to work through with them, so this is a place holder. but what this does is it will allow the be informed as you go in -- that is the information desk. people will have that. it will help to facilitate the help desk portion, which is more of the technical stuff, and then, it will have the actual intake downstairs. but to the extent that the funding -- we always have to put a place holder in, and if any funding is left, then we are much better off. commissioner murphy: i'm just wondering if it is going to cost $1 million each floor. is this going to cost a million bucks? >> that is the best estimate that we have. >> we have worked with dpw, and

estimates are coming in at around $1 million, but that also includes all the furniture. it is just the renovations, and there are some things that have to be done on the first floor. we have leveling that has to be done. we have a floor that is not quite level, so we have to bring in construction crews to actually leveled the floor out so we are meeting all our ada issues that we are not meeting right now. it goes to the point of bringing all the furniture up to ergonomic safety levels that were nonexistent more or less when the original design of the building was built on the first floor, so we are having a lot of ergonomic problems with existing furniture. this million dollars includes the furniture, the construction, and the complete renovation without any advance money from real-estate.

this is just cost to the department. it is also project management for the department. commissioner murphy: does the director have any say in the cost? we are paying. >> yes, we are paying, but we have to use dpw to do the construction costs in a city- owned building. we are at the safety estimates that were given, but we also go out to bid for the furniture on the cost. commissioner murphy: well, it just sticks in my craw a little bit that they charge so much for the construction, but they do very little. the structure is there. they rip out a few walls and put in a few lights. i'm just concerned about the

people who are writing the check. >> the million was also if there was sufficient funding to start working on other floors where there has not been anything done. as you know, the plans room is moved up to the second floor, so there are some things that needed to be done there. we will have to have something more -- we will have to have more detail by june 1 in order for this to go through the budget analyst process. so, you know, we can give you an update of where we are at what time. commissioner murphy: i think we should compare per square foot cost of this construction and

the proposal to our real estate department. we would all love to have an open checkbook. anyway, that is enough of that. can you go to page three? we are supposedly bringing back some people that were laid off a few years ago. how many, and what departments will they be going to? >> the net increase in staff is 13 fte's, which to the extent that whenever you have a new person, a new head, you cannot budget for the full year.

so the majority of the issuance would come in in the -- in september. we have -- the majority of the inspectors -- well, some of the inspectors -- we have not exhausted the list, but there is still quite a bit of -- a long list of clerks. there is a long list of -- commissioner murphy: that is the key word there, clerks. we have been waiting for, it seems like a year, clicks. we have talked about this at many meetings. i would just like to clarify if we are getting any help there. >> sorry, i'm trying -- commissioner murphy: the most important people going in are the stakeholders, the people writing the checks. i keep getting complaints from

homeowners and small contractors who have to stand in line for two and a half hours. i would like to know if we are getting some people back there. if you do not have that answer today, i'm not putting you on the spot here. i would like it at our next meeting. >> if we could continue through the presentation, this is being brought up later in the presentation, so she is jumping around from slight to slide, so if we would let her get through the presentation, maybe some of these questions would be answered. i know that that is in the presentation. >> can we do that and ask questions at the end? commissioner murphy: yeah, well, i'm not finished yet. >> in terms of the clerks -- commissioner murphy: i'm just going through a quick full review. >> i know, but can we have the presentation?

commissioner murphy: commissioner walker, i will give you a chance to talk in a couple of minutes. >> the 1410s, which are principal clerks -- we will have one for the fifth floor and one for the sixth floor in code enforcement. 14 08, the majority of our clerks, we will have one for the first floor, one for the second, to for the fifth and two for the sixth. then, 1406 , the lower level, are one for the first floor, one for the second floor, a two for the fifth floor, and two for the six floor. then, 14 06 -- sorry, i do not

know why i have two for 1406, but it would be two for the first floor and two for the second. that is 814, 14 bodies. we also just recently were working on a promotion -- promotional reviewfo for 5 1408's and 2 1410's, so we are trying to bring in people who are able to work in a bunch of different settings so you can move them if you need to between

similar types of skill sets and move them between floors if you have to. commissioner murphy: ok. i have a couple more questions, and then i'm going to let up. on page four, it says down at the bottom, the carry forward, 491,000 -- what does that mean? explain that to me. >> when we finish a fiscal year, one of the first things we do is look at what are their bills that are outstanding that we need to pay the following year? without going into a lot of the accounting mumbo jumbo, we basically carry forward obligation and carry forward the funding so that you then can pay for the obligation. for instance, let's say an

entity -- the contractors are a good example. they provide their service, but all their bills are not in as of the end of june, so we have to pay them, and when the books closed for -- you know, when you're, you cannot pay them out of that year, so we carry forward that money. the reason we put that in to this presentation is because when you look at what is called the revised budget, it is in the ordinance that -- when you put in the revised budget, it has any change that occurs and carries forward that change. we never see this for the following year. we have no idea, and we hope, you know, that we do not have to carry forward money and carry forward any obligations. that is why it is one-time in nature, and it does confuse the

presentation. commissioner murphy: ok. i have no more questions. other questions? commissioner walker: i would just like to hear the presentation, and then, maybe. >> ok, so, this chart that is on the overhead -- we talked a little bit about this already, but what we have done here is separate whether the expenses -- what are the expenses that we incur or project to incur because of the intergovernmental agreement, and the regular ongoing expenditures that we have for ongoing projects. so we are still below the level of 2007-2008 in terms of our

expenditures, so we are, as far as i'm concerned, doing really well because we have not had this massively huge growth up to 2010-2011. in 2011-2012, i want to talk about why we are proposing this, and we talked some what about this. -- somewhat about this. i think i mentioned that 67% of our budget is staff. we are proposing an increase from the projected, which is, as of december 31, six-month projection. we are budgeting at 9.6% increase, and that is two components. one component is not controllable by our department, and that is the annualization of

any of the changes that have been made in agreements with the union or one-time payouts, or there are projected to be significant -- somewhere in the 15% or more, increase in the cost, so that is about 9.6% increase. you take that off the top, and the best is what we are proposing in terms of personnel. i would like to really focus on the top of this, and that is that when we exclude attrition -- because attrition is going to be similar to what we have. the way it is calculated, it really is a political thing in terms of balancing the budget.

at this point, it has not changed. i just want to talk about what is going on. in 2010-2011, with the original budget, we had 253 fte's -- 253.54. in the day, it is 255.95, and that difference is the annualization of positions that were added in between -- when you add a position, it is less than one fte for one year, and then it goes to one the following year. that difference is roughly -- i'm sorry.

right, about 2.5. we are adding positions. i kind of quickly went over with the president the kind of distribution, but administrative services would be three positions. inspection services would be the fourth commission, and a permanent position with these six positions, so that brings it up to the budget would be 358- 359 -- i'm sorry, 368 -- >> 268. >> i'm blind. unfortunately, that is the truth. it is 259 to round it, so that difference is 15.42, but that's 13.41 fte, real, new, fte's.

the other increases in the budget -- significant increases in the budget -- are the projects, which increase 112%. this year, we had $2 million in the project. we are trying to be really cognizant of the possible slow growth in the economy. this year, we are posing $4.25 million, and the other portion that is large in our budget but not being subjected to increases, are the services of

other departments. some of that is unavoidable. we are projecting some increases in the city attorney's office, various other larger dt -- some of the larger work orders. we do not have any information right now on what those are going to be because -- so i wanted to put a place holder in that because i did not want to have a situation where the budget gets in, and we are doing balancing and have to pull money out of some of the places or artificially increase some of our revenues. so we have gone through the increases in the salaries and fringes, so what is left is to talk about the project. i think -- whoops. i think we talking in sufficient detail about the 1660 mission

space requirements. the next is the server refresh. we have about 47 servers that are over five years old or approaching the 5-year-old mark. after five years, there is no longer any warranty or service provided. if those go down, we will have a significant amount of problems, and they will time out, the majority, in september, so we need to fund the server and replacement. we are working on plans of how we would do this in what kind of order, but we need to do this. it is critical. we put in some money to augment what we had in cash and management and the czech/debit processing. we are working with the

treasurer/tax collector. i'm thinking that we are not the only ones that have problems putting out our rfp's because they also have problems with hrc, but they have gotten it out and are working with the firm so we can get the economies of scale, but we put in a little extra money because we are going to need to have some different equipment so that things can be swiped as opposed to the old way that we were doing things, which is outdated by about 10 years. two version of records -- when we came to you last year, we said this would be at least a five-year process, and they were trying to continually fund it every year. the poorman project tracking system replacement -- this will bring us up to the value that we

committed to in the submission in 2008-2009 to the board of supervisors on the project. the planning department is also putting in money, but the requests were just due in on friday, and i'm not sure. i heard it was about $1 million, but i cannot confirm. that would shore them up also to their obligation. finally, the record management building plan -- that is an ongoing expense for duplication or copying of our plans, as required by the state, and that is funded primarily through the record retention fee. we have increased this because we have to go out for an rfp and

because we are having some interesting issues with the contractor that will require additional funding. so we put in some money for that. we just really do not know how that is going to tie out. so that is the high-level i wanted to give you. i will as much as possible respond to your questions. if i cannot give you an answer now, i will give it to you next week. commissioner murphy: commissioner walker. commissioner walker: thank you. thank you for the presentation and for speaking outside of the whole we are in. this is in my mind a positive step towards restoring some positions and restoring service and actually getting to the level of work we are doing. some follow-up questions on some

of the project. you were talking about the permitting and tracking system project and that the 600,000 brings us up -- is it to our total obligation or just the obligation to this point? >> it would bring us up to the -- since we do not have a contract right now, we do not have really an obligation to this point. this is our projected amount that we have that is about two years old, and it does not include a lot of hardware that we may or may not require. it may not be required because we are asking for a host of solutions. commissioner walker: my question is -- how much have we allocated for this project, and how much have we spent, including this amount? >> we, being asked, our

department -- we have $5.3 million -- we, being us. this will bring us up to $5.8 million. the project, it was estimated at $8.8 million, but that is more than just the professional services that were going out to the rfp. the people who, if they are listening, in terms of the rfp -- this number is much greater than what we think will come in just for personal services. when we went to the board of supervisors, we wanted to give them an idea at that point in time what it would cost. commissioner walker: a couple more questions -- the server

refresher recommendation -- we are making sure that that is going to be compatible with what we are doing as far as our permit and tracking project system update? >> yes. commissioner walker: all right. the cash management, check, debit processing is for the area, taking the money, correct, that president murphy expressed a concern about the slowness of. will this help with that? >> yes, it will. we take cash in on six floors of the building. what is happening -- because we are now taking in cash for the development fee impact unit, our cash that we take in four of the department is growing unbelievably. what happens now is we have one

-- how can i say this? one cashier or cash register for five people, and they have to wait in line to use that cash register. what we are proposing to do is to have them right on their computers so they do not have to get up and go to a cash register. they do not have to print out a permit from behind them, and it will speed up the actual processing of permits without even the to permit process of tracking. this will solve the problem we are addressing right now. the other part of it, and about $100,000 of this is going to be dedicated to this check, the bidding system where you run a check with, and it automatically debited from your account immediately instead of waiting and depositing, waiting 10 days, and then we have to track it down. we are losing between $200,000 and $400,000 a year in non-

sufficient checks, trying to chase them. with this fund, those checks will get larger, and we have more work to do in the background on them, so we wanted to make sure that we could get those checks immediately. it will be a benefit to the customer also. they will not have to run to try to get a cashier's check to pay certain fees. even on our code assessment costs, we require cashier's checks so that we report immediately the recession and abatement, so we have to take in a cashier's check. this will allow customers to pay with a personal check we automatically debit. if they do not have enough money, we just do not take the check. it will speed up our whole cash collection process. commissioner walker: all right. i think that is it for now. commissioner hechanova: my question would be on if it is costing us in the thousands per year and if somebody has

insufficient funds on their checks, would it be just canceling their permit and luring their application and lowering what can be done? >> we do that, but in some cases, it might be a roofer from out of town, and it is already on the building. they do not care whether we get our money or not sometimes. it is not so much the homeowner. it is the out of town contractors we are having a hard time chasing down because they might be out of business next week, and we are chasing thousands and thousands of dollars. >> the big issue is that we are not notified by the collector that the check has bounced until about four or five days after the check is reported by s, so during that time, they could lease the project, and now, we

have to revoke the permit, and we have to keep going. the treasury tax collectors spends a lot of time trying to go after and collect the money. in the last two days, i spent hours trying to get, like, $7,000 out of some not efficien. commissioner mar: i just had a question about the records management. is that kind of like a self-pay system? i have heard some contractors complain about the need to make too many copies. is that because of the requirement that we have to keep a lot of different copies on file? tofile?

>> what usually comes in is about to $1,000, what goes out is usually about $200,000. the cost would go up. right now, we are now proposing an increase in actual fee. that would be something that we could look at in terms of the over all the study that we could look at next year. commissioner clinch: i do not know if you are anticipating any uptick because of the america's cup? >> i can answer that. the america's cup takes place on our property -- port property. if they require our services, we will be there for