we are now in agreement or the department is in agreement with our revised recommendations, and i will run through those for you. on page 12, of their current expenses, instead of recommend day -- recommending a reduction, we're recommending a reduction of $3,700. we are withdrawing the recommendation for scavenger services of 10,000. we're leaving our recommendation for other baby -- building maintenance of a cult thousand. similarly, we're leaving recommendation for the attrition savings and related fringe benefits of one of his 16,239. the bottom line is is instead of one a purported 2539 come out the recommended reductions we are recommending a reduction of $131.9039. -- $131, 939.

supervisor chiu: given that the department has recommendirecomme reduction, withdrawing the scavenger services and keeping the abatement process, can we take those changes without objection? great. given that this is a non-general fund, this will go to your fund balance. thank you for your presentation, and we will not be seeing you next week. supervisor winner. -- supervisor wiener.

>> december 2011. we formed the first gardener's

apprenticeship program in california. we have the playground use ambassadors, and we have the aquatics staff reorganization, done with siu local 221. this was an outstanding year for the parks and recreation department. fiscal year 2011, 16,000 people -- with over half million dollars, with the children and families. this is a 144% increase.

we had programming provided to represent a 30% increase from one year ago. we have our own creative efforts, and our work with recreational partners, the ability with 50 fewer recreational employees. we have done this with our own staff, we have the self-help for the elderly. the boys and girls club. we have 35,000 hours of programming to the public that we would otherwise have not been able to do. on the park's side, this is 90%

which is a record high for us. we had six major capital projects, starting seven more. we have 29,000 volunteer hours, then we had a metric value of approximately $3 million. one of the accomplishments i am most proud about is the parks and recreation department, and turning to 2012, the general fund, we have been asked to solve for more than $43 million in reductions to the general

fund's support. this was 4.4, and to get there, and we have the -- this development collaborative lee. and this was discussed before the parks and recreation commission. here is the road map for the continuing operation challenges. we have the plant -- the principle for a sustainable department. we have the plan say fund and the parks. we have healthy recreational choices, to provide low-cost recreational opportunities. we have the enhanced

opportunities for the department. we have the dedicated funding, and we improve access and service delivery. we will prioritize the resources that we have. and we had the four budget committee meetings, and we have the recreation side. and we discussed the budget and several parts and recreation committee. we have the annual meeting with the mayor. the parks recreation -- we have

the pleasure of participating with the district supervisors. we have this with the budget committee meeting. we have the director of finance and administration. >> good afternoon, we have the budget primarily through the use of additional revenues. millions of dollars in new revenue with approximately $700,000 in expenditures. and the focus of revenue has begun to reap the benefits that we will see in the current fiscal year.

we have the permitting and the special events in the amount of $1 million. and we will increase the budget by next fiscal year by this amount. we have the recreation and a permit -- this is a result of increased attendance in the program, and increased use of the facilities. we're also including a new revenue in the coming year budget from police. we have a partner with the public utilities commission with a number of spaces in the garage. in the budget year this is worth $5.5 million. we see some good news in the stadium, with $900,000 in additional revenue for the park

amenities, and other things including revenue from food carts, segues in golden gate park, and other initiatives that are coming -- and we will have a full year of revenue that will be allies in the coming fiscal year. and also, as we have changed the recreation model, this has continued to a ball and grow, and the day camps are enormously popular with the regular recreation program in becoming more popular as well. and i can budget another hundred thousand dollars next year. >> superviser weiner: so, as you know, on tuesday, several of my colleagues placed an ordinance on the ballots to limit parks

and recreation in their ability to generate certain revenues. i know that one of the ways that they have been able to avoid layoffs and increases in fees -- they have the ability to generate revenue and as we look at the state parks shutting down, many of them, i really want to commend the department for thinking outside the box, finding ways to maintain robust recreation in san francisco. in terms of the ballot measure, we are analyzing this. i just wanted to ask you about what the revenue impact was going to be for parks and recreation in the current fiscal year, and in the coming years,

and what this may mean in terms of access to recreation, layoffs or no layoffs, and before you answer this question, if any of the people who signed the ballot measure talk to the department before placing this on the ballot? >> an answer to your last question, the answer is that we were never consulted. i know that the supervisors discussed the particular measures with us but we had no idea that this was happening. we did receive a tax from one supervisor, about this measure. >> there was never a request about the fiscal impact on jobs or recreation access? >> there was no question or inquiry whatsoever about the impact of the ballot measure and the ability to provide programming, or employment or

anything of this sort. >> and his would give us a sense, in terms of the budget, and the future year as with the impact it could be, and even specifics about different properties? >> let me start out by saying, the recreation and parks department has been in the revenue business for over 100 years and every single urban system, in the country has some element of their budget comprised of this revenue. at a time when we have been asked to solve for $43 million in general funding reductions over the last seven years, at the same time there has been the expectation by the community that we continue to keep the parks clean and safe, and that we continue to provide

recreational and low-cost programming for the children and their families. this does not leave us a lot of room to maneuver. the way that we have tried to solve the reduction in the general funding support is to replace the general funding subsidy with current revenue. with appropriate revenue. there are some perceptions that we are doing something with the revenue other than keeping the recreation centers open, the swimming pools open, and this summer camps open for business. last year we were asked to cut $12.40 million out of the operating budget. we had to lay off 50 full-time employees. it would have been significantly worse if we have not embarked upon an effort to increase the amount of revenue that we were

generating to offset the general funding cuts. we are on the right track over the last few years. we have increased the amount of revenue by $4 million. when you think about this, this is 40 or 50 staff. these are the cuts that we made last year. the ballot measure is problematic and puzzling, because the recreation program and has never been better. we have only had this for about 24 hours, and we have lots of concerns and i think the city attorney's office has some serious concerns about what this means, but this essentially says that there will not be any revenue, and beyond that, where not certain about the implications. we have been able to pencil out the impact for the coming year

and this may impact why as much as $900,000. over the next five years, and she will talk about the budget plan, there could be impact of $12 million. things potentially affected by this in the coming years, we have an interest -- the commission has led us put output an rfp down to a shake shack type of burger or milk shake ammenity down on the green. we project 50 dozen dollars in revenue from the. entering into a permit with a company providing supplies, they will charge fees. we are not certain about the ballot measure but this may no longer be possible. we have plans in place for a

quality exhibit that would have some elements with about $100,000. the soccer games at candlestick would be jeopardized. the urban markets would be jeopardized. we have a number of events from the channel 6 parking lot, and this could be jeopardized. we have some interesting issues related to the america's cup and we are not quite certain what the impact of this ballot measure would be on the ability that we have to join the city family in making certain that the amenities are available for the america's cup in 2012 and 2013. we have a five-year lease with them, but does this ballot measure prevent us from renew this without side planning? and by crystals. the pioneer log cabin which we have been thinking about, tennis

lessons, at the amenities in the tennis complex. the palace of fine arts. as i understand this, the measure says that there should be no new leases and no new fees. the moratorium is leading the palace of fine arts in march of 2014. we would like for someone to follow them in that space and we are not certain of the implications of the ballot measure on the ability to get a new lease at the palace of fine arts. we are still calculating this and we have not even begun to think about the different ways. we have an event called extravaganza in the spring at sharon meadow. this is family friendly, with rides and food and concessions, and some people have elements of this, that people have to pay for. if we thought about removing

this to the green, would we legally be allowed to do this in this measure? there are lots of questions and serious concerns. at a time when we are doing quite well, supported the operations and the programming, and the scholarship funding with money we generate, it seems unwise to pursue this course. >> thank you. i have an unrelated question. there has a lot of discussion focusing on the different cuts that many of us would like to try, and in terms of park and recreation and the ability -- we have seen a lack of staffing, and we have the branch that killed a woman and the trees that fell down -- i wonder if you could talk about the budget and the ability of the department to maintain this? >> we currently have the

staffing capacity among the forestry staff to maintain this every 50 years. what this means is the staff does spend a lot of their capacity responding to emergencies, with trees in very poor health. we do a lot of attention to the health of the urban forest. we have about 70,000 of these in golden gate park. and we have been working with a company that actually assesses the health of trees, and we will go to the system, cataloguing the health of the entire forest. we're able to a anticipate and watch al -- watched closely these trees, but we have no capacity to do routine

maintenance that the urban forest deserves. i will let katie continue with a couple of short minutes left, in the solutions for balancing the budget. and then i will be available. >> this is the final revenue item that is in the budget for the coming fiscal year. we are continuing to grow the support for the department, and we have been very successful so far with our operations, and this is more difficult than finding funding for capital projects. at the beginning of the presentation, it was said we have a new day camp this summer for those on the ought to suspect -- spectrum, and this is

funded through donations to the department. we did have to make some expenditure reductions to the budget for the coming fiscal year. we have reduced workers' compensation by 230,000 and we are reducing overtime expenditures by $100,000 and then we will try to delay hirings and have increased the attrition budget by approximately $400,000. after submitting the base budget to the mayor's office, we were working with them to come up with a small contingency reduction, which is completely comprised of revenue, including $450,000 in additional revenue for a garage. we have the recreation programming and $100,000 in additional revenue from the

teagarden entries. i will end today with a slide on the five-year plan, identifying for strategic initiatives for the coming five years. we would like to continue to meet with high standards in part magnitude in crude -- improve quality, and continue to develop revenue generating capabilities, and continued to improve the capital condition of the parks. the five-year outlook -- the wages of the benefits are offset by what i think is a fairly conservative estimate of 5% growth and earn revenue. one certain thing that has arisen in this current week, that we have addressed a little bit -- and this causes some concern for the outlook is the ballot measure that was introduced on tuesday. this could have a $13.50 million

impact on the revenue budget in the current -- coming five years. at this time we have no idea how we would address this additional shortfall. we have been working with the budget analysts office and we are largely in agreement with the community staff that we have three outstanding issues currently being negotiated. the first is a request for $160,000 in additional materials that would find the increase chemicals necessary to maintain the course at a high standard. we believe that this is critical to justify the very high rates that we charge the out of town golfers at the course, and we also would like to add additional volunteer coordinator

to the budget for the term -- coming fiscal year. we have three volunteer coordinators who generated 129,000 hours in volunteer hours last year, and we are very committed to the volunteer program and we're interested in increasing the number of hours that we can generate in the year and if we add one more coordinator we believe that we can increase a volunteer hours by 40,000 in the coming year. and finally, we would like to find a mobile application for the work order system, and this is actually a project that was approved and recommended, funded by the mayor's office in the budget. this would allow the structural made the staff who are out in the field doing repairs and plumbing repairs and that kind of thing to close out the work

orders when they are in the field to increase the efficiency significantly, and they would no longer, if we were able to have this function, they would not have to come back to golden gate park to close out the work orders, so they would have more time to be out in the field. this concludes our presentation. and we can answer questions. >> a question on the areas where we have this agreement, this is a cut in the of nine general funding? -- non-general funding? >> this is in the overhead fund. this is funded to recoveries from all the different overhead, the golf and a marina. and the capital. >> supervisor? >> a couple of quick questions.

i know that the budget analysts had proposed a small cut with this program and i wanted to get your feeling of the impact of this. my perspective is that we have a ton of volunteers that are important to the city, and it seems that -- that this is a very minimal cost but i want to get your opinion. >> we are proposing to take one kind of classification to turn this into a volunteer classification so that we can fill this as a volunteer coordinator. the budget suggests that we should not be able to make this position substitution. if we cannot do this we cannot hire new coordinator. >> i would not mind hearing a little bit of back and forth between the department and the budget analyst. >> just for clarification, there are two of these positions and

we have recommended one of these. you only see the reduction, you did not see the fact that this is not the way that the budget is displayed. i would like the committee to know that we are recommending one of these. i am not certain that you knew this. what we're talking about here is an upward substitution, and we do not believe that the position needs to be deleted. this is an increase in salary for this position. there are two things here. one of them is recommending one of the two things, for the and important program. this is why we are recommending one of the 2. >> i want to thank the budget analyst for working with us as well as they have. they are recommending that we not substitute one of the positions. and there are a couple of different rules. over the last year we have

listened to the community, that have passed for more communication and more feedback, and the position that the budget analysts have agreed upon is that -- essentially this is a community outreach. we have been working quite a bit on developing this -- with supervisor mirkarimi for a shakeboard park at waller. one of those positions will be for that. the position we are still negotiating with is strictly a volunteer -- strictly a volunteer position. a volunteer coordinator position. last year we consolidated some positions to make certain that we had enough parks -- and of gardner's and we had a small consolidation in the volunteer units that we