so far there has been $1.7 million of that 7.4? >> well, yes. there's also an additional nearly million that was spent on last year's supervisor's race. so the total would be 2.7. >> yep. so 2.7 million drawn down a combination of the mayor's race and the board's race? >> right. >> ok. and then the budget for the upcoming year anticipates a deposit of how much? >> a total of -- approximately $6 million. just a little over $6 million.

the exact future is $6,9 -- $6,091332. >> so we expect the total to be $14.3 million for the campaign fund but we have drawn down about $2.7 million, you said? >> right. >> and then in terms of how much we expect to spend over time you said about $8.1 million asumping nine fully viable candidates all drawing down the maximum? >> right. >> supervisor wiener? >> do you -- i know you were here a few months ago with the

6-5 vote and i know at the time, there were -- you had projections about where we would be at the end of the fiscal year and then on ward. do you have any way of knowing as of now basically in the fiscal year whether we have spent more or less on the mayor's race than you projected. >> to date, we have spent less than projected but even though there's a very small window left in the fiscal year, there's money going out almost every day. we've come closer to that projection than before. but our overall projection for the race has increased. what we've had trouble -- the difficulty was in the balancing act, we have a total figure that agrees with what we think we're going to spend. how much of it do we put into this fiscal year vs. how much

for next fiscal year? >> your projection for the whole race, you understand i'm assuming being conservative -- are you assuming that every candidate will max out? >> yes, that's what the 8.1 figure is based on. >> as of now, how much under projection are we at? i know that it will accelerate as we approach june 30th. but how far under -- >> about a million and a half. >> do you have any sense at all about whether -- how far under we'll be as of june 30th? >> i still think that the 8.1 million figure is credible. before we were using 7.2 when we had figuratively one less candidate.

there's a wild card factor in here that doesn't show up in any of these calculations. the presumption that all five are all -- excuse me -- all nine candidates will max out is certainly plausible. they may do that. they may not. we don't flow for a fact and it's going be hard to figure out. but of the nine that we believe will qualify i think they all have the capability. and expenditures may change these numbers dramatically because of expenditure ceilings. so it could be a lot more. so the more third-party expenditures, they could be substantial. we could go through more than we anticipate. >> right. and i guess we won't know until july 31st or august 1st whenever the disclosure date is.

we'll have a sense of how much each of the fundraising is. i'll assume you'll know a lot more then. >> a great deal more. but even from the amendment that we've been distributing now, there are some candidates that are raising money. others are finding the resources but the financial report as you mentioned will give us a bigger picture. >> could you report back at least to give us more of a sense for whether you think we're going to see candidates maxing out by the end? >> of course. and in the public finance law itself, i'm required at the end of august i'm required to also issue an analysis. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. what would be helpful also for us to understand -- i know

we've had a dialogue about how much we expect the drawdowns to be for the mayor's race but the other thing that's funded with the fund is the board's race and so in the next fiscal year we're expecting about half a year before the 2012 june election for the board. i think if you can provide to the committee members just your expectation of spendsing for the board race as well -- >> $900,000. $9 00,000. included in this chart that i just gave you. >> ok. that's the -- that's the anticipated -- >> right. >> oh, ok. ok. even with fewer open seats we still expect $900,000 in spending? >> yes. >> do you think you can provide that information to us in the copping weeks? >> yeah. i'm sorry what -- >> just the breakdown for the assumption for the $900,000. >> yes. ok. >> and for the budget analyst report this item unfortunately

there is been some miscommunication. last year there was not a requirement for this department to be reported on. so for some misunderstanding that hasn't occurred this year. what i've asked the brudget is to take a look at the department etion budget to provide us with any recommendation between now and next week on the department budget. so if i could ask you to work with our budget analyst on providing that information to make sure that any recommendations are timely and then for us just to make sure we get the information on the $900,000 and what is expected to be drawndown. ok. thank you. then we'll go down to our final department, the department of elections. >> good afternoon. our budget is increasing this year due to there being one more election this next fiscal year than the current fiscal year. there's a decrease from reimbursement from elections, city college, so we won't be

receiving that for the upcoming fiscal year. as far as big ticket items the next five years, the voting system contract with our current vendor will need to be extended. i'll be coming to the board to seek an i approval -- for the current voting contract. i may actually seek to have it extended a bit since the last time it took almost three years from the time we started the r.f.p. process until the contract was approved. i'll be bringing that forward to the board. but also the leas for the department's warehouse will be expiring at 2014 as well. we would like to have that extended. that's also a secure location for the voting system that we have now than if we were to go to a different system in the fleer future. as far as our five-year plan, we were looking to continue

automating and digitizing as much of our process as we can. the reason is that -- there's less workload because you handle materials less but also what's more important in elections it allows for us to get realtime information on election material as we go through the process. we'll continue that through the next five years. one item that's described in the budget report is the scanning and sorting machine to the vote by mail ballots. that's one thing that's reduced the verification process in the vote by signatures and about -- also be able to capture that information and report more quickly. i can take any questions from the board members. >> thank you. just two questions with regard to the leas at the port, is

there any impact on the america 's cup? >> no, it's north. since we're in the southern side, there won't be any impact. >> and then with regard to the purchase i think the budget analyst has really highlighted the automated ballot machine, anything special there? any kind of new things that we're anticipating in the next five years? >> we also want to -- it sounds simple but it makes a big impact. the next thing you want to get is an automated mail extractor. so instead of having people bull the ballots, you actually have an equipment that can open the envelopes and bull them from the envelopes and we can process them more quickly. one thing with san francisco, we have multi-card ballots. one of the expenses we have for the june primary election is we expect probably six cards and

that just takes a long time to process that. and one of the bottom is to pull them from the envelopes. so we automate that. also the provisional ballot process, we're going to change the envelope size to we can use this equipment for the next fiscal year's budget so we can scan those envelopes and start handing those envelopes as we review them. we can actually -- we digitize it, we do a comparison and we can more quickly balance the budget. instead of waiting for the provisions to be processed. >> and just on the areapportion natment process this is that comes for a while. your budget includes $220,000 to complete that work. that work has to be done by april 2012 which is coming up quickly. could you speak about that fund? >> one of the primary things is

to get a consultant because the department doesn't actually do the redistricting that the task force does. but the task force members have never done redistricting that i'm aware of. i don't know who the board will choose and who the mayor will choose. so it's important to get that work and that will be $95,000. there is also some money built-in for outreach for the task force and also just to get the materials. and that also there's a halftime position in there that we are working with the clerk of the board's office for someone to staff the task force meetings. that was one of the challenges that the task force has and the department of elections is that there was no one assigned with the task force. another portion of the $20,000 is to actually appoint them to

the task force. >> you are in agreement including budget closeouts? >> i am. >> thank you. mr. rose? >> madam chair, members of committee, our recommended reductions, they're detailed on page 129 total 1 32,628 dollars. that's 100% general fund reductions still allow an increase of about $5.5 million or 56% in the department's budget. and we also recommend closing out your general fund unexpended incumbrances which would allow $375,000. so they result in $156,206 savings to the general fund. >> thank you, mr. rose. supervisor wiener?

>> thank you. first i want to -- and i meant this as an inquiry as well just to compliment your staff. during elections candidates are some of the most difficult people in the world to deal with and your staff amazingly are patient and helpful. i just wanted to note that. i have a question about something that we -- something that we talked about. but i don't know if it actually happened and that is any kind of movement towards electronic voting sig nag chur collection, things like that. i know there was an op-ed in "the chronicle" about that. i'm wondering because obviously that has significant cost implications and security implications as well. i'm just wondering if you envision any movement towards that in the for seeable future? >> i'll do the voting system first. we're finding out is that i think there will always be a

paper ballot but the system will digitize the information, scanning both sides of the ballot are somehow capture the information that's on the ballot, but not having to handle the actual card. that helps and also for people are involved in the campaign and the candidates and even for the public's interest. you can capture information and >> it more quickly. i don't think internet voting is going to happen any time soon. i think that would be a great idea if it's secure. i know that for soldiers overseas, there's a form of exchange of ballot information and receiving the voted ballots from the service members, but that's in a very limited sense and there's a -- so it's not much of a change as far as the regular process is concerned right now. with the digital signatures, i

think that's going to happen fairly quickly. but the challenge there is that everything's based on 100 years of process. it's not just the offices in california that want to handle the paper, but there are laws that's based on those hard copy petitions as well. so receiving something, a digital signature or receiving an additional petition, it's not that we wouldn't know what it is. we would handle it in a way that's consistent with current laws. it's the law that has to catch up with the idea especially with digitizing the petitions for election material. >> thank you, supervisor winer. >> this department is in agreement with the budget analyst, can we take the budget analyst recommendation and the project closeout without objection? >> great. thank you very much. >> ok. i think that we've exhausted

all the departments today. so colleagues we're finishing before 5:00 which is great. if we can, items number one through three -- sorry one and two, can we continue this -- these two items until wednesday? we'll do that without objection. for items numbers three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and 10, can we continue these items to the 24th for public comment? we could do that without objection. great. and then item number nine, which has to do with the human services agency, can we continue this item until the 23rd which is when the department budget will be up? we'll do that without objection. that's great. all right. mr. clerk, do we have any other items before us? >> second piece to the agenda. >> thank you very much.

we are adjourned.

>> this is the small business commission, monday, june 13, 2011 meeting, the time is 5:38 p.m. and the meeting is called to order. at this time, please turn off our cell phones or silence. item no. one, roll call. commissioner o'brien? commissioner adams?

commissioner clyde? commissioner dooley? commissioner kasselman? commissioner o'conner? commissioner riley? all commissioners are present. commissioners, item no. 2 will be continued until later in the meeting. enemy number 3, approval of the april 11, 2010 meeting minutes, explanatory dowmpts draft april 11, 2010 meeting minutes. president o'brien: do we have a motion to approve the minutes or do we need a minute to study it? >> i need a minute. president o'brien: o.k., we'll give one sec.

is everybody o.k. with it?

could we get a motion? >> i motion to approve the minutes of the april 11 meeting. >> second broon. president o'brien: any objections, seeing none, approved. secretary: item 4 will be continued until the next meeting. item 5, general public comment, allowing members of the public to comment generally on matters within the commission's purview and suggest new agenda items and there will be public comment taken after each item on the agenda. president o'brien: do we have comments from anybody on matters not on the agenda? seeing none, public comment closed. secretary: commissioners, item 6, discussion of possible action to make recommendation to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file no. 110506 [planning code, police code, business and tax regulations code- limited live performance permits.]

president o'brien:a presentation? secretary: we have a presentation from supervisor mirkarimi and i have public comment we received a few moments ago. president o'brien: welcome. >> mr. president, honorable commissioners, good evening. ross mirkarimi, supervisor of district 5. this legislation simply aims to provide opportunity for artists and musicians and for cafes and restaurants where opportunity had not existed before or where there were prohibitions on cafes and restaurants in their inability to be able to afford the limited live performance permits because of how cost prohibitive those permits are. for a number of years, our office, as well as, i believe, many other supervisor offices,

have entertained and fielded heavy demand by residents and by merchant owners who would like to see as much of an enterprising attitude in had their particular neighborhoods to allow for cafes and restaurants to be able to afford the permits that otherwise have been very expensive and usually assigned to the cost scale of the much larger venues who can afford them because there's only a one price size that fits all. that price has discriminated against the small business operators which is why we have now advanced this piece of legislation. hundreds of cafes, restaurants and bars and other small businesses cannot legally offer their customers live performances because the only permit available is the one that is suitable for nightclub at a much higher cost. currently, a cafe owner wanting

to offer modest live performances until 10:00 p.m. would be required to obtain a place of entertainment permit which typically requires a $1,700 nonrefundable application fee. were the permit granted, the cafe would then have to create a security plan and make other arrangements associated with major events. a small coffee shop would require that at the same level as perhaps larger clubs you might be familiar with because some of you actually might have business partnership in one. in some parts of the city that a small cafe or restaurant owner would also have to obtain a conditional use permit from the planning commission which would cost upward to another $2,000. the current permit requirements are cost prohibitive for small businesses that wish to offer limited performance on their property for limited periods of time. meanwhile, those businesses would like to expand the range of what they can offer their

customers, visitors and residents alike, that otherwise they have been stymied from doing so. we believe that we found the right nexus in helping in this wonderful forward-thinking city to be able to help put to work our artists and musicians who otherwise cannot gain that entry of work in restaurants and cafes who are dying to be able to comport with the law to comply with the law and see that they are made valid in their ability to obtain the permit. we've noticed that because of the downturn in the economy, certainly nationally, statewide and city, that many of these restaurants and cafes are struggling to create and innovate whatever they possibly can to stay alive. now, even before the downturn in the economy, our office, which is very central, which our district is central in the city, and it covers many vibrant merchant corridors, has heard,

over this period of time, how can haveays and restaurants would like to have a leg up. we're advocating for that leg up. i'd like to thank my former aide, regina drizzy, who has a strong business sensibility about her which has been well deployed in this arena here and we've talked about this kind of business environment in us trying to figure out a way that provides, i think, small business with an advantage that had not existed before. we're using the existent geography of the current map already granted by the city and county of san francisco. we're not creating new geography. for the areas that have been permitted, we are simply establishing a new tier for those areas so it would not exacerbate debate of creating new zoning that would allow for this particular area, for gaining limited live performance

permits. we are simply just creating the new tier of costs so that those businesses that are approximately 200 square feet or less would be able to then obtain a permit at a much cheaper cost than they would have before. the application with the entertainment commission would be a $385 application fee and $139 annual renewal fee of 30-day neighborhood notification period upon submittal of a completed application. that is what this legislation is about. we believe that because it is significantly a reduced cost but creating a whole 'nother tier, that not only do i think this will be a very strong revenue generation generator, i think for the city, by allowing access to businesses where that access had been stymied, but then also activating a level of revenue and income and expenditure that

hasn't been able to activate in hundreds of businesses at this level. so that is the high points. i'm more than happy to answer any questions. president o'brien: commissioner adams? vice president adams: i really like this legislation. i think it's about time that, i think, this type of legislation will actually help with the character of many, many neighborhoods. in reading this legislation, i noticed that there were some parts of south of market that were excluded. is there any concerns there? my concern is along the sixth street corridor, there are several small businesses there and coffee houses that would really benefit by this ordinance. >> we're abiding by the geography that's already been established of where the limited live performance permits are allowed and us