competitive bidding process in order to expedite, in this case, a sewer improvement project which was declared to be an emergency. we certainly recommend approval of that, with respect to the replacement of the pavement project as the department just stated, it was scheduled for 2013-2014. that project would normally require competitive bidding and it did not receive competitive bidding under this project because the department decided and i totally understand why, they did not want to disrupt the public twice, so they merged it with the emergency contract. our recommendation to you is to approve the emergency contract. that amount is $328,637. we considered approval -- we

consider approval which did bypass the competitive bidding procedures which is contrary to the board of supervisors. we consider that to be a policy matter. that was for $93,702. but i want to say i totally understand why the department did this and i think it was reasonable. . -- supervisor chu: we understand there was a replacement work and the pavement above it was needing to be fixed. can you explain the requirements under our current laws with regard to paving over? >> we would have required as a result of this excavation, restoration of the area of the street that was dug up. there would have been a large restored patch that would have been there. because we were going to be

coming through and paving the block in a couple of years, it did not make sense to us not to go ahead and pave the entire block curb to curb. we actually believe by doing that we saved money overall since we would be digging up a fairly large new patch. i think the budget analyst is correct that technically we would have normally gone through a competitive process or a different competitive process because i would like to point out that we did send out notice to 12 pre qualified bidders and got four responses. we followed that competitive process, so was not a sole source situation. we believe that, as the budget analyst, the public was subject to a lot less and it was probably the way ago.

supervisor chu: you mention of the process was to reach out to 12 pre qualified the vendors to solicit the best price? >> that is correct. that is in the budget analyst report. we -- from the 12 firms on the pre qualified contractor list, we received for responses. supervisor chu: and we went with the lowest price, correct? >> yes. supervisor chu: let's open this up to public comment. is there any member of the public that like to speak on this item? seeing none, this item is closed. do we have a motion to send this item forward? we have a motion to accept this item in its entirety. without objection. thank you. item number eight, please.

>> that is an amendment to what was advertised. we may need to continue this in the future. supervisor chu: to the city attorney -- we do not have the city attorney here? we do. sorry. i did not see you there. the recommendation is to change the contract not from -- that would be sensitive in nature and require continuance? why don't we rescind that the and amend the amount to go from 421 -- and continue the items for next week. without objection. thank you. thank you, mr. clark. item number eight, please. >> ordinance amending the san francisco code article 12 by amending section 12. 08 to increase the fees that the kezar parking lot and making

environmental findings. >> the good afternoon, supervisors. the item before you is a rate increase for the kezar lot for the monthly residential and commercial rates of the parking lot. it is a 321 space surface lot and the rates were most recently increased in 2009. since that time, and number of the adjacent parking structures have increased their rates, specifically the music concourse's garage has increased their rate to $200 monthly and the same mary's price has increased to $191. the department has brought forward this rate increase to keep our rates competitive with those surrounding. supervisor chu: a question about the timing. why did your budget include increases in revenue included

with this increase in the rates? >> we have looked at this in the 10-11 budget but the determination was made that it was too soon after the rate increase in 2009. ultimately, the numbers were not included in our final budget. since that time, we have done an analysis to see how the rate increase in 2009 has impacted the sale of monthly parking cards and we have seen the number of card holders go up 25% since that 2009 rate increase. the department feels there is strong support for increasing this. supervisor chu: in terms of timing, why did the department need the decision separate and apart from the budget overall? >> i think it was just to start booking this revenue now. we did the analysis and found this is something we would be going forward with. rather than waiting to put it in

the budget which means we're not going to book that revenue until september or perhaps october of the next fiscal year, we wanted to move it now, before we started our commission. we notified all of the monthly card holders and have not received any negative feedback. supervisor chu: thank you. why do we open this item up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item number eight? public, disclosed. do we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendations? questions? supervisor mirkarimi: on the candlestick parking lots, what are the increases from? it says the daily fee per vehicle and trailers will be $1,000 per day for candlestick parking lot events for various

trade shows, it will be $5,000 per day. >> that section of the code is not being amended. those rates are set and not being amended. >supervisor mirkarimi: i was not sure why that was in here. motion to accept. supervisor chu: we have a motion to send this item ford and seconded. we can do that without objection. item #9. >> hearing to consider the annual review and adoption of the proposed board of supervisors/clerk of the board of fiscal year 2011-2012 budget. supervisor chu: we have the clerk here for this item. >> good afternoon members of the budget and finance committee. i am the clerk of the board. two weeks ago, february 9th, i

both provided the budget guidelines and presented the proposed budget in what may have been excruciating detail. the committee subsequently asked several follow-up questions that have resulted in some cost savings measures. while i will not review the minute detail again from the previous hearing, with your approval, i would like to provide an overview of the changes. my initial budget proposal presented to weeks ago was $2.9 million, or $431,000 more than the current year. thank you. my initial budget proposal at that time, the increase was driven largely by two things -- fringe benefits, up by $300,000, and i.t. purchases which would be to maintain existing systems.

at that hearing, i indicated finding cuts for the budget year would be difficult because over the last several years, we have taken the low hanging fruit and even deployed more difficult strategies. after that hearing, i met with every member of the board and was able to find consensus around some savings ideas from the committee's questions that were not captured in my initial proposal. the first is a recommendation to reduce the advertising budget by $100,000. supervisor mirkarimi has defined the word summary. this would reduce the size and cost of the ads published in the newspaper. i also recommended the leading the newsletter software. as board members have indicated to me, they can forgo this purchase and will continue to use the free service. finally, i recommend phasing in over the next two years the

replacement of 20 computers, which in the budget year will be eight years old, which will reduce our budget request by $10 million. -- excuse me -- $10,000. the projected salary costs in the proposed budget have not changed today from november 9th. please note that there are no position upgrades or other increases from the current year with the exception of recognizing 10,000 worth of salaries in the budget and fringe costs from the aids job sharing which our current-year cost but not budgeted for.

the proposed salary budget is 4.8% higher than the current year. while the difference is approximately $349,000, it is the increases to the fringe benefits which are truly driving 85% of the change. the fringe benefit cost numbers are not final, but they're based on the controllers budget instruction. the city's retirement is increasing from approximately 14% to 17% of the total salary. dependent coverage and dental benefits are also increasing by 10%. additionally, i included $40,000 in the bos budget to support fringe benefits which will come from job sharing. this will support for halftime position splits. the next slide it presents the non-salary costs.

the actual non-salary budget is where you will actually see the decreases in the budget of $132,000. my initial budget proposal increased the non-salary budget by $82,000. today, you see the budget will decrease by $50,000 due to the committee's questions and recommendations. the proposed budget adds nothing new. i'm grateful for the committee for raising this question of advertising. supervisor mirkarimi for introducing the legislation to redefine summary and the advertising budget is actually what is allowing us to absorb our cost increases in the department. addressing software licensing costs and the mailing cost increase in the aab. there are few other minor cost increases which preserve the same level of resources we currently have.

the proposed budget by division -- it is $10.78 million. it's almost the identical to the estimate of fringe benefit cost growth. as i have said, there is no new growth in terms of positions or initiatives as we are trying to be conscientious and responsible in another tough budget year. the changes in the salary budget that are not fringe- related are driven by the cost of existing staff. long termers in the department and aids going to beat seventh step. -- aides going to the seventh step. i am not going to go into the detail on this light, but it is worth placing on the overhead projector. the board has reduced its reliance on the general fund by 7.5% during this time shown on

the slide from 2008-2009. the proposed budget should be considered in the context of prior year's reductions, some of which are listed on the slide. as we head into the last three slides, a general overview about revenue budget is presented. over the past several years, the board has sought to increase non-general fund sources and as a result has more than doubled our sources of revenue since fiscal year 2008-2009. in that year, the total was two under $55,000 and now the total revenue is 5 under $76,000. for the budget year, i propose a $71,000 increase on top of that in the revenue budget which i described in more detail in the memo i presented on february 9th. --

the result of the budget proposal of dollars1 sign0.78 million will be an increase of to under $29,000. our general fund allocation will still be 5.4% lower than the allegations in 2008-2009. finally, the proposed budget meets our mandates by maintaining our resources. the department requires its current level of staffing resources, the consulting contract, and minor non-salary budget to meet these requirements. with your direction, we have found additional savings. thank you for your attention today. i'm here to answer any questions. supervisor chu: which is thank you. any questions from the committee? just a few comments on our budget. i understand we're going to go into a process where we will submit a budget to the mayor's office and, over the course of

the next few months, the mayor will propose a budget to us by june 1st. at that time, the board will have an opportunity to make changes to the budget, including our own department's budget. i want to say thank you to the clerk for all the work you put into putting this budget together, particularly working with supervisor mirkarimi and supervisor campos and on the advertised rate -- advertising savings will be seeing coming forward. i think the work is not done with the budget. i would be happy to see a submit the budget into above request we continue the conversation on a few areas, perhaps as we proceed in a few months. my understanding is we do have four vacant positions that are currently funded. i would like to understand and ask the clerk to speak with members of the board about your vision of how you see that being

structured into the future. how can we do things in a better way and whether there's an opportunity to look at those positions and understand what is necessary to fulfill the mission of the clerk's office going forward. i think that would be a helpful conversation to have. in regard to the youth commission, we have about $150,000 that goes to the salary of the folks within the u.s. commission. we have long had a partnership with them but my understanding is there may be a separate entity that might be planning a similar role. if i could ask the clerk to work with the department to see if there's a possibility to look lot -- to look at the structures and see if there are opportunities for us to generate savings or combine them in order to generate savings or efficiencies there. that would be helpful as we go into the coming months. finally, on a minor point, with

regard to our materials and supplies lines and equipment lines, if we can take a look at current and past years expenses and whether there is any opportunities where we may not be expanding all of those, it might be a good place to look. this is simply because, as we are asking all departments to look underneath every single place they have, it's important for us to do the same exercise with our budget here. i think that would be a good thing to pursue. >> thank you. i have an active recruitment currently afoot with the administrative deputy and certainly seek permission to hire into deposition. that would leave the others blank to continue this conversation you're looking for to have here. supervisor chu: i think it would be fine with most folks here. >> thank you. supervisor chu: any other questions from the committee. why don't we open this item up

for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none come up public comment is closed. then we can table this item, i believe -- file this item. without objection. thank you. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda for today. >supervisor chu: thank you very much. we are adjourned.

>> in this fabulously beautiful persidio national park and near golden gate and running like a scar is this ugly highway. that was built in 1936 at the same time as the bridge and at that time the presidio was an army and they didn't want civilians on their turf. and the road was built high. >> we need access and you have

a 70 year-old facility that's inadequate for today's transportation needs. and in addition to that, you have the problem that it wasn't for site extenders. >> the rating for the high viaduct is a higher rating than that collapsed. and it was sapped quite a while before used and it was rusty before installed. >> a state highway through a federal national park connecting an independently managed bridge to city streets. this is a prescription for complication. >> it became clear unless there was one catalyst organization that took it on as a challenge,

it wouldn't happen and we did that and for people to advocate. and the project has a structural rating of 2 out of 100. >> you can see the rusting reinforcing in the concrete when you look at the edges now. the deck has steel reinforcing that's corroded and lost 2/3's of its strength. >> this was accelerated in 1989 when the earthquake hit and cal came in and strengthened but can't bring to standards. to fix this road will cost more than to replace. and for the last 18 years, we have been working on a design to replace the road way, but to

do in a way that makes it appropriate to be in a national park and not army post. >> i would say it's one of the most ugly structure, and it's a barrier between the mar sh and presidio. and this is a place and i brought my dogs and grandchildren and had a picnic lunch and it was memorable to use them when we come here. what would it look like when the design and development is completed. and we are not sure we want an eight lane highway going through this town. and it's a beautiful area in a national seaport area on the

planet. >> the road is going to be so different. it's really a park way, and it's a parkway through the national park. and they make the road disapeer to the national park. >> and the road is about 20 feet lower, normally midday, you go through it in two minutes. looking back from the golden gate bridge to presidio, you are more aware of the park land and less of the roads. and the viaduct will parallel the existing one and to the south and can be built while the existing one remains in operation. and the two bridges there with open space between them and

your views constantly change and not aware of the traffic in the opposite direction and notice the views more. and the lanes of course are a foot wider than they are today. and they will be shoulders and if your car is disabled, you can pull off to the edge. and the next area, the tunnel portal will have a view centered on the palace of fine arts and as you come out, you can see alkatrez island and bay. and the next area is about 1,000 feet long. and when you come into one, you can see through the other end. it's almost like driving through a building than through a tunnel. and noise from the roadway will be sheltered. and the traffic will be out of view.

>> when you come out of the last sort tunnel and as you look forward, you see the golden dome of the palace of fine arts and what more perfect way to come to san francisco through that gateway. >> it will be an amazing transformation. now you read it as one section, the road is a major barrier and then a wonderful strip along the water. all of those things are going to mesh together. >> right now the road really cuts off this area from public access. and with the new road, we will be able to open up the opportunity in a new way. >> this bunker that we see now is out of access for the general public. we are excited to completely

rework this side and to open up the magnificent views. and what we want to do is add to this wonderful amenity and restore this coastal bluff area and respect its military history and the doyle drive project is allowing us to do that recorrection. and this area is not splintered off. >> and we can see how dramatic a change it will be when doyle drive is suppressd and you have a cover that connects the cemetery to this project. it's historic on the statewide and national basis, but you could rush the project or put

thought and time to create something of lasting public benefit. >> we really want this, for everyone to feel like it's a win situation. whether you are a neighbor that lives nearby or a commuter or user of the park. that everyone will experience a much better situation than they currently have. >> the human interest to me is how people could work out so many challenging differences to come to a design that we believe will give us a jewel. landmark of a place. >> i am sure it will have refining effect like embark did. and there were people about that and no one would think of that today. and when you look at growth and transformation of the embark, the same with doyle. it will