work force fidel the system, which in 2007 was overhauled successfully. we have some thoughts about how to promote local job creation and non-construction industries, particularly for local residents, economically disadvantaged communities. we were also just told that zynga will be sitting down with us to see how they can make this work. we would be happy to meet with you this week, in pursing, or in writing. -- in person, or in writing. supervisor chu: thank you. >> i just also wanted to highlight the work that is being done to strengthen this legislation. it is obviously going to a good place. i wanted to circulate another thought. we have been dealing with some of the local hiring challenges out of some of the folks from sacramento. we would have loved to get this

to the committee earlier, but spending some time with our partners in labor, we came up with an interesting addition to this legislation for consideration, pursuant to whatever process needs to happen. we have already vetted this with our partners in labor. we could call it an area of standard wage amendment that seeks to leverage the need to get our unemployed tradesmen and tradesmen back working. particularly union members. there has been a lot of discussion as to how to do that. added to the list of requirements at page 3 of 23, perhaps language that would say that during a period of exemption a contractor business seeking to take advantage of the exclusion would utilize contractors that pay area standard wages and provide benefits and journeymen upgrading training tools for

facilities upgrade maintenance including tenant improvements for the city and county of san francisco. the agreement would be included in leases, sub-leases, and other occupancy contracts during the period of payroll expense hiring discussions is that tenant improvement is a strong vehicle for creating opportunities and jobs for local union members. here is some language that i will pass to supervisor can -- supervisor camp. -- kim. [tone] supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. by name is gary marshall, the good government policy director. our interest is navigating for

coordinated strategies around business investment locations, which this addresses had done. what we would like to do is just encourage thoughtful consideration of both of these proposals that have identified specific issues. the core of our business in payroll taxes. we need to be mindful of our opportunity for balancing opportunities to generate revenues. like to acknowledge the proposal around the cap or payroll tax payments for stock options. it is an opportunity. both of these proposals make apparent for us the need for comprehensive analysis and further discussion. we cannot continue to govern by exception and we would like to continue with a proposal that should be sector agnostic. we appreciate the supervisors amendments to that end. it is important that this is not

construed as the solution to the business tax issues. we hope that the conversation will continue to find sustainable structure. supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to comment? seeing no one, public comment disclosed. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i appreciate the city partners that helped us to sculpt the lettuce -- legislation that is before us. thank you to the supervisors for their legislative in sight. i have to say, i am very interested in discussing, as a public comment, the question on local hiring and how it would be applicable in the course of this legislation.

i would offer to meet with the representatives that are here to try to understand a bit better how this actually meshes together, considering that the category of companies we are talking about, i would understand that this is the kind of fits that would be suited for that implementation. so, based on the amendments that have been offered, we will have to sit with it in community and i will use that time as an opportunity to confer with some of the folks that i also agree with in terms of attempting to strengthen local mandatory hiring and what prevailing wage agreements. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim: i would like to thank the supervisors for bringing this forward. i think that this is an

important discussion to have in terms of what are the efficient ways for us to administer business taxes in a way that can fund infrastructure that we have in the city to help businesses but also retain businesses and create jobs in san francisco. although i remain open to both pieces of legislation, around during the slippery slope of taxes that were the fear that when we first that bid -- introduced the mid-market bill, i was very committed at the time to making sure that this did not allow other companies to call upon the board and tied their hands behind their back. so, i think that we were very careful when we crafted the legislation to make sure that there were benefits to san francisco. particularly insuring that companies that got the exclusion

came to specific parts of san francisco where we needed revitalization with a high level of vacancy. where we also made sure that to get these past exclusions, there were other ways to benefit the city, whether it was first for retiring the community benefits agreement or partnering with neighborhood groups on neighborhood work force training to make sure that residents were getting jobs in these companies. those are the concerns that i have revolving around a flat out general exclusion being proposed. i remain open to both proposals, but i would like to reiterate what i think our last public speaker meant, which is avoiding governing by expression and looking long-term at the overall business tax return rather than piecemeal

legislation to keep companies year. supervisor chu: thank you. we have two items before us. there is a motion to make amendments to extend the years from the supervisor, two to six. so can we take those motions without objection? i know that this would require that the item be continued. the changes are reflective of the nature and item number 7 in which there was a substitute legislation introduced yesterday. the supervisor had requested that that be continued further. if i could make a motion to tag items six and seven continued to the call of the chair, would that be fine? done without objection?

thank you. ok, do we have any other items? >> if i could make one comment, i'd like to thank the supervisor for helping to engage on the conversation. specifically around post-ipo and more mature companies. i would like to thank mr. egan for all of the work he has done so far and i look forward to a similar analysis to understand the impact of these other proposals on the general fund. at the end of the day i think that we need to go forward in reforming the entire business tax code. if these pieces of legislation are steps in that direction of interest, hopefully i think we can take that larger and more comprehensive step to do this in a way that will hopefully address everyone's concerns and put us on a footing for making

sure that our economy is as healthy as possible. supervisor chu: thank you. we have dispensed with our agenda items. are there any other items before us, mr. clerk? are there any other items before us, mr. clerk? >> there are no other items. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor chu: hello, about an to the regular meeting of the budget finance committee. -- welcome to the regular meeting of the budget finance committee. our klerk today is mr. victor young. are there any announcements? >> please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please submit a speaker card to myself. items act upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda, may 10, 2011, unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you very much. please call item no. 1. >> item #one. hearing regarding the city's five-year financial plan, a requirement of proposition a (2009).

supervisor chu: thank you very much. this is the first time that it is required. we put together a five-year look into the future and so the hearing's purpose is really to be able to have us all understand what the five-year outlook looks like and what the plans might be to bring the budget into balance in the longer-term. i believe that the comptroller's office is here, but before we do, did you want to make any comments about the five-year plan? >> members of the committee, the comptroller's office was going to introduce the plan, mr. wagner was going to present it. i think that perhaps it might be prudent to skip this item until mr. waggoner of our lives. supervisor chu: sounds good. please call item no. 2. >> item #two.

hearing to consider release of reserved funds, recreation and park department, (2008 clean and safe neighborhood park bond, ordinance 231-08), in the total amount of $3,752,737 to fund the park forestry program, community opportunity fund program, and the neighborhood park contigency fund program. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have a representative from recreation and parks? >> good afternoon, supervisors. we are just here today to follow up on a reserve that was placed over one year ago on general obligation bond funds from the 2008 clean safe neighborhood park fund. there were three reserves placed. there was a reserve placed against the forestry fund, the opportunity fund, and the neighborhood park contingency. my understanding of that reserve is that it was placed particularly on the forestry program until the recreation and

park department could complete the community process to develop clear, transparent guidelines for how those funds and those priorities would be funded through those projects. we can be in a community task force at work with them over the span of one year to develop clear guidelines for the distribution of funds on public safety. right now identifying sites where we are aware of forestry stocks that are dangerous to passing cars and to develop a prioritized list of sites. the community by weekly fund met by weekly for a year to develop guidelines that have been published, released, and adopted by recreation and parks. those guidelines try to reward

communities who are not only requesting improvements for their part, but are also really willing to dedicate their own sweat equity and fund-raising powers to help develop improvements for the park and develop ongoing stewardship for those projects. both programs have had guidelines developed. we feel that we have met the board's request when they placed the board's reserved. we are requesting release on each reserve. supervisor chu: can you go into more detail about the adopted guidelines? how does that process work, generally? >> we settled on ultimately having three rounds of awards for the community opportunity fund, with a fourth round if and when the final million dollars

placed on reserve, pending the completion of the other parks projects -- so, of the pending completed projects, $1 million has been placed on reserve. pending the completion of the other parks projects, we have another source of contingency. for the remaining $4 million we have three rounds of printmaking. as well as an initial round that we budgeted around 500,000 and ultimately bound up awarding over 600,000. that was because of the strength of the acquisition of the be received. the guidelines, again, evaluate the acquisitions by a community task force as reviewed for criteria around the faultless of the application, how prepared of a community group is to deliver the improvement, the amount of

volunteer hours, sweat equity and financial resources being brought to the project, as well as overall need within the park. that is the high level summary of the guidelines developed supervisor chu: thank you -- developed. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst. >> good afternoon. for these reserves, there were three programs. we were recommending reserves on the fourth program as well as the neighborhood park contingency fund for the fallout for which the department provided a detailed spending plan. for the opportunity fund, the department, there is a $643,000 discrepancy, difference, between the requested release reserves

and the actual spending plan. so, we are recommending that the board continued to reserve those funds and release a total of $3,008,800. supervisor chu: i understand that the reservation on the remaining portion is because the department has not yet awarded it two different entities through the process? >> correct. supervisor chu: let's open this up for public comment. are there any questions at this time? >> my name is john cunningham and i am a executive director of the national growth in golden gate park. historical context, 20 years ago we entered into a unique public private partnership with a

private group called the golden gate park. not only was it were -- restored to an international landscape, we did receive the federal designation of the only memorial specifically designated to hiv and aids. we have raised the money through our own sweat equity and fund- raising. the cost of the memorial exceeded $2.5 million through private funds. this year we have decided to go forward and continue the restoration of this land market area of our cities park, specifically golden gate park, which is a crown jewel. within golden gate park there was the original victorian falls. we have put a plan in place and have met diligently with

community opportunities to restore it to its of original splendor. as well as to bring back habitats and complete green and recycle water systems. should these funds be delayed in being released, our ability to leverage money and sweat equity to move the project forward will be greatly inhibited. i can tell you that having a non-profit -- having been a non-profit fundraising professional, i have had multiple meetings with the administrators of the grant, as well as operational personnel. [tone] i encourage you to release those funds. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my nameless [unintelligible]

for 59 years. i would like to speak on behalf of this item with a cautionary note. i would like to issue a warning to make sure that all of the trees that were identified as needing trimming corpse or being cut down have been done before this money is released. specifically, that would cover the grove where they have one unfortunate lady. and also the trees that in my opinion, needed treatment -- read -- needed trimming along the park boulevard and alongside the hiking area of mount davidson. and obviously, golden gate park in john mclaren park. i think that we should maybe have a short discussion, sheer or some other time, to assure

the public that those trees that were identified in past programs have been worked on, so that this way it would give us peace of mind so that we do not have another unfortunate lawsuit. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name this [unintelligible] and i would like to urge you to release the community opportunity funds at this point. our organization, as well as different fund best groups out there have been working in support of the opportunity fund for the last year. the first round was immensely successful. what this grant does is allow people to get excited about their parts, even though they may not have received grant funds through a total renovation funds. communities are coming out of the works. every workshop we have held,

community members that have never been a part of the parks system in a formal way are coming out and offering additional money. it is a very exciting process. one that we feel very supportive of. once again, we really just urge you to go ahead with this. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> my name is [unintelligible] also of san francisco parks trust and i would like to urge you to release these funds as they assist in the designing an application of applying for funds. it has been well supported by the community through the process and has created a lot of engagement for many different part groups around the city. we are very excited at the next phase and would like to encourage the funds to be released.

thank you. supervisor chu: are there any other speakers that would wish to comment on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. after having heard from not only the public speakers, but my own conversations with neighborhood speakers who have gone through the process, i have heard nothing but positive things about how the process is working out. it seems like something depth has really enable communities to engage in ways they had not before. given the fact that there are reserve statements set forward in the process to enable this community granting process, i would suggest that we release, as the budget analyst recommends, the entirety of the force program and contingency fund. can we do that without objection? thank you.

let's go back to item number one. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

we are happy to be here to talk about this document that deals with structural budget deficits. it might be overstating, but this is the first time we have had this conversation as a city where we have gone forward on multi-year financial plans for consideration in an effort, as part of recent reforms, instituted in the city in recent years to deal with nagging and persistent budget deficits. as a brief reminder, the context for the steps taken by the city in recent years, ever since six years ago the city is now actively and engaged in multi- year capital and technology planning efforts. we see the plan every year. this year for the first time you will see a five-year technology plan coming before this committee in proposition 8,

which was approved by the voters a couple of years ago. we instituted other changes in the city to look p up -- to look beyond the picture and begin planning for it. some of those changes included changes that were labor contractors to come before with the annual budget to speak to each other in a way that they might not necessarily have all in the past. the mayor on the board has adopted a policy flowing out of proposition 8. this is in preparation for next year, really, where we will shift into a two year budget process from the one year. generally speaking, why do this. what are the benefits of long- range financial planning? taking a step back and looking

at the city's financial practices, ratings agencies know the same thing. we have very strong controls and track records for balancing annual budgets managed over the course of the year for balance mints. it has always been a strength of san francisco and others. we have work to do when it comes to planning beyond the annual budget. indicators that we noted here, moving to the board of supervisors at the time, as a city we had to close deficits over the last 10 years to bring the budget into balance and renegotiated labor contracts, asking the voters to approve tax increases. all of these in some way or another are symptomatic of deficits in the long-range financial planning. at its highest level, what is

the hope for these financial management tools? that we do a better job of managing the boom and bust cycle in the city. a simple chart here that shows you the changes over the last decade. the growth and shrinking that has happened during that time, you can see that the general practice has been that as dollars become available, we spend them. during the time that revenue has improved, we have ramped up programs and headcount in the city, only to find ourselves that when times get worse having to very quickly pared back. so, you see this roller-coaster ride that reflects the city's budget over the last 10 to 12