pass according to the contingencies, we would see those items existing within 3% pick up? >> and no, and as the supervisor noted, under the contingencies, neither the passage of either in november will disturb the economic concessions. if either of those passes, but that will not affect the 3%, or the 1%. that is where the protection is for labor. supervisor chu: when is that? >> 2013. >> we are talking about immediate savings -- supervisor chu: we're talking about seeing immediate savings for the city from that component. we are also going to see, but --

beginning july 1 of 2012, a pickup from both unions based on these limits. saving the city money, correct? >> absolutely. supervisor chu: irrespective of other measures? >> correct. supervisor chu: 3% would be the city's cost, not an employee cost? >> correct. supervisor chu: and we would not be obligated to those wage increases? >> correct. supervisor chu: all of the concessions and employees giving us back money, otherwise we have to pay it. >> that is how it is framed, yes. supervisor chu: if these contracts were not to pass, what would be seeing in the budget?

>> members of the committee, monique from the chairman's office. on the value of the savings, it would be in those two departments. if this contract amendment is not approved by the board, then we will need to immediately led the police department and fire department know the extent of the deficit we have heard over the course of the year. supervisor chu: in that situation, if the contracts were not approved kahlo be would have to take immediate measures? >> yes. as we have said, supervisor, we are currently deferring the wage increase and paying into the pension with the employee share the view need to discontinue to pay that amount back to the employee.

during the budget discussions, as you will recall, there were concessions that were to occur. the extent to which that was not realized, then the department was talking about the elimination and the fire chief was talking about brownouts, all kinds of service reductions and all kinds of contingencies, and much planning has been drawn up about that. but the concession would be accepted. >> colleagues -- supervisor chu: colleagues, i would say that this is not a new topic. we discussed this when we had budget conversations. very generally when we came back

from recess i knew that there were questions out there, but we were getting locked into savings without getting anything back. given the fact that there is a hole in the budget between the retirement contributions, given that we are going to have a 2% wage deferral, i think that this is a no-brainer. whether or not we agree with future contracts is a separate issue, but the contract before us is straightforward. supervisor chsupervisor mirkari- supervisor kim: might issue is not with concessions that were made. we knew about them and were enthusiastic with our support during budget discussions. the one point that is new and

that i only learned about yesterday was the contract impact of proposition d. while i do not support it, i am concerned about the potential and equity between the public sector and employee unions. i have not had the opportunity to speak with stakeholders on this. delays moving this forward without recommendation to the full board, this would give my office time to speak with other folks, as we have not been able to look at the department scale. the concessions are real and i personally appreciate, on behalf of the city, of what our employees are giving back to the city in terms of recognizing the greater overall services and many of the things that our budget is able to further with the structure that we have.

this being the time to reach out to parties, i would like a little more. one more week before the project committee. i do not intend to delay it indefinitely. i just wanted some time to reach out. supervisor chu: i would be supportive of moving the item out without recommendation. supervisor mirkarimi: i think that that was the intent of the discussion, waiting for the supervisors marks, and yours, chairman, moving the discussion forward and hoping to get pieces of information that were missing, even if the discussion seemed repetitive. there have been assertions that the city needs to be confident and able to advocate and defend its position. while i appreciate the politics

that might cloud the discussion itself, looking for hard, bottom line math, sometimes it takes a while to get those numbers in a way that i think is a sound politics. i am more than happy, if you want to go ahead without recommendation. that is fine. to that point, assertions have been made and i would like to see you figuring out how to address this, as to whether or not there is a loss of $61 million. is that loss being projected in 2013 or 2015? our back is not covered in the way that we believe they are, but we may not have the kinds of hermetically sealed answers that we would like. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisors. we have the motion to send the

item, 4, 6, 7, 8, and nine, forward to the full board. i would have supported it going out with recommendation, but we prefer that it goes to the full board today to make a vote. that motion is on the floor. any objections? given no objections, those items will be moved along without recommendation. thank you. would you call item no. 5. >> item #5. ordinance adopting and implementing amendment no. 5 to the 2007-2013 memorandum of understanding (mou) between the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco firefighters, local 798 (unit 1), by extending the term of the mou to june 30, 2015, and by implementing specified terms and conditions of employment for fys 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015. supervisor chu: i would like to recuse myself from this item. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. who would like to present?

>> supervisors, martin grant. this contract is a concession agreement, much like the ones we have been discussion. it has the wage recession element, the additional early retirement contribution regardless of what happens at the ballot. and it has contingencies that would have a fax in year's 13-14 and 14-15. but it would not affect the current year or next year's budget. that single contract -- excuse me -- it would be in the neighborhood of $11 million for two years, representing again

the efforts of public safety. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. colleagues? comments, questions? >> you have to have public comment. click on the gun. one of the most disgusting things i have seen on this board, you have a major elected official here and you getting him -- gang up on him. one of the was running for office, and it will cost you. the citizens of san francisco just saw a gang rape. keep that in mind.

supervisor mirkarimi: other public comments? >> rather than having it put over to the 20th, which would give additional time to provide information with respect to these contracts, the other thing that is important is we just spoke to the [unintelligible] office. and there is a clause that exempts police and fire in 2013 through 2015. i would like to see that report from the comptroller's office. so that at least that information would be available to the board without any recommendation. i do not think that one week would hurt the status of the contract, at this point.

thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next public comment, please? >> ♪ i have seen budget fire and rain i have seen budget fire and i was better changed and i always thought that i would see that it honeydew coming and getting better today lord knows who it is looking down on and it will make a change, working and breaking down with trouble today i have seen budget fire and rain and i have seen sunday days that i thought would never end and i had the understanding that i wanted it right now and i

wanted to get it together on this item somehow ♪ supervisor mirkarimi: any other public comments? if none, a supervisor? supervisor kim: will we be able to get a response to some of our questions by june 57 >? >> i believe so. we have been advising on the pension measures. it is separate from the value of the concession how much additional savings there might be in the city and county, should one measure passed compared to the other.

this is because it is not related to the actual conceptions of the contract. " we did, we cost out the value of the concession. so, we did not include that in the economic analysis. but we have finalized the savings of both pension measures. all of that information is available, provided again, perhaps focusing on this particular issue. supervisor mirkarimi: the number that the public defender was asserting was reported, to demystify that in a way that the

supervisor was getting at, is that the information that you were talking about making available again? >> yes. in our analysis we look at the entirety. the concern was that some parts of the labor family would be required to pay in, while others with logger contracts would be exempted. supervisor kim: i am curious about these cancers, but i think that there are very real differences that will have very real costs, given whichever passes, with two members battling on the ballot.

my concern is cost savings. through a consensus process it is about whether it makes everyone curvet we happy or not. that being said, it is also about how other public-sector forces will feel. >> mr. rosenfield is in agency meetings today and i will discuss this with him to see, exactly whether or not this particular cost analysis for this kind of labor is broken in and, if not, what it will take to do that. supervisor mirkarimi: all right. understood . supervisor chuare we ready to m?

the motion succeeds. mr. clerk, next item, please. >> item #10. resolution approving the twenty- seventh amendment to the treasure island south waterfront master lease between the treasure island development authority and the u.s. navy to extend the term. item number 11. resolution approving the seventh amendment to the treasure island childcare master lease between the treasure island development authority and the u.s. navy to extend the term. item number 12. resolution approving and authorizing the treasure island development authority to enter into a modification of the cooperative agreement with the u.s. navy to extend the cooperative agreement from october 1, 2011, to september 30, 2012. item number 13. andresolution approving the twenty third amendment to the treasure island event venues master lease between the treasure island development authority and the u.s. navy to extend the term.

item number 14. resolution approving the thirty- fifth amendment to the treasure island land and structures master lease between the treasure island development authority and the u.s. navy to extend the term. item number 15 -- item number 15. resolution approving the fifteenth amendment to the treasure island marina master lease between the treasure island development authority and the u.s. navy to extend the term. that is the list. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have call items 10 through 15. >> chairman, supervisors, if i may, i would like to address item number 12 as distinct from the rest. i can sense the ball rolling. 20 years ago, a resolution was approved to establish the treasure island development authority. focusing on the planning and

redevelopment of treasure island. concurring with the operation closure with the navy, the city entered into a cooperative agreement in which they agreed to assume responsibility for various services on treasure island, including maintenance of utilities, public safety, and property management. the title offsets the cost associated with these responsibilities by generating revenues from housing and leasing commercial facilities with special finance. without receiving any special funds from the navy or the city. they continue to negotiate with the navy the full transfer of the island, anticipating it be transferred fully within eight years. the navy did not transfer any portion until the property was

set found suitable environmentally. the proposed resolution would provide a one-year extension to the cooperative agreement until september 30, 2012. required until such time as which the navy fully transfers treasure island. still, this agreement is necessary to continue our responsibility as caretaker of the island. i was then asked to present 10, 11, 13, 14. since that time 12 years ago, they have been leased at no cost to the lease agreement. the waterfront master lease, the child from master lease, and

the marina master lease. in turn its sub-leases these properties for commercial, maritime, and special use to expire annually. one title seeks to add additional properties to the amendments that are required. as instructed, it has been amended 35 times. some pieces do not generate income, like picnic areas and, nods. -- promenade. and generating millions of dollars each year for the island, the agreement exceeds the 10 year threshold described in section 9.118 b.

it seeks to extend the terms of these agreements before they expire this year, into next year. one year. transferred from the navy title, but until that time, these agreements generate revenue for the program island residents. i am here to answer any questions you might have at this time. supervisor chu: thank you. no questions at this point. thank you for all of the work that you do on treasure island. you have done a tremendous amount, coming up in every year with this. i want to apologize. i have to leave budget committee and will love be able to vote on this item. but thank you so much. supervisor, let's go to the budget analyst reports.

>> the only change being proposed that the existing time is to extend the leases and the agreement for one year. there is no other impact whatsoever. we recommend that you approve the proposal. supervisor chu: thank you. let's offer these items for public comment. >> there is one thing missing from these items. the words yurba bueno. my brother went to electrician school there back in '78. my brother and sister have lived there for the last five or six years. affectively, this has nothing to do with treasure island and everything to do with yerba

buena. the juno that they keep giant pumps going on treasure island and all day long to keep it from flooding? it is a trap. there are 200 units out there, so we are going to balance those for a total of $600 million. that is exactly what they're going to do. the fact of the matter is this lady that just spoke, seems like a nice lady, but they brought her from back east because she is an expert on removing people from public housing. she interviewed a couple of thousand people to clear the units for developers.

it is a big thing out -- i can really talked fast, but what you need to extend this is trees. the fact of the matter is that as long as the navy, we do not make an initial payment, as long as we do not make an initial payment, the city can do whatever they want to the trees over there. i am over there all of the time, they are bringing down trees. at 150 year-old monterey pine, they have got the stones through next september 30. one year in which the navy controls the island, cutting the trees.

the key is that it is not listed on these at all. treasure island is a joke, folks. yerba buena is the prize. remember that i told you so when that happens. supervisor chu: thank you. any other members of the public? seeing no one, public comment is closed. if there are no other questions, these of the items before us. ok. can we send items 10 to 15 on to the full board with recommendation? we can do that without objection. thank you. next item, please. >> item number 16.

ordinance providing revenue and levying property taxes for city and county purposes and establishing pass-through rate of residential tenants pursuant to chapter 37 of the administrative code for fy ending june 30, 2012. item number 17. ordinance providing revenue and levying property taxes for san francisco community college district purposes for fy ending june 30, 2012. item number 18. ordinance providing revenue and levying property taxes for san francisco unified school district purposes for fy ending june 30, 2012. item number 19. ordinance providing revenue and levying property taxes for san francisco bay area rapid transit district purposes for fy ending june 30, 2012. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have money, from the comptroller's office. >> every year the comptroller's office proposes legislation like this before you today. as you know, the general fund is a recipient of three community college school districts from

each of those entities. they must be approved by the county board of supervisors by september 30. we request your approval of this, the first being the valley of the general obligation funds being duly paid here, as well as whitaker hear from the comptroller's office. the property tax receipts in the city, making sure that there is the property tax rate conducted within each formula. jamie will demonstrate. >> this package of ordinances',

a 11 and 12 property tax rate will be adopted on the last working day. overhead on the computer, it shows us five years from the property tax rates. the base tax rate has been set. the funds needed to make the fiscal year debt service obligation bond dictates the additional levy over the 1% base rate. this next slide shows the unoccupied element for the entire fiscal year. this year's tax bill will be about $82.50 higher.