up the additional share. the $22 million is based on information that we have, which is current as of about one week ago. supervisor chu: to be clear, with regards to the value at the comptroller's office, in general practice they do provide an estimate of the expected value of ballot measure savings. so, we will be seeing that, though it is not the topic of conversation for the day. i do appreciate the comments that were made. a lot of interesting topics did come up about what equity should be and what it should be in terms of receiving any wage

increases. an interesting question, given the times that we are in. taking a look at the contracts and amendments, the way that i look at it, what are we getting back and what do we have to give? in this situation, the city is not giving anything. through a contract we had actually promised wage increases, right or wrong, it while ago. we are contractually obligated to pay those. we are seeing those unions stepping up to say that we are not going to take what the agreement was previously had actually led to go on some of that. we would not have gotten, contractually, a 3% concession. something, contractually, they had no right to get from either of those unions.

if you compare that, in contrast, to what they had given up in richmond, there are benefits going to those employees. it is clear that we have savings from two years that we would not have otherwise had. the comparison about what happened to the pension, i do agree that we have a pension issue. i do take that that is a very serious problem that we have to address. i think that the issue before us is that these mou's pickup benefits that they otherwise would not. for those reasons, colleagues, i would be supportive of these amendments. they are simply savings that

otherwise would not have been allotted to the city within the budget. >> thank you so much -- supervisor kim: thank you so much. i want to thank the fire department and police department for really coming to the table and giving back to the city. these concessions are real. many of our members that fight to keep a safe haven within the deal feel the impact in their pockets. my main -- i do feel uncomfortable -- my main sense of discomfort is around prop c. to a certain extent, much less the further inequities that they might create within public- service employee unions,

contracts not up currently, there for they will be out, i believe, at the end of june, if it passes, taking into effect at this time, because this is just coming to me yesterday, i need more time to consider that measure. considering the equity issue, and i completely understand the city's issue on that, second employee unions would be allowed to make the same concessions and we would be happy to take that contract the day. however, i do not think that that is a fair comparison because i think many of us make far less and may not have as much to give back to the city. i am not prepared to support it today. i am very supportive of the contract in general and to the men and women who keep this city

safe. i wanted to address the equity issue between public sector unions. we will not have this same measured next year if the other prop was to pass. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: in terms of the concluding comments, simply reading from the department of human resources presentation that was provided to all of us, it well lays out the relationship and contingencies between both. this portion of the mou's is not compartmentalized or disconnected between c and d. what i am reading here are the economic terms. pending those terms being realized, those contingencies

are literally attached are tethered to whether or not they prevail or not. questions that may be looked misplaced are not at all in the eyes of the department of human resources. i think it is very important that we get to the bottom line. as to the important contributions being made, i agree that they are unprecedented. to understand what this translates into based on a larger analysis that either the controller says is complete or need more information, that is the job here today. i am open to what the supervisor was saying. i support the solidifying of the

mou's, but was looking for more information. if that requires us to delay this a little bit, i am definitely game for doing so, if that is the supervisors wish as well. supervisor chu: could we ask about the timeline that this mou needs to be approved by the full board? >> supervisors, the contract is a session agreement under the forms of property. -- prop d. not similar to the contract deadlines but others, but the agreements that you do see before you are ongoing. they have agreed to voluntarily

start the payroll deductions and wage decreases, the understanding being that if this was rejected by the board or the union membership's, when it came to vote, all bets are off and money will be returned to the members. while we do not need strict charter deadlines, the budget is built on savings and encapsulated within contracts. the farther off that we go, the deeper in the hold the city would find itself. supervisor chu: anything else? supervisor mirkarimi: fine, thank you. supervisor chu: with regards to what would be approved in these contracts, we would see immediate wage deferral and 3% retiree health benefits,

correct? >> correct. supervisor chu: if this should 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.