many different numbers. the current year budget is approximately $10.50 billion -- $10.50 million. this shows the seven divisions in the department and how resources are allocated among them. the board of supervisors is at $4.80 million. i will not read the whole slide, but you can see the different allocations. i will point out that lafco are in the third year of allowing use of curie forward funds for their operating budget. it is not until march or april that they take out that issue again. when i come back in june, should ask for further funds from the general fund, and will bring an adjusted budget back to you reflecting what they need, if anything at all. looking at the overall budget by line and them, labour is almost 70% of the budget. when you and professional services contracts, the combined

94.4% -- when you add it professional services contract, they combine to 94.4%. reducing the budget is difficult at this point as expenses have already been reduced over the past few years and are relatively small. labor contracts are already set and have been reduced substantially from prior years. to recent budget reductions -- over three years, the board reduced its budget 5.1%, and 7.5% when relying on the general fund. this reduction is significant, especially considering that at the same time the department fringe benefit costs rose 25%,

up by $400,000, from $1.60 million to $2 million. we eliminated the only discretionary program, the office of the legislative analyst, and combined those services with the budget and legislative analyst contract for a reduced amount. we tried to mimic an enterprise department by raising our own revenue. our sources are aab these and contributions to city-wide memberships. we clerked both the lafco and puc revenue oversight committee. we had citywide labor concessions, a package that equals 4.6%. we downgraded and reassigned positions in the clerk's office to provide more entry-level career ladder positions and reduced costs by shifting resources from the corpse of this to other divisions, like

the -- from the park -- from the clerk's office to other divisions, like aab and sunshine. the "low hanging fruit" has already been taken. the next slide reviews the mayor's instructions. the mayor is projecting a 8 $378 million shortfall next year and is requesting a 2.5% reduction in the current year, and a 10% contingency. the budget instructions serve as a starting point for the mayor's office to work with city departments to balance the overall budget. some departments grew differently under the last decade and have been better able to reduce the others. it is the board's practice to treat these instructions as

advisory, applying protection where they can while still being party to the solution to the city would budget deficit. in past years, staff outlined the areas of discretionary and non-discretionary funding -- spending, i should say, in the board's budget. the target is based on discretionary spending. the board's budget is comprised 84% in non discretionary- spending. that includes board members and their aides, the budget analyst, the clerk of the board, committee and legislative quarks, the assessment appeals board, the sunshine ordinance task force, the youth commission, the annual financial report, and official advertising. the tractor and administrative code requires the above -- the charter and of the mystery to code requires the above

services. -- the charter and administrative code requires the above services. our non-discretionary budget resources include those that provide for our core functions, such as our admin up front, the office intake, the i.t., our payroll, and our personnel. going to the next slide, the department's discretionary general fund allocation is $1.60 million, which is primarily made up of the minister to support, such as what it found in route 224. i already reviewed our i.t. payroll accounting and our computing equipment. the impact of the mayor's budget instructions on our discretionary budget would be

2.5%, $41 thousand. 7.5% would equal one and 23,000. -- 123,000. it has been the board's practice not to produce a contingency plan up front. due to recent vacancies in the clerk's office, i am sure we would be able to meet the mid- year target of the $41,000 to salary savings. i will discuss options to achieve the reduction target of $123 thousand in a moment. i first want to turn your attention to the workload changes, which impacts resource allocations for next year. the most notable increase is the number of appeals at the assessment appeals board, which has nearly tripled from two years ago. it seems the increase is due to the mortgage crisis, foreclosures, and subsequent decline of property values.

it is expected to continue into the budget year. the crux of this is processed and approximately 1500 public records requests annually. this, combined with responsibilities of the sunshine ordinance tax course, has left the clerk's office -- sunshine ordinance tax force -- taskforce has left the clerk's office underresourced. over the last several years, the board has sought to decrease general fund sources. it more than doubled other sources of revenue. for the budget year, i propose a $71,000 increase on the revenue budget based on current- year actuals, and likely ceqa applications. the volume of planning the

surcharges and fees will also increase. this is based on the actual cost of one clerk position, which reflects our agreement with the puc general manager. this is offset slightly on recovery costs of citywide memberships, based on the mta, puc, and port contributions. the next slide presents the projected salary costs for fiscal year 2011-12. the proposed budget does not include any new positions, position upgrades, or other increases in staff resources. $7.60 million or 4.8% higher than the current year. increases to fringe benefits is what is driving 85% of this change. according to the mayor's budget instructions, the department is to assume that retirement increases are 13.6% to 16.5% of

the current salary and that health service, dependent coverage, and dental benefits will increase by 10%. the fringe benefit estimate also includes job-sharing arrangements, which cost between $10,000.12000 dollars per position for a legislative aide. -- $10,000 and 12 close in dollars per position for a legislative aide. there is also an increase of the temporary salaries at the aab to support demand. this is offset by reductions in temporary salaries in the clar'' -- clerk's office and staff turnover. this next slide presents the projected non-salary costs.

the budget proposal increases the non-salary budget by 2.6%. the primary reason is deferred i.t. licenses for currently own software. it includes the necessity to replace 20 computer monitors that are over seven years old and upgrade software, adobe acrobat, which is also old. in our other current expenses line, we are asking for an increase for new copiers from the citywide rico contract. there are marginal escalations in cost for the same supplies. the only new item is software for newsletters at the request of supervisors so the board can allow for more effective

constituent communications. this assumes that lafco will have sufficient carry forward funds. will find out in april or march if that will occur. the board will need to determine if they intend to adjust for cost-of-living prior to exercising are considering the exercising of the first option on the budget analyst contract. the current contract expires december 31, 2011, but may be extended through december 31, 2013. the budget will be adjusted accordingly, following the board's determination. now, the proposed budget by division. the chart above provides an overview of the preliminary budget proposal by department division, and shows the result on department growth over time. the proposed budget does increase the general fund allocation by $361,000, off

3.1%. more than 80% of this increase is fringe benefits. the proposed budget is still 3.9% lower than the board's general fund budget of three years ago. notably, we have reviewed the division changes. that also reflects a modest new bit of resources from the aab, and increases the clerk's budget to address equipment and software needs. the next slide reminds the committee of our budget targets. to reduce the budget $123,000, the department has few options not related to salary. i suggest to evaluate the current a vacant positions, which i will read to you. they are not listed on the slide. if there is a need to consider

de-funding the lowest priority, i believe that is where we are. we have an administrative deputy position, a committee clerk, and a records manager position. i have crafted the proposed budget to meet our mandates and requirements, as discussed. to maintain the legislative record current and historic and comply with open meeting requirements, to provide public access to the legislative record and the members, and to provide the administration and operation that is required to resource members of the board, in addition to the extra duties, such as the youth commission, that the board has opted to put into the budget.

but mostly concludes my presentation. i am trying to shortcut and not go so deep into all the details. i thought it would be prudent to provide you with all of the information about our budget. i am available for any questions might have. chairperson chu: thank you, angela. just a few questions from me. the salary budget shows that we have money for temporary salaries. those are overtime. can you explain what we spend our temporary dollars on, and whether we have been experiencing a lot of money in that area? >> there are three areas where we spend our time salary. the first is about $56,000 in the board of supervisors' budget for legislative aides when they go out on family leave. there was a motion passed by the board that the clerk fund back-

fill positions. i have done that. the other used for temporary salaries is for when i have staff to go out on medical leave and we need to back-fill extra work to assist with our daily duties. and i have over the last two years had some prop s salaries which assisted us in the early days with trading our new legislative deputy. now, we utilize the funds for specific historical questions that my legislative deputy and i encounter and cannot answer ourselves. chairperson chu: in terms of our usage of temporary reverses overtime -- versus overtime, do we have a past practice of only using a portion? >> i am happy to provide you with the current, proposed, and

actual usage today. in terms of overtime budget, there are not that many dollars. we mostly use overtime when our courts have to clerk late meetings or its staff are preparing some documents on a timeframe and need to work a couple of hours overtime. chairperson chu: on the draft non-celery budget side of things come up with professional services, you mentioned that was primarily to contracts. >> one is about $300,000 and the rose contract is about $2 million. there is a $50,000 contingency, which was also in their last year, which we never had to use. it went back to the general fund. chairperson chu: in the current year or last year? cracks in the current year, excuse me. in the budget year as well. chairperson chu: you mentioned a

large portion of the expenses we would see for the i.t. licenses -- is that calculated in the expenses mind? >> is under both lines. i think what you are seeing is cost for our rico copiers for the newsletters, as the cost for the 20 computers is under purchases, if i remember correctly. chairperson chu: finally, a question on the advertising line. i know that supervisor mirkarimi sponsored legislation that allows us to be more flexible in terms of our advertising. how does that affect this? >> currently, we are working with the city attorney's office to determine the effect of that legislation on this particular line item. we are asking for the full amount of the advertising dollars, just in case we do have

to write public notices to the full extent we did previous to this legislation. chairperson chu: thank you. why don't we open this item up for public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi: this is not an action item. i will continue to trust the very thorough [laughter] information relayed by madam clerk. as he stipulated, this is the first phase -- as you stipulated, this is the first phase. we look forward to hearing the next one, especially as the other satellites of this department provide budget information as well. >> thank you. chairperson chu: thank you very much. i believe that is a motion to

continue the item to the call of the chair until we have the next briefing. in terms of areas, i know you are good to be working with many members of the board to go around the budget and try to think about what other options we have, in terms of either submiting some cuts to our budget, or just thoughts around how to craft a. it would be helpful for me, between now and the next time we have a hearing, to get a little bit more information about what you have put in the budget because the board has directed you to do certain things, such as the back-filling of positions that are leaving. it would be helpful to understand what part of the budget is changing because of that, as well as some of the areas with regards to newsletters, computers, and those things. i think that would be helpful for us, so that we can understand as we look at our budget we are asking you for. the other thing is an

understanding about a little more information about how it is that we have pressures on our budget, maybe because of splitting up positions in the budget. i understand there will be an additional cost above and beyond what the cost-neutral positions would be previously because of health benefits. >> i will make sure a provide that to all of you in a memo. chairperson chu: i will ask you to work with supervisor mirkarimi on lafco and other issues. we have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair without objection. do we have any other items before us? thank you. we are adjourned.

i'm the president of friends of mclaren park. it is one of the oldest neighborhood community park groups in san francisco. i give a lot of tours through the park. during those tours, a lot of the folks in the group will think of the park as very scary. it has a lot of hills, there's a lot of dense groves. once you get towards the center of the park you really lose your orientation. you are very much in a remote area. there are a lot of trees that shield your view from the urban setting. you would simply see different groves that gives you a sense

of freedom, of being outdoors, not being burdened by the worries of city life. john mclaren had said that golden gate park was too far away. he proposed that we have a park in the south end of the city. the campaign slogan was, people need this open space. one of the things that had to open is there were a lot of people who did a homestead here, about 25 different families. their property had to be bought up. so it took from 1928 to 1957 to buy up all the parcels of land that ended up in this 317 acres. the park, as a general rule, is heavily used in the mornings and the evenings. one of the favorite places is up by the upper reservoir because dogs get to go swim. it's extremely popular. many fights in the city, as you know, about dogs in parks.

we have 317 acres and god knows there's plenty of room for both of us. man and his best friend. early in the morning people before they go to work will walk their dogs or go on a jog themselves with their dogs. joggers love the park, there's 7 miles of hiking trails and there's off trail paths that hikers can take. all the recreational areas are heavily used on weekends. we have the group picnic area which should accommodate 200 people, tennis courts are full. it also has 3 playground areas. the ampitheater was built in 1972. it was the home of the first blues festival. given the fact that jerry garcia used to play in this park, he was from this neighborhood, everybody knows his reputation. we thought what a great thing

it would be to have an ampitheater named after jerry garcia. that is a name that has panache. it brings people from all over the bay area to the ampitheater. the calls that come in, we'd like to do a concert at the jerry garcia ampitheater and we do everything we can to accommodate them and help them because it gets people into the park. people like a lot of color and that's what they call a park. other people don't. you have to try to reconcile all those different points of view. what should a park look like and what should it have? should it be manicured, should it be nice little cobblestones around all of the paths and like that. the biggest objective of course is getting people into the park to appreciate open space. whatever that's going to take to make them happy, to get them there, that's the main goal. if it takes a planter with flowers and stuff like that,

fine. you know, so what? people need to get away from that urban rush and noise and this is a perfect place to do it. feedback is always amazement. they don't believe that it's in san francisco. we have visitors who will say, i never knew this was here and i'm a native san franciscoan. they wonder how long it's been here. when i tell them next year we'll get to celebrate the 80th the biggest issue in america today? segregation still exists... racism... the repression and oppression of women the educational system stem cell research

homeless people cloning government health care taxation announcer: so, is there anything you're doing to help make a change? i'm not really doin' anything. ummmm [sighs] got me on that one...