i think the nine months is correct. if we could get a report to the commission in nine months, and then if there's a problem recognized in that report, then we schedule it on the calendar to deal with the permit. >> this is a lease, right? >> it's a contract. a lease contract. >> what's that? >> still has to be approved by the board. president buell: the board of supervisors. i guess i would simply say that after nine months, we see what it looks like as a report. if there's a problem, we need to deal with the board and the venn dors, but it seems like they'll be interested as well. >> can i chime in for a second? >> please do. >> i was going to say given all the lingering questions, whether this is something -- this is

exactly why we set up a committee structure to handle all these issues and operations. perhaps operations can revisit this and iron out all this out before it gets to us. commissioner levitan: the reason we pushed this over to the full commission is because we don't know what the full impact will be of having bikes if union square. i don't think there's anything else they can do. i think it would behoove all of us to let it go and see what happens. maybe it's great, maybe it's not. >> very tentative about it. that's why we ask that it be brought to the full commission. >> it had to do really with the union square issue, and from my standpoint, to be able to go down there and look at it. i'm persuaded by the idea that fisherman's wharf is equally congested and that you have equally irresponsible drivers in all these places and they haven't even had bike paths down on jefferson or in fisherman's

wharf. the key issue for me is that you can take these bike riders and you can guide them physically half a block and put them on a bike path. and then they're on their own. but one would assume that it's not an unusual situation. you're just really putting them in a safe place, at least as safe as it can be. the congestion is a timing issue. and my thought on that is that they're going to have to deal with the geary and post street traffic crossing over those trucks areas, and that's going to have to accommodate pedestrians, and if it's accommodating cars and pedestrians, then bicyclists can manage it as well. mr. ginsburg? >> i'd like to make a comment or two, and then i have a more

specific suggestion in line with your concerns and comments. first of all, i do want to take a step back and just remember -- i know we have some concerns about a specific location at union square, but the overall proposal before you, there is probably not another amenity or concession proposal we have brought before you that is more consistent with the mission of this department. it is exercise and bicycles, and it's transit-friendly and environmentally friendly, and it has the option. this is something very unique. we are creating for the first time in this city a bike network. a bicycle network where you can -- and it's something that the mayor and several members of the board of supervisors have been talking about for years. that you will be able to pick up a bike in one location and actually drop it off. and this is also going to be in our parks. and it's an opportunity to get people from the downtown

corridor, the hotel corridor. i don't think this is just limited to tourists. to get people from downtown out to golden gate park, out to union square, and hopefully marina green, and hopefully other locations where we can get people to our parks. some of the operational concerns, i don't want you to lose sight of a really exciting and youous amen -- joyous amenity this really is. with respect to those at union square, having listened to them, we understand the issues, but as commissioner levitan suggested, why don't we actually see what happens instead oftying about -- instead of thinking about what's the worst that could happen. along the lines of a nine-month trial, i think we could amend the lease. my staff has worked with park wide with some of the discussion going on. we could amend the lease to actually provide for the

commission at its sole discretion to revoke it. so what i have suggested would be if after nine months of operating at union square, because after this step, it still does need to go to the board. i think park wide will need some time to get up and running. so after nine months of operating at union square, the commission determines at its sole discretion that it presents a significant safety hazard to park wide customers or members of the general public. the commission shall be permitted to revoke park wide's ability to operate at union square. that would be the amendment. we are happy to provide by report around the nine-month mark, and frankly, we can do it periodically during m.t.a.'s construction project. i don't think it should be lost upon us at m.t.a. that traffic and transsport experts have said they think this is a navigable

issue. i'm sure that we would ultimately hear about concerns anyway if they occur. so i would suggest that amendment to the lease. brulebrule thank you. commissioner lee? -- commissioner lee: so it would be amended to say -- if we're sticking with the five-month lease, just to reiterate, it would be that we would have a review in nine months from the beginning of operation and that the commission will then determine at that nine--month interval whether or not to allow the lease to go forward. if there's a hazard, it would not go forward?

>> i think that's basically it. i think what we're saying, if after nine months of operations at union square the commission determines -- and i think commissioner buell said we would submit a report. if there's something that comes to the commission's concern where you want a calendar and you determine that the bike rental operation presents a significant safety hazard to the customers or members of the public, the commission should be revoked at union square. commissioner lee: is that something that would be agreeable to your group? >> we need you to come forward, please. thank you. >> i want to say that we've never had a problem with the operators, just to underscore what others have. the concern has been about safety.

i think you've done a nice compromise. i just don't think people understand what that traffic diversion plan is all about. when you say you're launching on to post street, so is every other car that's coming south on stockton who isn't trying to go west. commissioner lee: in nine months, we'll review the process. and if there's a safety issue, the commission will have the power to revoke the lease. is that agree sfble >> that's agreeable. >> i think what we can say for further clarification for miss magellan, so if after nine months of operating at union square or any point thereafter, because i think some of us will depend on the nature of the m.t.a. project. they've given us assurances that this will not affect operations. >> are you really sure m.t.a.

talked with their subway team? >> it's a fair point, linda, and i think that's what we're suggesting is let's wait and see and if significant concerns come up, i'm sure this commission will hear about them and you can do some fact-gathering and hear some testimony and make a decision about whether union square continues to be an appropriate location. commissioner bonilla: i think we've kind of hashed out a little bit, or quite a bit some of the safety issues. and it appears that we may be on our way to addressing them. i think there is one very important issue that hasn't been addressed. and that is the anxiety that i sense coming from the union street murcommants and the residents in terms of the chaos.

you know, what is happening in terms of central subway construction and the traffic mess that may be caused by rerouting traffic and what have you. and the question i have is i know we're approving here a master bike rental concession. and when i look at the -- when i look at the proposal, it's clear that all the other areas, all the other places that we're proposing to have these bike rentals, it's not an issue. and it's not an issue because there isn't any construction that's going on. there isn't -- i mean, it's a

whole different scenario. in many ways, i don't even look at union street as being a park. we're looking at a master bike rental concession in parks. i see it somewhat differently. i see it more of a historic area for -- traditionally for shopping. and for going to more the commercial areas, financial areas of our city. the question i have, in terms of this master lease, the burning question for me is why union street, or union square at this

time? why is it so integral to this whole lease? and the timing is very critical here for me. couldn't it have been -- wouldn't it have been better to do all these other leases in these other areas and then add in after the construction, you know, build that in that part of the lease. i know we're very concerned about revenue generation. and i know that we are concerned about safety and we want to do a package here, a package deal, because it's probably more cost-effective. couldn't we operate these other

bike rental areas and then phase in the union square piece to that master bike rental lease. it's a question that i think needs an answer before i can really sign on here because i can see a situation here where we have all this activity going on that's intensifying the situation in terms of traffic, in terms of the additional bike riding activity and what have you. so could you answer this question to the best of your ability, why now? what is the rush to add union square at this time? that's my question.

>> we asked respondents to suggest parks and we set a minimum that respondents must operate. and golden gate park and marina green park where we have traditionally had the bike rental concession. but we also said if there are other appropriate locations, we would be willing to consider evaluating the appropriateness of those locations. when the response from park wide came in, they did suggest operating in union square. the department evaluating the appropriateness of operating in union square and had conversations with the m.t.a., conversations with the san francisco bike coalition, extensive conversations with our partner park wide in this

endeavor about their safety record. and their plan to operate in dense, urban space safely. and the department determined in consultation with all of those people that because the transformation the city has seen the last 10 years, where we are starting to see bike lines in downtown and the bike line has been approved and there's more bike lanes that will be coming online shortly in the downtown area, that we comfortable moving forward at union square. it's obviously a question for the commission, and you've been debating it, whether the commission feels that the safety issues have been adequately addressed with the proposed amendment. i wouldn't presume to suggest that one of you should weigh in on that.

i think the process weir setting up here allows us to look at the empirical data nine months and beyond and see if there is indeed a concern, then we have that ability -- i should say you, this body, has the ability to revoke the ability to operate out there. commissioner bonilla: as a whole, i support the project. i mean, this is a transition -- this is a transit-first city. we certainly -- i mean, i love seeing the bike riders where i work. i think we don't have issues there in terms of the bike riders. and we have had a lot of construction issues there in that district with the idea of the valencia corridor and what have you.

those things happened -- that construction happened when -- i mean, when bicycling was already happening. you know, it was a way of life there. here, we have an opportunity in terms of timing, in terms of when we introduce that additional activity. i think the timing is not as great as i would like it to be in terms of the construction that's going on. that's my only -- that's the only drawback that i see here. >> i suppose iffs just positive that bicycle riding is already occurring on these streets. we're talking about streets that -- there is an existing bike lane. i don't have the exact bicycle count per day, but there are 50,000 daily bicycle trips here in san francisco. this is a core part -- >> but in

>> i'm here this evening with the first of three presentations on the budget. before staff submits our 11-12 base budget to the mayor's office. i'll start my presentation with an overview of the mayor's budget instructions and then spend the rest of the presentation talking about revenue as we expect revenue generation to again be a significant portion of our budget solution for the coming fiscal year. at the end of november, the mayor's office issued budget instructions to city departments. and as you know, at the start of the budget process, mator's office developed general fund deficit -- the mayor's office developed general fund deficit projections for the coming year. this year the mayor's office is

projecting a citywide deficit in the amount of $379 million. for fiscal year 11-12. but as you all know under the city's charter, the budget that the mayor submits to the board of supervisors on june 1 must be balanced, revenue and expenditures must tie. so this $379 million deficit has to be erased in the next six months. it's important to note that this deficit number is going to continue to change in the next several months. there are a number of external factors that -- both external and internal factors that will change as you all probably saw in the newspaper, the city's retirement projections have increased for the coming fiscal year. that was not assumed in these numbers. and then as an example of an external factor, the state budget will have an impact on

the overall city budget as well. so we will be in regular communication with the mayor's office over the next six months about the changing deficit numbers. and what the changes mean for rec and park. so in order to solve their $379 million general fund shortfall, the mayor's office issued three budget instructions to departments. the first four rec and park was to ask us to propose revenue enhancements or expenditure reductions, reducing our general fund support in the amount of 10% or $2.64 million. they additionally requested that we submit 2.5% of that 10%, $660,000, to them in the form of a mid-year budget reduction by december 21. we did this. we have vacant positions which have created salary savings in

the current fiscal year. so we offered them $660,000 in salary savings that the mayor's office has accepted that 2.5% reduction. and then the third instruction that they gave us was to submit a contingency reduction plan equal to an additional 10% of our general fund support or another $2.64 million. and i just want to pause here and remind everyone that hour base budget is the budget that we will submit on february 22. that's included within the -- we load the base budget into the city's financial system, into the budget system. the contingency plan will be on paper and proposals that we submit on paper and then we negotiate those proposals with the mayor's budget office. and we will submit -- we will

talk through the base budget and submit that with your approval to the mayor's office on february 22. and then the contingency, we will have additional conversations with the commission and propose to submit that to the mayor's office at the end of march. in addition to meeting the mayor's budget instructions as always, the department must submit cost increases and address the loss of any one-time revenue. so added together, this means that the department has been asked to cut $6.8 million from our 11-12 general budget. as i just mentioned we have given the mayor's office a $660,000 mid-year budget reduction so that's taken off the top. and that means the challenge that we are currently looking at is $6.1 million. the base budget that we will submit to the mayor's office equals $3.5 million reduction

and then the contingency will be $2.64 million. just to put that number into perspective, over the past seven years, the department has been asked to cut its general fund support by $43.6 million. and as we all know, last year, we were looking at a $12.4 million cut. so $6.8 million. that's real money. doesn't quite rise to the level that we were looking at last year. but it will still take a fair amount of creativity on the part of staff and the commission to solve that problem. so as you know, last year, we met that enormous budget challenge by working with staff, with the community, with our stakeholders, and with you to develop seven budget balancing principles. we used those principles to

help guide the trade-off decisions that we were making as we were preparing our budget. we believe that these principles remain sound and we to use them again as we deliberate about the budget for the coming fiscal year. so just to quickly run through the principles, the first is to preserve and promote our mission by creating a financially sustainable department. the second, protect our ability to provide clean, safe, fun and well maintained parks. three, protect our mission to provide responsive and relevant recreational choices to all of our citizens, provide low-cost and no-cost opportunities for youth and seniors and ensthur that ability to pay is never a barrier to participating in our program. number four is preserve our responsibility as environmental stewards by investing in conservation and sustainable

practices. five is to work with the community to enhance opportunities to support the department. six is to preserve our citizens' capital investment in parks and facilities by identifying dedicated funding for ongoing maintenance. and number seven is to invest in systems that are user friendly, improve access and service delivery, and to provide training and support for our recreation and park professionals. so working within the framework that these principles provide, we're in the process of reviewing our revenue and our expenditure budget and exploring ways to increase revenue or reduce expenses in the coming fiscal year. and tonight i'm going to focus on the revenue side of our budget. and as we start to talk about what those revenue options might be for the coming fiscal year, i think it's important to give some context for those decisions.

so this slide and the next are a snapshot of the department's revenue budget for both this fiscal year and last fiscal year. the department benefits from a wide variety of funding sources. both special fund and general fund. and we have three primary special fund sources as you know. these include the golf fund, the marina yacht harbor fund, and the open space fund. and all told, we generate a little over $60 million annually in the current year from power special funds. the department is enormously blessed by owning a great deal of property and resources and those resources and that property generate over $30 million a year in earned revenue for this department. those resources include for parking garages, candlestick park, our recreation facilities, and fields, the teagarden, and many others.

in addition to the revenue that we earn, we also benefit from prior year savings as well as a general fund subsidy and the amount of $34.7 million. this slide demonstrates the breakdown of our earned revenue. as you all know, in the last year, the department has made a clear decision to focus on revenue generation as a means to solve our significant budget challenges. and through the hard work and concerted efforts of our revenue division, we were able to increase the amount of budgeted earned revenue in year by $4 million. so we went from a budget of $26 million in earned revenue in fiscal year 2009-2010 to a budget of $30.9 million in earned revenue in the current fiscal year. and we did this in big ways and in small ways. everything from the outside lands concert to new food carts in parks.

and we think pretty clearly that our revenue strategy is working. this slide is my favorite slide in the entire presentation. and it just shows the trajectory of revenue growth, earned revenue growth, particularly over the past couple years, is the upward trend is unmistakable. and i believe is going to continue. so as you know, we have a number of proposals that are included in the 2010-11 revenue budget. a number of initiatives. and i just thought it would be worthwhile to walk through some of those initiatives. we have successfully implemented an antique fair at candlestick park. we are in the process of creating a store at the beach chalet. we just had a very long conversation about implementing bike rentals in our parks.

we have implemented special events at candlestick park. we're working on car share. we are working on a new stowe lake concessionaire and a very successful run with the peter pan experience at sue berman park, and working on a new concessionaire for coyt tower and many mobile food vendors in our parks. we have a new lease for portsmouth garage. just at the last meeting approved segue rentals in golden gate park. we've implemented a tourist fee for entrance to the botanical garden. we have very successfully implemented the outside lands concerts. we have a new lease with the pga tour at harding park. we are working on a pro shop at the golden gate park tennis courts. and we are increasing concession revenue at union square through our relationship with cafe rule.