level of funding we do or do not get from the state to accommodate the process. >> >> hopefully, with some information about the governor, but it will be an educated guess that will certainly have some impact on the general funds. i think is safe and we have to make educated guess and then adapt as the state's plan to become clearer during the next fiscal year. supervisor chu: thank you, madam chair. to the budget office. there has been a strategy proposed for the sheriff's department, such as changing out

the jail health services, perhaps outsourcing on a contract for a different security service for some of the buildings. is the mayor's office contemplating as? so we can be prepared for this discussion? >> we are not contemplating a geo health proposal at this point. -- a jail health proposal. it has been proposed by the health commission. a security proposal, so that is an option that is on the table. i know that the mayor is going to want to talk to all of you about that before june 1 and have that discussion. that is compared to the jailhouse proposal.

you mentioned it was potentially more tolerable for a lot of reasons. number one, the way it has been proposed by the health department, this version of what they have sent to the commission, it would not involve any layoffs. the ip's at the clinics would be reassigned, and then it would release some share of staffing to be returned to the jail to offset staffing needs due to realignment, so i think that is the primary kind of policy idea if, and i think the mayor will want to have discussions with you about that over the next couple of weeks. >> i wonder if there is a discussion.

about how there might be some savings things they have taken and done before, like the transfer units, dollar for dollar, this would still be a savings if those relationships were coordinated. -- supervisor mirkarimi: >> we were in the process of refreshing that list and looking at the opportunities. with the comptroller's office, i would be interested on the take as well. a couple of the issues around these proposals, and we have looked at the pump at pass, and

we have spent some significant time to this and made adjustments back-and-forth over time about whether the sheriff or the police department is staffed in various functions. the factors that come into play are who can do it more cheaply and also staffing availability. we're going to have a crunch of availability of staff either a the sheriff's department or the police department, to perform their existing functions, which means we would have to hire new people to perform those functions, and there is the example of station transfers, and we had to hire new sheriffs to perform those functions. there is not really a cost savings, so there is a lot of push and pull on the math on whether or not those are actual budget savers, even in cases where they may be more cost-

effective in a perfect world, so that is a great question, and there is a lot of analysis that has to go into figuring it out. supervisor mirkarimi: if i can swing this back, and i want to talk to mr. hennessy, retirement and academy classes, we have not had that discussion with the sheriff about the forecast for prospect on the issue of retirement and bringing in new deputy sheriffs. maybe we should get something for that, as well? >> supervisor, we had approximately 20 people leave the department this past year, and we do not really anticipate a higher rate of people leaving next year, in the next fiscal year, so our attrition rate

seems to me on a relatively steady bases. we may have to hire additional staff based on the alignment, in the jail population. with our current staff, we have been able to redistribute staff and drive down our work time rates considerably, and at one point, 1.5 years ago, if we had to open up the small jail in san bruno on a very rapid basis, we were able to do it entirely on overtime, and if we were keeping the facility open on a longer- term basis, which the alignment proposal seemed to suggest we will be, we will have to start hiring additional japanese shares, because it would be cheaper to have full-time employees than be running the place on overtime. supervisor mirkarimi: is there a

theory that with the 20 you are looking to lose, you would be hiring and 20? >> it kind of depends what happens with hospital security. if hospital security is removed from my department, then the deputies who are currently assigned there can come back in and replace the 20 people who are leaving. if the debate over hospital security carries on for another fiscal year, then i would have to hire people to open up the small jail as our population rises. that is one permutation. supervisor mirkarimi: mr. wagoner, i am curious. if the sheriff is able to go on and bring new deputy sheriffs,

and there is a range, a modification on the security potentially, could that not then begin the discussion of whatever additional staffing, how we might be able to complement the police department, sort of actions, tasks, and activities, because the question of a dollar is a dollar, it is still a savings. without detracting from their current duties that they are assigned to do. >> sure. the issue would be that it may be cheaper to perform a service with sheriff's deputies than police officers. however, unless we have an excess of sheriff's deputies, which it looks likely that we will not, we hire sheriff's

deputies to perform a service to do something currently done by police officers. we are paying the salaries of the police ulcers and those going to work patrol functions or whatever they are going to do. it may be more cost-effective for that particular service to provide it with sheriff's deputies, with budgetary costs if we need to hire additional staff and have a greater number of total staff in the city in order to transfer a function to the sheriff's department. supervisor mirkarimi that makes sense. that is clear as day. this is what is before us, too. through a program or through the process of bringing on academies or lateral hires, we are still doing it through that pathway, as well.

if those were positioned that could be assigned in other locations, a sort of pressing or priority position. that is all i was looking for. >> i think that is a good point, and the fact that there is flexibility on both sides of the equation, i did there is some ability to look at what is most cost-effective, so to the extent that we have that flexibility, it is absolutely a good point. supervisor mirkarimi thank you, thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. why do we not open this up to public comment? other members of the public who would like to comment on this item number two? >> ♪ the sheriff's department

has been budgeted, all around the town, when there is budget money love they have been made blue, and i thought you knew when will the budget for the sheriff's department be loved? ♪ supervisor chu: is there any other public comment on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor wiener: i want to thank you for your years of service. 31? >> it will be 32. supervisor wiener: in a city where there is often a lot of drama, the sheriff's department, a political drama, i just wanted

to thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. i appreciate it. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor wiener. i am sorry. i do have one more question for you. i see money in a great program will could you just explain what this is for it? >> yes, that is the funding we use for alternative programs inside the jail and outside of the jail. under management. -- anger management. supervisor chu: thank you,

supervisor wiener, and we will have one more budget meeting before we are done. if we have no other questions from the committee at this point in time, can we get to this item to the call of the chair? ok, thank you very much. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

commissioner brandon: meeting is called to order. >> approval of minutes for the

april 12, 2011 meeting. all in favor? item three, public comment on executive session. no one here. item four, executive session. >> so move. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> move that we reconvene in open session. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> move that would not discuss any of the items discussed in executive session. >> second. >> all in favor. >> please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, and similar sound producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic device. be advised that a member of the

public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the port commission adopts a shorter time on any item. items on the consent calendar. request authorization to advertise for competitive bids for contracts to 7452 hyde street harbor joint operations credit. 70, request authorization to award construction contracts to 7465-year maintenance dredging project, in the initial amount of $4 million and increase the contract amount by 10% or $400,000 in the event of unanticipated contingencies and subject to available funding and authorization to increase the contract amount to a sum not to exceed $50,000,901 -- 51 -- $50,901,050.

word a construction contract for bayfront park project in an amount not to exceed $1,579,450, and authorization for a 10% contingency of $157,945. commissioner brandon: can we have a motion? is there any public comment on this item? all in favor? any of those? resolutions 1124, 1125, and 1126 have been approved. >> item 8a, informational presentation of the draft st. paul banner criteria, which would govern the design, placement, and fees for the placement of st. paul banners within the jurisdiction of the port of san francisco -- st. paul banners -- street pole

banners within the jurisdiction of the port of san francisco. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to speak to you about street pole better criteria. the city currently permits debtors to be held in utility poles for limited periods of time to inform the public about events as described in the public works code. the court has also allow banners on the center median of the embarcadero road way and on jefferson street for the past 10 years. the city uses an adopted public works code to define and regulate how this is done, and we propose that the port adopt criteria similar to the public works code, all the criteria that respond to the public trust requirements and unique waterfront conditions. currently, the court uses an

encroachment permit process to issue permits to hang banners. for your review are the draft st. paul banner criteria, which would regulate the design, placement, and fees. the purpose of regulating street: banners -- street pole is to create a dynamic and colorful appearance to the waterfront that furthers the objective rather than enhance it -- by enhance the attractiveness and objectives to the public while minimizing the visual blight. the draft better criteria are, to an extent, modeled after the city's public works code. the proposed criteria are specific to the port in the following ways. the port's draft better criteria would allow banners announcing any event, which is defined as an activity of general public interest to san francisco residents or visitors to the port of san francisco that takes place in the city or within port

jurisdiction and can reasonably be expected to have an in-person attendance of 500 or more persons. for a single event or 1000 or more for a series of events. the criteria defined specific streets. in addition to the center median of the embarcadero road way and jefferson street. be executive director may approve banners on of the streets have become appropriate, such as a newly developed pier 70 area. the criteria described banners in three categories. just some examples on the graphics here that you can look at as i talk. a banner announcing an event to the port or its tenants, a public agency banner, which is announcing an event sponsored or supported by the city or its departments or other government agency, and that furthers the mission of that agency, and an

even better, which announces an event which will benefit a government agency or charitable nonprofit organization and that will take place on publicly- owned property within the city of san francisco and further a public purpose. banners would not be allowed for political purposes or for general commercial advertising. as for duration, banners would be permitted for up to 50 days or until five days after the day of the sponsored event. banners could be reinstalled for an additional 50 days after they have been off for 70 days, and the port's executive director could allow placement of banners were greater than 50 days, so banners will convey a clear message and avoid visual clutter, all polls within a single block would be limited to a single banner, or banner permits are for four blocks. both the city and port currently impose fees only to recoup administrative costs for operating the program.

the port does this through the permit process, using dpw's established schedule. staff recommends continuing this practice. in addition, we have investigated charging the proprietary better fee, representing a reasonable rate as a revenue source that will be on the staff cost of administering the program. a proprietary fee would be for the privilege and use up for property to hang banners that promote a non-commercial event, as defined in the criteria, by a tenant or nonprofit organization, and could be promoted by a corporate sponsor. examples of banner's where there could be a proprietary fee are the san francisco giants advertising their presence at home games, various non-profit and banners such as the variety of benefits at a kind for property, an exhibit opening at a museum or the beginning of the ballet season. staff repair market comparisons with the airport and mta to test the structure as an example of proprietary fees asset that it

dollars for a banner per 50-day placement, a rate well below the anticipated market value of the space occupied by each banner. staff plans to conduct a study to determine the market value for the banner of four streets, and if it appears to be a feasible source of revenue, would bend to the commission for its consideration. following this informational presentation, staff will return to the commission for consideration of adoption of the criteria without a proprietary fee. at a later date, staff may also return with a proposal for a proprietary at the. that concludes my staff report. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. first of all, thanks for doing this.

i think it would be very useful and i would think make it easier, too. i have a series of questions -- who installed the banners? >> when an applicant wishes to install them, they hire a banner company that does it. and the better company than files for encroachment permit, which boasts the necessary insurance and meets the requirements of working on for property. >> ok, so the insurance kicks in with the permit. ok, that was one question. i did not really understand the terms section, the 50 days and 70 days lapse. is that based on some experience? what was magical about those numbers? >> the purpose for limiting the length of banner placements to 50 days, and that could be a different number. it could be 70. it could be 40 or whatever -- is to maintain a freshness to the

waterfront. banners are something that are up there. they are signs. they move in the wind a bit. and to create a lively freshness to the waterfront every time a visitor comes for every so often, these change, and the appearance changes. we have been testing this better criteria for the past three years and then using that number, so it has been a model that has been working. it certainly could be a different number, and the same intent of after 50 days, you have to be off for a while, and you can bring that back, and it would appear fresh again. >> ok. so 50 seems to work, and 70 just seems like a nice, intermittent time. ok. i was also confused about the placement on the blocks. you describe it one way, and i am reading it another. it is not clear to me at all the way this is written, how many can be on one block or not be or

have any banners. and that a change we made a couple of years ago as we were testing this out is we began to require -- allow only one permitted per block. at one point, we would have three different ones within a block, and the study to look like confetti. you would not get a clear message of any single banner committee coming through. we also found that not all poles could accept banners. divisibility of streetlights or conflicts with some of the arms that service the muni lines. even though there are about 20 calls per block on average, and you could put two banners on each one, and in reality, it does not come out to that number. sometimes well, sometimes 14. once in awhile, it is down around eight. there is a limited number. we encourage applicants as they come in to fill the entire block, and that is how we have

been administering the program. >> the main goal is to have one for block so you do not have this double. >> correct, and have a visual punch to their program by repeating the image. >> in the maintenance section, it says the banners should be removed repair immediately -- okay, so once that thing goes up, all the responsibility is on the committee -- permittee. >> correct. and i would like to say we have not had trouble with people removing their banners. other than that, it has been very successful. we have not had maintenance problems. we have not had to chase applicants down to do that. >> great. thank you. >> that has been our experience. >> thank you. just some questions with respect to the fee being charged. charged. would it be a standard fee, or