dates of hiring. i would be fine with the recommendation. so is the board. in terms of the recommendation of it being one time in nature, i would categorize it as that, as the savings are only going to accrue for not paying the salaries for one year. you're number two, will not have the savings because it will be a full-time individual by that time. >> first of all, i do not think that we have attrition savings in the port. we do have it in the airport, quite a bit. historic way, madam chair, since we have been reviewing the budgets, attritions savings has been a constant and ongoing savings for the city. i understand your point. we could look at this either way. but certainly, historic way, the mayor's office takes a certain

factor of attrition savings. historic with a budget analyst reviews that and comes up with either an agreement or recommendation on an increase, so that is why we have kept it in the ongoing account. supervisor chu: i understand that point, and you are correct, it was referring to the airport before the end of the port, but i think that if the attrition savings we are capturing is associated with a delay of it. of time, it is not naturally occurring, it is something that we expect to be at one time savings. perhaps we can work through making sure that we are capturing savings ongoing. just another question with regards to premium pay? i see that that is a recommendation that we received

from the airport and the port budget. it is predicated, currently, on a pending budget analysts report. i am wondering if you have an anticipated timeline so that the committee is aware of what the recommendations are finding. >> we anticipate that report to be issued to the board of supervisors in june. supervisor chu: i am wondering, if we take action, and help me understand, right now the recommendation is to reduce the premium pay, but i am not sure what the findings are, so i cannot speak to that. if the savings would only result in a negotiated change, is it something that we want to bank on when we have not entered into those conversations yet? >> that is exactly why. as a matter of fact, in our draft reports we had originally included these recommendations

in fiscal year 2011-2012. because of your very. , we changed that recommendation and put it in the out year in 12-13, pending a look at the recommendation. this is only an estimate, to be sure. but it will not impact any of those recommendations in the 11- 12 budget. supervisor chu: so, we will have an opportunity to review that. ok. given that the port is in agreement with the budget analysts recommendation and there is no disagreement about that, if i could recommend that we take a budget analyst recommendation and dispense with those recommendations, that would be helpful. is there any objection to that we will do that without objection -- to that? we will do that without objection. thank you very much. if we could have the next

apartment? -- apartment? -- department? >> in the executive director for the board of appeals. as you like to know, we provided border charted process for a wide range in a typical year. land use related, stemming from determinations made by the department of building inspection and commissions zoning, administrator, and historic preservation commission. matters typically come from determinations made by the department of public health, public works, and also decisions made by the transportation authority. on average the board handles approximately 240 rattlers per year. volume has been lower in the set -- past several years by 35% because of the suppressed

economy. we are starting to see a return to more normal appeals volume. we expect to hundred on file, down only 17%. the budget is only funded by two sources. the majority are surcharges levied on permit applications and renewal fees charged by the departments. on permits that have recently been appealed to the board, much smaller percentages are paid by individuals coming to the board and seeking to file appeals. treasurys may be adjusted so that adequate revenue is covered for the board's expenses. this year we are not asking for any adjustment in those rates. analysis suggest that rates will determine sufficient revenues within the budget. revenue from surcharges is down

for the third year in a row, but we are seeing a recovery in that area. the projection is that we will recover 93% of the anticipated revenue, up from 84% in fiscal year 2009. the board is proposing a budget of 929 $258,000, basically the same as the current year budget with a slight decrease. the mandatory increases that we have had to deal with in terms of the part of technology work orders have been absorbed by overhead. largely by reassessment of the department's liability. i know that you are interested in the five-year financial outlook. for us it is time for the economy, revenue closely tied to how well the city is doing in general and what they are doing to seek new permits for

businesses. in the current budget when revenue comes in under what was projected we have been able to mitigate your and shortfalls by reducing expenses. certainly we would take a similar approach to face with a same challenge in the future. i hope the two will support the board proposed budget for next year. supervisor chu: thank you very much. i know that this item does not have a budget analyst report. on this item, the board of appeals, there is no report? >> correct. we consulted with your office on the budgets that we would do and not do. i think that the two budgets are the two today that we decided not to do. supervisor chu: thank you. for reference to members, the budget is on page 25 and 26.

it generally looks like a pretty flat budget that is completely covered by filing fees and permit appeals surcharges. generally it is funded neutral. just a quick question for the comptroller's office or the budget office curia on the overhead's there used to be a charge -- office? on the overhead there used to be a charge and this year there is a zero. >> members of the committee, we do cost allocation plans every year to determine how much each of these departments bowed to the general city. what we do is we look at prior year actual expenses. in some instances if the department has paid more than the actual costs in prior years, we reduce the current year. supervisor chu: do we expect

there to be a different balance in the year after? >> there is usually some variance between the estimated cost and actual cost. supervisor wiener: thank you for the presentation. typically, four out of five have to vote. >> correct. i think that this makes attendance more significant. we cannot hold the meeting without the four members present. supervisor wiener: even then it could have a significant impact. so, it just seems like a more sensitive thing than the other commissions. my question is, how often does

the board of appeals have all five members present? in talking about over the course of years. i am not asking you for calculations the two would not have bought the top of your head. >> i do have that information in last year's report, which i can send you a copy of. in most instances even when there are only a few members present, the board is usually able to decide appeals in will only continue matter if it looks like a missing commissioners will make a difference in the final outcome. supervisor wiener: that is a practice? >> absolutely. supervisor chu: thank you very much. for this department are no action items to necessarily

take. thank you for the presentation. >> good afternoon, madam chair, supervisors. as most of you are probably aware, the mandate of the board is to permit and in force when to ordinances' and protecting tenants from displacement due to excessive rent increases while making sure that landlords maintain fair and adequate rent. i always come before this committee to say that my goal is always to be the least of problems. i hope we will achieve that goal again this year. the budget is very similar to last year's. there is a $500,000 increase due to salary, mostly increases for the attorneys, mandatory fringe,

and 24 staff or increased interpreter fees. we are getting many more multi- lingual hearings. we also have some increased i.t. expenditures. spending $50,000 of additional computers, we will be digitized and the documents. in the office luddite, but my understanding is that by converting our documents they will be more accessible to the public and will be preserved for a long period of time. other than that we have funds in there for carpeting and painting, but i am hoping to patch and do spot painting so that we save on some of those items. in terms of funding for the brent ward, we are funding through unit c. we have no general fund monies. our fee is not set by the controller until august, when we

know how much carry forward we have to offset necessary increases. i am proud to brag that our fee has remained $29 for the last three years. i believe that we have sufficient carry forward this year as well to be able to fund our budget at the same $29 level. in terms of a five-year forecast, basically, my goal is to try to keep the expenditure is as low as possible. we are not filling a clerical position for a while so that we can achieve savings there. keeping expenditures as low as possible so that we keep the fees as low as possible as well. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: this item also does not have a budget analyst report. the item is on page 49, as well

as page 50, d telling what the budget is. generally it is completely covered by the brent arbitration fees and the use of fund balance. i do have a question for the department. with regards to the amount of fees charged at $29, part of your budget anticipates using about $1 million in fund balance to balance the budget. can you tell me how healthy your fund balance is at this moment and whether there is a rationale to charter grant arbitration fees more in line with? >> of will not know the final numbers until august. as i expect, they would be extremely healthy. supervisor chu: have they typically been so high?

i am just wondering, does your fund balance usually run at that level? >> actually, it is a bit of a moving target until august. i was surprised that it was this high this year. supervisor chu: do you have a reason why it was so high this year? >> i do not. it could change again. supervisor chu: could you find that out and share that with the committee? >> our lead. supervisor chu: i think that a lot of people are going to be relieved that there is one less feed in terms of going up in price, but in terms of charging it cries for operating expenses, generally you are relying on half a million dollars' worth of fund balance to pay for operations. clearly having the balance in using it for offsetting costs is good, i am just wondering at

what point do you start to think about changing that the amount so that you are collecting what it is the two are spending? >> i do not believe that that is within our control. we do not have the discretion to do that. >> madame chairwoman, we will take a look at how much fund balance is available after the $1 million appropriation and get back to you. every year we take a look at the total costs and all of the fees to determine whether or not they are reasonable. if we estimate that the large increases the pension or other unavoidable costs will continue to keep the fee at the existing rate, or see that the amount of money that the department is bringing in is in excess of needs, we would recommend an adjustment and we can report to you on that in june. supervisor chu: in terms of

trying to understand why it is significantly different as well. with regards to expenditures, the department is looking at an increase in salaries with mandatory fringe benefits that are, i would imagine, just a cost for health and pension. can you talk about the salary increases we have seen? let's those are increases for my attorneys. my attorneys are in the deep class and i also have counselors not at the top step yet. basically there step increases, is my understanding. supervisor chu: are those general dhr driven decisions? the apartment? >> they are mandatory. supervisor chu: non-personnel

services is going up by almost twice. what is with that the $94,000 increase? >> another $100,000 to the attorney as well. the city attorney. besides the information that i gave you about the categories that i enumerated, i believe that the other increase, i thought, i thought it was the city attorney. i do not know what else it is. supervisor chu: if you could share with us, off line, the 94,000, i would like to understand what that increase is associated with. >> $24,000 for increased interpreters, $34,000 for digitization of documents, $34,000 for increased outreach. supervisor chu: thank you.

>> thank you very much. supervisor chu: did anyone else have a question for the roster? again, this item does not have any associated recommendations, so there are no actions on this item, for say. that relate item -- covers items #6 and item number 7. item number eight, is there anything that the budget office would like to add on this item? >> every year the controller takes a look at the contrasting proposals to determine that they are less costly to be provided as required by the charter. we have done so for the enterprise departments, including public parking at the airport, security at the

airport, and shuttle bus services. as a pork we analyzed janitorial and security services. we have determined that they are less costly than they would be if performed by civil service. i know that many of these contracts that out programs have been contracted for decades. supervisor chu: so, for the items that we have, 5, 6, 7, 8, we bill not be taking public comment today, public comment is scheduled for tomorrow. if i could entertain a motion to continue these items? also just to let people know that we intend to take public comment tomorrow and that the items will be heard again at tomorrows meeting. we have a motion to continue that we will take without objection. thank you, item number nine, please. >> those items will be continued

until may 19, tomorrow morning. item #9. hearing to determine relocation of the board of supervisors meetings during the legislative chamber modification and the chamber computer connectivity for board members. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> thank you. february 2, 2011, a hearing was held appropriating 478,000 certificates of participation to fund improvements to the legislative chamber. the committee placed on reserve funds of approximately 151,000 and requested that staff, in addition to the already reviewed rooms, review potential external sites within close proximity. namely, the sites of the board meeting room, the auditorium but

the library, the theater memorial building, and the bill graham auditorium building. i have a brief presentation with seven slides depicting an overview of the various potential meeting sites and associated meeting costs. first, i wanted to give you a sense of the time frame for the project. supervisor chu: do you happen to have a hard copy? >> i do, it is on its way. i apologize for the delay. the board approved cop's on february 2 and the ada project according to the d td -- pw director, he is very interested in starting the work on august 3 so that the board can return to

the chamber on october 18. should there be a veto of the fiscal year the 11-12 budget, the board would meet to consider that be -- veto at a special meeting. on august 9. there is none, the board will be in recess on august 3 from november 2. alan, if you could just review these dates? a first for a regular meeting is on september 6, beginning a series of regular meetings at the be caught -- relocated site. so, the following objectives were used to identify the appropriate sites. minimizing the negative impact of the public, fulfilling charter requirement to maintain meetings with in city hall, providing board members the appropriate desk space to fit

the system as well as laptops. we wanted to provide adequate space for department heads, and there's staff, and space for the press, while minimizing the associated costs. our review of the details of each of the sites revealed that none of these spaces located outside of city hall were the preferred alternative, as none of them that a majority of our key objectives. there are two main reasons each of site facility was precluded from use, which i am happy to review with you, such as space restrictions, not allowing all members of the board to fit on the stage, particularly with

franklin. it is available only on two days. we would have improved board meeting starting to 10:00 a.m. in the morning the bill grandma auditorium would be more costly. the purpose theater was just not available during the months of september and october. but the most significant concern that we had was the noticing requirement, which pursuant to the charter for off site meetings, they required a posting a 15 day advance notices depicting the items to be considered at the board meeting, which would not allow for timing or four committees to recommend the items to the full board. along in the short of that, essentially, is that our recommendation will be a combination of rooms. room 416, to bunt -- combined

with the north fork would meet them logistical needs of the meetings. the estimated cost for temporary relocation could range from about 34,004 four meetings, and again we do not know if we would need that fourth space, if there is a veto of the budget, for six meetings, something that the budget analysts reported approximately back in february. the details of all of these sites are located in a memo in your packet. for a bit more detail, the per- meeting cost would be $8,629, shown on the slide. the courts are not available for two of the six meetings. on those days we would utilize

room 416. if there is no veto, realistically we would only be paying for three meetings. my request is that the committee released a reserve of approximately $34,000 for potential relocation costs. supervisor chiu: these are all obviously on top of existing costs. this is all on top of what we currently spend? >> correct. supervisor chiu: ok. >> i also wanted to give you a briefing on the connectivity in this room. you know that the project is upgrading the fiber on the floor.

supervisor chu: you had talked about the offsite, the lack of the availability of space for not being able to fit enough individuals. 555 franklin, the primary reason, even though it is an expensive option is the fact that requires a 15 day notice, correct? >> correct. [unintelligible] -- supervisor chu: the only way around that was to declare that it was an emergency meeting? >> of was a mind of that -- reminder that of course in the case of an emergency, the mayor declares the agency and the board concurs. >> the usage of a combination of 416, 400, initially, and to use lightboards when available?

>> correct. supervisor chu: i know that the rooms are not ideal because of the lack of space. if we find that we are in a meeting and that it is workable, is that something that we can continue to do, as opposed to incurring $8,000 costs at the light board? >> we have heard that as long as we give a six day cancellation lead, we would not be charged for canceling. supervisor kim: i was not sure -- and how advance these decisions needed to be made, when do we have to make beyond decision location about that space? >> the first and third t