and the 97,000, - the 25,000, i get the $3,497,000. but i do think -- i do understand -- i think what you're saying is -- when you take an ad the $3.4 million plus the $5.0 million, plus the 100 to -- you are saying it does not equal the $14 million? is that basically what you are

-- commissioner hechanova: repeat again? >> when you take the sub total of each of those, it does not include, it is not the 14 -- commissioner hechanova: yes. it should be, i guess. >> does or does not? i did not bring a calculator -- >> i have one. go on to something else. >> let me explain on the materials and supplies and to the disaster coordination unit, that is the stars and fringes and materials and supplies where

it will go from 120 to 557, with the growth of 437,000 -- is that -- commissioner hechanova: at the bottom is the next page on technical support. >> the number comes out the same. it does equal that. commissioner hechanova: but the huge jump -- i guess that is my other question on materials and supplies. >> let's start with your question on premise services. under technical support, it does go from 136 to 10,000, under materials and supplies. that issue is because materials and supplies included the code books bought for the whole department based on the state code changes that occurred in january 2011. we do not need to buy as many

code books, and therefore, that is the drop. ok, on -- you had a question on inspection services, on materials and supplies? commissioner hechanova: know, the payments from other departments. >> the payments from other departments under inspection services? >> yes. >> they stayed the same period commissioner hechanova: -- they stayed the same. commissioner hechanova: why would there be -- and i guess this is where your explanation of straight line accounting of paying for services and an expense that then becomes zeroed out would be for payments from other departments, right? >> that third column is barry in. if there is no change between 25 and 25, there's not any change

at all. inspection services, one of these is for -- i think it is, like, $10,000 for geotechnical services that is provided by dpw, and instead of us having our own contract for geotechnical services, in the event that we have something like the broadway rockslide again, that is the budget. and we always -- the actuals are always based on what the actual expenditures are, so they do not -- they are not allowed to bill us any more than what they actually spend, and we are not allowed to pay them for more than what they actually spent, but there is no variants on services from other departments. the reason it is up on the top and not under the various -- you know, not under building

inspection, not a disaster, not electric, not plumbing, is because we budgeted the high level for work orders, and this is part of the work order thing. you know, last year, we talked about showing the revenue because technically, in the real world, anywhere else, probably other than san francisco, this is revenue. but here, it is the reduction to expenses. the expenses may be incurred anywhere within the division, and it may be anything. it may be salaries. we made to work for someone else and they pay us. but it is all accumulated in one line, and it is problematic the way it looks, and we thought about doing it as a revenue. if you do it as a revenue, it does not match the financial

system, and, you know, being asked a budget person, i want this stuff to match every month so i can make sure i did it right. i apologize for the way this is portrayed. commissioner hechanova: 94 your explanation. commissioner murphy: -- thank you for your explanation. commissioner murphy: a lot of the questions i was going to ask have been asked and answered. how much money are we spending on the name change? >> at this point, we anticipate it will be minimal at best because all of the documents that we do have the ability to change on the fly in the computer. we may need to do some as we go

through, change some business cards, which we have to pay reproduction for, but those are, you know, minimal -- commissioner murphy: so we can say that it is a done deal? >> with the charter amendment, it requires -- commissioner murphy: that is one of the things i would like to [inaudible] updated every month on that. [inaudible] i would like to have a number of employees. in the past, we usually got that.

then, commissioner walker mentioned planning staff. i would like to be a little more specific on when that money is being spent, what staff is going to be spent on where, some detail on that. that would be nice. and is there -- i'm sure this is a little bit off the agenda, but with the project we talk about back in september, has that project, in? have we got fees for that yet? do we know? >> that is the first project that actually went through the development fee unit. there is a hole in the ground, and they are working on the project.

commissioner murphy: what about whole foods and ocean avenue? >> we have not collected all the fees do for that project. thing to submit the agenda as we speak. we have addressed both of those properties, so they are in the works right now. commissioner murphy: and has there ever been any discussion on maybe putting some funds aside for the packed meeting for following up and getting back to the stakeholders, following through with what they were asking for? >> that really is not an expense to the department. we can do that with existing staff so there really would not be any expense on it. we do send out the minutes. the minutes are online. are you talking about updating

the website? >> and also, getting the minutes over the [inaudible] see them at the commission meeting. >> we can certainly provide an to the commission. they are provided online every month. commissioner murphy: i would like to get a copy. >> definitely. >> as they go out, i could for them to you. commissioner murphy: appreciate that. yes, the cash management and charts, how soon is that going to be implemented? it is down here at the bottom of page four. one of the major outcomes of the project is enabling [inaudible]

transaction without leaving their desks, waiting to process the transaction. [inaudible] especially when the new project tracking system is implemented. persons will be mounted at each desk used in swiping checks and credit cards, and they can expect that the accuracy of the transactions will be [inaudible] revenues will be less [inaudible] how soon will that be implemented? >> we are working with the treasurer tax collector, and piggybacking on their rfp, which they have already issued. they have already negotiated their contract.

the contract right now as of last week was sitting with the city attorney's office. once that is approved, we have already contacted the vendor, and they have said that they can do what we are asking them to do, but i do not have at this point in time a definitive calendar. but when i do, i will be glad to share with you. commissioner murphy: that is one clerk, i believe, on the fifth floor? >> on the fifth floor, we have added 3.85 fte's, which is roughly five heads. commissioner murphy: what is that by sbe? >> an fte is a full-time equivalent, and that this -- i

will not bore you with the math, but essentially, what it means is that we cannot hire people on july 1. we hire people after -- i think it is 9 pay periods. that says that the 77% to the end up -- so it is the ninth pay period until the 26, what is represented here. when you figure out how many heads it is, you divide by 0.77, and you get roughly -- and i think this is about five, six positions, but i want to point out -- commissioner murphy: at any given time, there would be five clerks. is that what you're saying? >> no, i'm saying these are new positions. and the majority of the new positions are in permit services, and they can be used

-- in fact, any of the clerks could be used technically on any of the floors to provide services that they need to be, so you have a lot of -- because of the requirements, you have similar requirements within the same classification, so you have some flexibility to be able to meet your needs that occurs at that given time. commissioner murphy: [inaudible] has that situation improved, or do we need to put more money into it? [inaudible] maybe the director would want to answer that. >> i can answer that. yes, we have transferred people

from the second floor of to the fifth floor and have cross train people on the second floor to go up to the fifth floor if there is a need for extra people up there. you also have to realize we have to balance the need throughout the department where we have services we render on every floor, so i cannot completely strip one floor of clerks to have them all on the fifth floor and have no clerks on the first floor. we are addressing that, and we have in this budget added another five positions for permit services to be able to do this, to cross train and be able to help with the work load. >> how many are there now, including this new -- >> 5. on the fifth floor right now, there are 12 clerks on the fifth floor. >> and then we are adding five? >> we are adding five between the two floors. three will be going to the third floor and two to the second. >> but they can be crossed? >> they will be cross train. >commissioner murphy: any given

time on the fifth floor, i was told that there is 5.5 clerks. people out on leave doing what people do. the complaint has been for a long time, and i've mentioned it many times that commission meetings, they [inaudible] -- the guy that writes a check, the homeowner, has to wait in line for hours. i would like the situation changed, and if it means adjusting the budget or whatever, do that. they fund it. >> it looks like we are adding five, so the question would be, president murphy, do you think that is sufficient? commissioner murphy: it probably

is sufficient. i do not know. i do not work in the department. i just look at what the stakeholders say. maybe i will be getting different feedback on the now. >> the president is entirely right in what is happening. problem has been when we add new positions, we are only allowed to hire at certain times. we have two more clerks able to be hired in march of this year, which will bring the total of people we have brought back in the last 10 years up to 25. we have seven clerks that are right now going to be promoted into actual court positions, and that will allow us to bring seven more people into the department before the end of this year, without the additional people for the budget for next year. it is just a process of how we can hire them and when we can bring people in, so we are working on it. we do know is a need, and we

need to address it, and we are trying to be the best we can with the limitations we are under right now. >> one of the complicating factors of having positions at this point in time was the way that the mou's were negotiated, and that is that people have furloughs or floating holidays for various types of situations, and we knew this from the beginning, that that is going to increase the absenteeism. it is happening across the city. it was what the management wanted. it was negotiated through, and it has been that kind of situation. that is one of the reasons we are seeing more absenteeism this year than in the past. commissioner murphy: also, my

last question is the disaster coordination unit. where are we with that? i know you have $200,000 in the budget. >> i can answer that. we actually are going to start up a disaster units march 1, which will be sooner than with the budget is right now. we are going to be training existing staff and transferring existing staff into that you did. the position transfer requests were due yesterday, and we do have internal people that have asked to be transferred into that unit, and we will be starting at unit of effective march 1 with internal staff, but we will need to fund it next year from the budget. >> in the current year, we have that $120,000 in the current year for emergency supplies, said that is going to kind of get us started for this year,

and then next year, we have added additional funding. commissioner murphy: that is the $659,000 in salaries and new positions. are there any mechanical engineers in there? >> on eight 13.01 fte's that we are adding, of that, 9.24 our clerks. we also have a database administrator, and we've got some building inspectors, electrical inspectors, plumbing inspectors, and that is in terms of new positions. we are having some difficulties with the way the city is working right now in terms of testing and being able to bring in,

especially certain specialized engineering positions, and we are looking at what we need in order to be able to function. >> we have had two requisitions out for mechanical engineers since july 1, and so far, they have not been able to test for the position. we asked for a temporary position to be added to the budget. it was approved last week. we will be hiring a temporary mechanical engineer beginning next week. we are trying to address this. but we cannot get people in. there is no current list available for mechanical engineers. >> what is hrc's objection? >> dhr. theyav