tears. i understand that there will be some that will be more protected and stable as opposed to other tiers of ownership. in the middle, on the low side, that sounds an unstable. what does that look like in san francisco? >> 9800 timeshare units, we only have 96 time share, that is a low percentage. we believe that the owners that are delinquent in taxes simply abandoned them. either they cannot afford to take vacation anymore, or they cannot afford to pay the high cost of maintenance. close to $1,000 per year for the maintenance and the insurance. so, they do not feel like it is worth keeping them.

after years of delinquency, the property tax penalties of interest increase and increase. so, they sell them. they say they do not want them. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chu: to be clear, we accepted the budget analysts recommendation, but to be specific we are specifically allowing the department to sell at or below the minimum specifically for timeshare units. if we could make sure that that amended languages added to the -- language is added, we can do that without objection. thank you. item number three, please. >> item #3, resolution approving and authorizing the execution of lease no. 10-0347 with china airlines, ltd., for cargo warehouse and support office space to be occupied by china

airlines, ltd., in building 648 at san francisco international airport. supervisor chu: the think you very much. we have kathy from the asset open -- sfo. >> the airport is seeking the approval for a five-year lease renewal with china airlines for office space cargo space and ramp space at the airport. the terms of a lease renewal have changed slightly. the amount of square footage does represent a reduction in office space that china airlines no longer needs. as well as a reduced square footage rental rate. the current rental rate per square foot is $23.77.

the new five-year agreement would have a $21.40 per square foot proposed rent. that results in an annual rent payment to the airport of $814,955. both the rental rate and the five-year term of the lease renewal are the results of negotiations between the airport staff, aviation staff, china airlines, with reductions representing changing cargo environments in the shrinking environment. especially san francisco. staff is extremely happy to have another five-year commitment from china airlines. i would be happy to answer any specifics. supervisor chu: let's go to the

budget analysts report. >> when you consider the reduction in square footage rate, as well as the reduced crops 450 square feet, there would be a significant reduction in rent. has been pointed out, there is a 12.5% vacancy rate at the airport for cargo. it would seem prudent to have negotiated this lease and kept this tenant. in any event, there is no fiscal impact. under the airport's break-even policy, and the deficit would have to be made up by all of the airlines. we recommend that you approve this resolution. supervisor chu: are there any members of the public that wish to speak on item number three? seeing no one, public comment is

closed. is there a motion to send this forward with recommendation? okay, without objection. item number four, please. >> item #4. hearing to consider release of reserved funds, mayor's office fy2010-2011 budget, in the amount of $44,000,000 to fund the salaries and fringe benefits for various city departments. supervisor chu: thank you very much. this is a request to release $44 million that was placed on reserve in last year's budget committee deliberations. mayor's office, would you like to make any comments on this item? >> madam chairman, chair members of the committee, i am the mayor's budget director. we have submitted a letter requesting the release of these reserves. they were placed during the budget process for a couple of

reasons. the main one being that at the time we were still awaiting significant information about the contents of the final state budget. at that point the committee and the board decided that they wanted to place some funding on reserve until we saw the outcome of the state budget decisions. so that the board would retain the options given the uncertain revenue. it did not come in and we had to make major adjustments. you have had the three month updates and six months updates from the comptroller's office that indicate uncertain revenues that have either been resolved or in some cases are not coming in.

the budget is in balance for the current year. given that increased certainty, we are requesting another release of reserves so that the apartments can continue on their operations. supervisor mirkarimsupervisor c. mr. rose? >> the board was concerned as to whether the mayor would fully fund the restorations. so, this reserve was placed on here. we have contacted departments, although they were not able to give us specifics of expenditures. the funding of restorations has been fully funded. if you did not approve of the release at $44 million, of various cuts, if they were all

on personnel there would have to be a lay off to lose the estimate of about 4075 employees. we recommend the release approval of these reserve funds. supervisor chu: thank you for that report. let me open this up for public comment at this time. are there any members of the public that wish to speak? >> good morning, supervisors. thomas [unintelligible] , tenderloin resident. supervisor mirkarimi: -- now that supervisor mirkarimi has announced that he is running for sheriff, he should probably not be involved in discussions that put money back into the sheriff's department. perhaps you have an opinion from office. supervisor chu: please address

the committee as a whole as opposed to individual supervisors. >> ok. five minute discussion on adding back $4 million -- $44 million for salaries and fringe benefits to city employees. i would have liked to see hearings by the government oversight committee before you perfunctorily added that $44 million in the general revenue fund. where we really do not know the amount that will be there at the end of this fiscal year. supervisor chu: are there any other members of the public? seeing that one, public comment is closed. the item before us is not adding

back or adding additional funds for salaries at this time. this is money that was anticipated and is included in the department's budget and operating. all that we are doing is they're asking to hold the item for it to be released at a later time. these are existing budgetary items that occur within the department's budget. supervisor mirkarimi: if i may come up when we decided to hold this back, it had been a part of a committee before, why is there a loss of staff with only that staff member in the report? it was said that we would lose a certain amount of staff. why is that? >> madam chair, a supervisor,

our report indicates that if you did not release these funds, the city would have to make an equivalent cut of around $44 million. the department always contemplated that you would release these funds. certainly, you have a right not to. if you were not to release the funds, there would have to be cuts in equipment, capital, materials and supplies, and the majority would be personnel cuts resulting in layoffs. this was strictly a reserve, as indicated, where it was contemplated where the conditions will be met and the controller was certifying the available federal, state, and local revenues that were certifiable.

the second condition was that the board of supervisors gets that. restorations were funded. whether or not they will be fully expended this year, we have not been devised by the department. if you are satisfied by those conditions, you should release the funds. supervisor mirkarimi: a few of our colleagues did say the whole those dollars back. because of the and kleinman of the date in negotiation with and the newsroom, i think that this was held back, for lack of a better phrase, leverage. it is not clear to me that if there had been full parity, i

know that faith have asserted that it would have been. i feel that it is a slightly in complete discussion without knowing that part of the puzzle. >> it is correct but we cannot show you how much of these funds have been expended. they were fully funded. mr. wagner represented that. the department had the money. in terms of actual expenditures through june 30, we had not been advised. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisors in the last budget erasion remarked of their concern about this. i do not know if mr. wagner would like to speak to that. >> absolutely.

a couple of things. i know that the office of harvey rose had asked for an accounting and some apartments have responded. although i think it was a matter of timing, following up on the current status of expenditures. the main issue, as i recall, was that we had a significant amount of uncertainty at that part of the year and the bigger piece of that was related to the state budget. i think steps the discussion at that time was largely about if the state budget came in worse than anticipated and we had to make major cuts. with the response to that be that we would have to consider whether or not the ad that was on the table -- whether or not you or your colleagues on the board, as you said, wanted to

have some leverage to create a trade-off discussion in that event. based on where we are right now, state cuts came in at a lower level than budgeted. the budget is currently in balance. and we did do some made-year reductions in december. $19.8 million. notepad -- no adbacks were included, they were not candidates for the midyear reduction. i guess that my overall response would be that we are past the point in time where the uncertainty that we were concerned about has been resolved and the leverage that you mentioned, that is the case. although i think the idea was that we would be early enough in the fiscal year at that time to

be able to respond and make policy adjustments using that leverage with celery on reserve to make decisions for the remainder of the year. now that we are further along, we are at the point where the department's operations would need to be adjusted significantly because of the shorter amount of time remaining in the year if we had to withhold spending. >> we are not aware of any interruptions or cause of disbursement of funds through the restoration process? >> i am not aware of any cause for problems in spending. if you are aware of any issues or hear of anything, i would be happy to work with the department. the direction to my office throughout the year has been clear. we have made a commitment that

if the state budget came through and we did not have these large losses of revenues, it was our intent to fully expend those funds. any department that did not wish to, we wanted to talk with them. i fully believe that we have worked with our departments to the best of our ability to make sure that we followed through on it. supervisor chu: this item is now before us. are there any other questions? supervisor kim: quick follow-up question. this is my first time going through this process. if the funds to survive the restoration, can we stay in a

line item for the following year? or does it roll over into the general fund? >> there are two answers to that question. one is technical, the others policy. on the technical side, it depends on how they were budgeted. if they were budgeted for salaries and contracts under normal operating expenditures, the default would be for a savings to fall back to the general fund in the budget. but i think that the more useful answer, for your purposes, is that there is a policy option for the mayor's office and the board to consider. if those funds are not expanded, it is whether to read- appropriate those funds or carry them forward. to continue spending on a

program if they are not spent by the end of the fiscal year. taking the action from the board to extend that funding. supervisor chu: thank you. is there a motion to release? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to release. supervisor chu: can we do so without objection? without objection. thank you very much. item number five, please. >> item #5, hearing to consider release of reserved funds for the port commission, fy2009-2010 youth employment program in the amount of $75,000, to fund the sheriff's garden project and maritime immersion internship program. supervisor chu: thank you. we have elaine from the port. >> i am here to request a release of reserve funds for the

sheriff's apprentices -- apprenticeships program and maritime internship program. your budget analyst did a good job describing the beginning and evolution of the development program. we initiated the program in 2005 with the board of supervisors for $150,000. we went out for a selection process and selected the san francisco converts -- conservation corps. under a new contract with the conservation corps that brought the number from 50 to 20. last year, working with the budget and finance committee, the port notably expanded on this program to include several other aspects.

the california maritime academy internship program, also won reserved. the interns at the heron's had parked, apprenticeship program, and building enhancement training programs at pier 70. the collaboration between the committee and port staff resulted in the program expanding from 150,000 in 2005 to a budget proposal $700,000 serving low-income and young adults and disadvantaged residents. skill sets offered range from landscaping and recycling to ship repair. budget analysts recommended that we prepare an overview of youth employment and workforce development programs, which we have done and handed out today. specifically to the reserve

programs for the sheriff's garden project, this would be expanded for the earth stored program to hire two apprentices and one senior apprentice to provide enhanced park maintenance on the southern waterfront and do native plantings for parks. the requested funds funded four months of the program. next year the program is fully budgeted and will be before you in may. the maritime program collaborates with the california maritime academy with a preference for severance as the residence. designed to provide a university setting combined with real experience of portfolio attendance. the immersion program will have to intern's.

and next year, again, the program is fully budgeted for four intern's. we do concur with the budget analyst recommendation. the reserve is for $75,000. it will not be needed for these programs, so i recommend that the committee released the terms for the year-end balance. today i am joined by catherine's need, here to answer any questions about the garden project. should you have questions about how the work force programs developed in 2005. supervisor chu: to clarify, the

$75,000 on reserve, you are requesting funds for the earth steward and maritime program is because for the balance of the year, all the geneva is 39,000? >> correct. supervisor chu: the rest has been requested for capital improvements? >> correct. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor chu: -- can we go to the -- supervisor chu: can we go to the budget analysts report? >> they are saying that this is all they need, so they have requested that to permit them to use the balance for needed repair and replacement projects, pointing out that because of the america's cup there are going to be significant additional needs at the port.

we do recommend that you use the entire $75,000. supervisor mirkarimi: my shameless enthusiasm for this program, i know of it extremely well. it means a lot to interphase a community that shares its geography with the port but not the intimate relationship that i think that it should. especially from disadvantaged communities or populations within the use, everything should be done that we can to marry those communities together. we are proud of the report and a proud of how it is evolving. to be able to lend support and opportunity in terms of the future for our youth to get an insight as to something they

would never have gone before is exactly the right step. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim: i was glad to hear the enthusiasm and support for this. i was going to ask how young people were recruited into these programs, as i am not familiar. let's i will be asking katharine to respond. -- >> i will be asking katharine to respond. >> madam chair, supervisors, thank you for having us here. basically, i can tell you that first of all, some of our earth stewards came today to say thank you and that these young people represent people from all over the city. some of them came from the mayor's office several years

ago, working through the department of housing authority. the mayor wanted people from those different developments to have a chance to work for the summer. he sent a bunch of them to us. today they're going to be our mentors. another group came from this summer in the bayview district. the captain targeted young people that had not gotten in trouble, basically, wanting them to have an opportunity to prevent themselves from getting into trouble. i have worked for the sheriff's department for 30 years. over that time i have stood here while supervisors help us and continue to help these young people. i wanted to thank you all for giving us the opportunity to work. i know that is what you teach people how to do. thank you. supervisor kim: approximately

how many young people do you get in this program? >> 25 between the ages of 18 and 25, 25 between the ages of 13 and 17. and then we have i would say seven young people that have recently been released from our jails and prisons that are san francisco residents. they work at the san francisco form that i run where be go for it -- where we grow food. supervisor kim: all of them residents recruited by the housing authority and of these captains? >> through word of mouth and the community, people are sent to was regularly.

supervisor kim: i thought that was in vallejo. divide mystery that? >> it is targeted specifically for students of the california maritime academy with a preference for san francisco residence. the idea here is our variety of sports provide direct maritime experience and can enrich the students experience at the california maritime academy and get them ready for maritime and plan. so that we are collaborating with the university of vallejo on that program. i do not know the answer to that, but i can get back to you on that. >>