as a city that requires this level of protection based on water consumed and water used through waste water and how that compares with previous practice. >> best months are based on information given to us -- the estimates are based on information to been to us and one of the other factors, not just the use of water and waste water, that would be equipment. to the extent that there are repairs and improvements to reservoirs, etc., the chemical would also be used for that. so it is difficult for us to talk about water usage. supervisor mirkarimi: do you want to answer this? i am curious because looking at our population statistics, you'd

think relative to water usage, the population statistics on potable as opposed to waste water, what exactly is the amount we're treating? >> it has certainly gone down. on the waste water side, is not useful this infection, it is also useful odor control. during the summer time come all large not is used for odor control in the sewers. the consumption of water has decreased significantly. i believe our revenues are down somewhere around 13%. the conservation effort, a necessary effort that has moved forward, we are having a difficult time now having enough water to convey material to a treatment plants. as a result, oliver collection systems, there are more odours present. -- all of our collection systems, there are more odours

present. for the waste water, we use somewhere in the neighborhood of several thousand gallons and it's based on the amount of organic left in the waste water after it has been treated. during the reign, we put another treatment plant on line because consumption will go up. there is a lot more volume, we treat 577 million gallons during the reign. during dry weather, we treat about 80. our treatment plant, we are down around 55 million gallons for our se plant. that's the lowest in its history. >> -- supervisor mirkarimi: that is why masking, based on usage of water and wastewater treatment and if -- that is why i am asking. based on usage of water and wastewater treated, as that is driving the contract numbers

before us? >> there is a piece of that driving it. this is a really low-cost looking at the numbers compared to what we have been spending in recent times. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chu: why don't we open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who like to speak on item 6? seeing none, public, disclosed. we have a motion to send this item ford with recommendations. can we do that without objection? without objection. item #7, please. >> resolution approving an emergency public-works contract under san francisco administrative code section 6.60 to replace the two rumple street from bush street to pine street with a contract on not to exceed 421,007 $1. supervisor chu: thank you very much. do we have a rep on this item?

>> we have a director here to talk about the paving portion. the project is -- i'm going to put some pictures up, some before and after pictures on the screen. this is on bulk street between bush and pine. extremely busy street. we had an emergency declaration and that is why we are here today. not to go into dpw portion, but it is couple together. once you dig it up, you have to pay it. it was scheduled to be replaced in 2014, so part of the disruption to the public, the

high traffic area, as you can see from this before picture, there are a lot of patches on the street. after the paving of the street, it looked a lot smoother, certainly. i can answer any questions you have about the project. supervisor chu: why do we go to the budget analyst the port -- public -- budget analyst report. >> in our emergency contract, the departments are authorized to bypass the city's required 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.