mentioned that street safety is very important. speaking of cookies, we make a lot of cookies in rincon hill. it provides millions in property taxes every year. we are just looking for a little bit of reinvestment in our neighborhood for the quality of life. thank you. supervisor mar: think you, mr. whitaker. -- thank you. >> dan murray -- murphy, stakeholder in the eastern neighborhoods. i was appointed to be on the eastern neighborhood infrastructure finance work group, which was actually the group that recommended this half -- this ifd tool for transitioning areas in san francisco, so i have been very involved in the background. recently, i was voted by the members to represent the

neighborhood cac on this committee, which is piloting this incredibly important financing tool in the rincon hill area. i think the policies that staff has developed in consultation with people like me representing the public are right on point. i think it is a great program. i would be remiss if i did not say in the context of being on the eastern neighborhood cac, i look forward in the not too distant future of working with this type of tool in the eastern neighborhood. i recognize the -- that rincon hill is a pilot area, but i hope we do not wait five years to be able to do this. this is a growth area for san francisco. private sector development for

close to 30 years now. i can tell you that when cities showed a commitment to infrastructure, that sense -- sends an important message for growth, and in that sense, i will be pushing with my fellow neighbors in the eastern neighborhood cac to push for this in the future. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else who likes to speak? >> i will wear a slightly different hat for this one. i chair and was, like the previous speakers, part of the committee, apif committee, whenever that is, but i am one of the stakeholders. i am very supportive. our cac is on record for using

this as a tool for funding in our area plants, and i think it is pretty well known to most of us that the market octavia, balboa, some of our recent plans, the funding was actually about 50% short for what was needed to provide this in the community improvements to meet the projection, so if we are looking at smart growth, this is a great tool for that. there are some specific details in the guidelines that i have been looking at and have been talking to mr. yarne about. one of the things i have been very attended to is that the cac's that are in place have to be strongly involved. it takes years and years of planning work. they are part of the plan itself.

this funding to a should be added to the sources of funding to implement those, and they should not be in somewhat overriding that guidance that cac is providing. it is providing sort of a partner or peer role. i just wanted to point out, as mr. yarne said, this does not mean it is bad. we are still looking for funding for some of these others, perhaps. thanks. supervisor mar: is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] colleagues, could we have a recommendation on item number four?

supervisor wiener. so movers, a positive recommendation. -- so moved. a positive recommendation without objection, and we look forward to moving it to the budget commission. colleagues, is there a motion for items 5 through 11? supervisor wiener: yes. supervisor mar: with positive recommendation without objection, so let's forward this. clerk somera, are there any other items before us? clerk somera: no, there are no other items. supervisor mar: ok, seeing as there are no other items before us, this meeting is adjourned. [gavel]

supervisor mar: so here we go, everyone.

the meeting will come to order. this is the regular meeting of the land use committee for the san francisco board of supervisors. this is the february 7, 2011, meeting. i am supervisor eric mar. next to us is supervisor malia cohen and scott wiener. our clerk is alisa somera. clerk somera: -- supervisor mar: i also want to

thank sfgtv for televising this. ms. somera, we only have one item before us today. could you please read the item? clerk somera: a resolution authorizing the port of san francisco to accept and expend a great in the amount of 15,000 $200 from the california department of boating and waterways -- $15,200 from the california department of boating and waterways. supervisor mar: we have a speaker. >> this is for abandoned watercraft. staff has identified seven recreational vessels that have been in the jurisdiction that

pose potential navigation and environmental hazards. that number continues to grow. within the jurisdiction of the port, there are five marinas and three yacht clubs with over 2000 recreational vehicles at their facilities, and there are numerous areas where both can be left at acre or tied to spears without authorization -- can be left at anchor or tied to piers without authorization. over $1,000 represents a 10% matching funds. we are here for any questions you may have. supervisor mar: colleagues, any questions? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone in the public who would like to speak?

sir, welcome. three minutes per person. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is douglas. i have lived in san francisco for 59 years. the reason i am giving public comment is for support. i think this is way past due. since i was a kid, i remember those abandoned boats were there, and i am glad we finally got around to it at this hearing. the main reason i would like to offer commented today is that i was very surprised that today's agenda had only one item. i would think that a committee of such importance would have had a lot more items than one item, so being a longtime resident of san francisco, i am sure there are many residents like myself who question we are getting our money's worth out of today's meeting, but onto other

things with regard to agenda items with this committee, i would like to make two suggestions. the first one would be that maybe we should spend more time regarding the development of a park. i think different people have spoken out that it is underutilized, and i think that if this committee has only one agenda item today, maybe they can consider a boating discussion on john mclaren park, to give the residents of that part of town to come and give public comment, and the second item has been covered many times, especially on tv, and since we had plenty of time today, i thought it would not hurt to mention it again, that the department of public works has an ongoing campaign for illegal street dumping. i think it is pretty obvious it has been going on for a long time, and no matter how hard they try to crack down on this, it continues, so then i think we

should maybe schedule a hearing for illegal dumping, and then maybe some of the residents that actually live on the streets that separate the dumping, maybe they will have a chance to come down here and have a chance to say what they want to say, because i have a feeling that there has been a lot discussed about illegal dumping, but i think the main thing to do is to just have somebody patrolling the neighborhood at night, and i think you could catch a few people pretty easily. in fact, maybe what we should consider doing is just to have bounties and pay people to catch these dumpers. i have a feeling they are not the smartest criminals around, so we should be able to give away some of the award money. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else who would

like to speak? mr. paulson, we are in public comment. is there anyone else who would like to speak today? >> i just want to encourage you to ♪ get on your land fees i want some action get on your land fees good things happen it is going to be ok under cloudy skies -- gray get on your land feet i want to see some action get on your land feet i want to see good things happen ♪ supervisor mar: think you. is there anyone else who would like to speak?

-- thank you. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion on the item? without objection -- clerk somera: there is a committee report. supervisor wiener: we have to recommend adoption. supervisor mar: this will be a committee meeting. are there any other items? clerk somera: no, there are no other items. supervisor mar: just to address a one comment, we wanted to have another item, but that was already on the agenda. that was a good point. we want to make sure that we use the best use of our committee's time, as well korea with that, meeting adjourned. thank you. -- as well. with that, meeting adjourned.

[gavel] supervisor chu: supervisor chute regular meeting of the budget and finance committee.

mr. young, are there any announcements? >> please turn off all cell phones and pagers. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out a speaker card and submit it to myself. items acted upon it will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on march 1, unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. supervisor chu: item one please. >> item 1. hearing to receive an update from the controller's office on the six month budget status report. >> thank you, chair chu, members of the committee. i am the director of budget analysis. i am pleased to give this update on the six month report.

can we have a laptop on the screen? it is nice to bring a bit of good news in this budget environment. we will see how much more we will be able to get as we go through. our six month report in terms of the bottom line, showed an updated general fund balance of $89.2 million, which is $43 million in improvements from our three month report. if you look at the assumptions the mayor's office had been using in their last shortfall projections, there were already some of these improvements factored into those, so this represents a $14 million improvement from the assumptions in the mayor's office deficit projections, taking into account their midyear savings plans. i want to emphasize as always, with these figures, these are projections and their uncertainty includes basic assumptions about property tax appeals, and there are some of deals.

we do our best to predict what is needed in order to have enough money to pay those appeals. we will update those, that model, we are continuously updating that. there is the potential for a special election in june. we do not know what the cost of that would be. that is not factored into these projections. of course, the state budget is still very much in flux. i am not aware of factors that will affect our current year, but we are still not sure what the state legislature will do. so how do we get to this $89 million number? we started the year with a better than budgeted starting balance from the prior year, about $29 million. this was primarily due to prior year supplemental property tax assessments processed by the assessor's office, better than expected payroll tax and real- estate transfer tax that came in at the end of last year.

and we started with a budgeted reserve of $25 million. what we're looking at now is a revenue surplus of $70.4 million. we will look at the components of that this year. we will not be, as a result -- good news -- withdrawn from the ring into a reserve. we budgeted $32 million to be withdrawn the that when the longer be necessary. ninth and $6 million of net revenue -- supervisor chu: just one second. sfgtv, if you could turn that to full screen projection so that people at home can see. go ahead. >> there are extra copies of this presentation in the kiosk

by the door. supervisor chu: thank you. >> $9.6 million of the goods and revenues used flows through improved transfers to our base lines, including the minister of transportation agency, a library comment and -- the library, in particular. in departmental operations, we have a $30 million we allowed for revenue shortfall that helps to offset the $37.9 million shortfall of departmental operations as we live in large part of that, is the revenue that did not come in. the dirty million dollars was -- $30 million was there to help budget. that is how we get to this $89.2 million. i am not going to talk to each number on this chart. there is much more detail in the

actual report, if your interested. this does to an overview of the city wide revenues. you can see the major surplus is that we are seeing is in property tax, $35 million. we were conservative in budgeting property-tax, which was allowed to see us -- which allowed us to see this good news come in. peril task, conserve the budgeting. we have some updated figures that show not a great improvement in employment, but a small measure of the plummet in the average wage, which allows our projection for the payroll tax to increase. finally, the property transfer tax, partially thanks to the measure passed by the voters in november. certainly we have seen an impact of that and an increased property tax level, the high value transactions, opening up of the property market in san francisco. so we are projecting a fairly conservative from here on out.

we think good results for the first half of the year with the $24 million surplus compared to our budget. that leads to the $70 million in city revenues surplus. the base line transfers i mentioned, these negative numbers on the first part is out and looks to the general fund. 2 the recipient, those are positive numbers. you see muni receiving 6 $4 million extra, receiving an extra million in parking tax, the library, public education fund each getting a little extra benefit from this extra revenues. also, our good property-tax news means better news for the set aside property-tax, and here is the impact of that -$1.3 million to the children's fund, 1.3 to open space and a library funds. we have a note about the children's baseline.

to give as already overfunded in the budget, this does not change the required funding for the children's baseline because we are still within -- less than what was budgeted at the beginning of the year. looking at department all productions, this takes into account plan the department came forward in response to the mayor's request for savings in the current year. of the primary node is public health, you see a large number there, 37.8. that does take into account the revenue shortfall that we considered at the beginning of the year. so that is a large amount of the stimulus, federal, medical assistance funds, other members around the state plan amendments. that is one factor. the extra expenditure in the hospitals was actually balanced by extra revenue at the hospital, as you will be seeing

when you get a supplemental from that department related to cover this shortfall. that is the largest item you will see here. other supplementals we have been told to anticipate at the sheriff's office, which had about $7 million of projected increased salary needs, that is offset by some things on the exempt and that side, which is how we get to the shortfall. public works city administrator shortfalls are related to anticipated litigation expenses. the generosity responsibility, 2.3, we think that will be lower now since this was produced as related to shortfalls in the local courthouse construction fund, which needs to be built in order to cover debt service on courthouse. then you'll see some surplus departments, primarily, salary savings in the human services

agency, savings on programs. but of course, they have revenue shortfalls. that is how we get to that bottom line of 39.7 shortfall. the part mental notes. i mentioned the supplemental requests you will be seeing. -- departmental notes. you will be seeing those related to litigation and general city responsibility. supervisor chu: in terms of the supplemental that we are anticipating coming to the budget committee for the current year, what do we put the value at for the supplementals? >> basically, that is taken into account from the previous page. for example, in public health, we will need to be covering the 14.6 shortfall on their uses side, with extra revenues they

may say to cover their general revenue shortfall. supervisor chu: so for public health, a $14.6 million supplemental that will come through to cover the revenue? >> i am not sure what numbers you will see. we do crafted to show the different needs in public health. there may be different offsetting pieces and transfers in terms of the total dollar amount. the net effect we are showing is basically 14.6 for their overage, for their extra expenditure needs. >supervisor chu: looking at the previous line, $14.6 million, sheriff, 5.1 from general fund, public works, 2.4, city administrators, 100,000 common generosity responsibility, 2.3 from the general fund. correct? >> that general responsibility

will probably come down. supervisor chu: right. >> we do report on other fund. i will briefly mention a few of them. the only other was the potential general fund impact, as i mentioned, local courthouse construction. there is some good news with the building inspection. they are planning to have an operating surplus for the year and be able to increase their fund balance from what it was the prior year. convention facilities bonds has some savings that will also allow the fund to increase. childrens fund, thanks to property-tax, good news. we hope to have some extra amount next. lever preservation fund also has good news things to property-tax primarily. similarly for open space funds. they actually use a considerable amount of their fund balance in the current year. so there is a slight decline from what it ended with in the

prior year, even with the good news. i want to mention also in here, and t a, you have probably heard too much -- much about it. i will not go too much into it. they are having challenges with their trends, actions they need to take to keep their funds in balance. i will not go into detail with that here. and then a note about the public utilities commission water fund. it is worth pointing out that they are way -- well aware of that there has been considerable savings on people's water conservation. that has resulted in a reduction in water revenues. their fund balance shows a sizable decline. i know they are incorporating that into their planning. back to the bottom line, with this not as good news in the current year, if not years with

other supplementals this year, will be available to help with next year's shortfall. of course, that is still a sizable challenge. we are not making a new estimate of next year's shortfall in this report. there is a lot of consideration going on in terms of coming out with the next estimate. we will be working with the mayor's office and with your budget analysts office to produce a joint report. we expect that in march. that will also lead into the new financial five-year plan. i am happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: with regards to the revenues, in reading the report, there were a couple of things that were interesting. on the hotel tax, a liquid or a billion dollars shy of where we thought we would be in terms of revenues that came in for that. upon reading that, $8 million can be broken down into $6 million because of a proposition to close the hotel loophole which did not pass at the which did not pass at the ballot, a significant portion.