hopefully the spirit of the local hiring ordinance was passed in december, 2010. i think it is not asking a lot, because we have had a lot of great projects in san francisco mou ford that are meeting the look of hire requirements, and i think given that opportunity for this advent -- this event would be dramatic for the city and residents who are in need of work. i appreciate the difficulty around fund-raising, and i understand there are a lot of challenges with that. i do feel i have responsibility with the language around how much we were gone to raise. it is not as strong as it could have then what does the new agreements, -- with the venue agreements, and i think we need to look at how we are reaching our fund-raising marks and how we're looking at this fundraising marks compared with what we are spending going

forward as a city as the of that authority is betting on this event. those are some of my thoughts, and, really, i feel what we have before us today is not something that i could support at this time. i would like to see it -- the port says they feel they have presented something that is ready to go, and i am not in that position. i don't believe that is the case, and there is a lot more i think can be done, and i think it is my responsibility as a member of this committee to ensure we are getting the best negotiated settlement that weekend, and i am not at the table, so i leave a lot up to the port to make that happen. i am hopeful that we get to a better point. i appreciate the difficulty of that on both sides, of the city and the event of the board, and i just ask for your patience and your thoughtfulness and this matter. supervisor chu: thank you for

your comments. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you, i share with supervisor avalos his thoughts. at minimum, i like to see harvey's amendments incorporated into the dda, in particular his recommendations of a hard cap and third-party evaluation on the actual expenditures. that is importing ec prior to approving the dda. -- that is important to see prior to the approving of the dda. i suggested a hard cap of $75 million without peer 39. i think that is a good goal to aspire to, to see if we can minimize the cost and picture we're talking about the real needs and the most cost- effective construction to ensure that we make the improvements that we need to make.

next, clear language on the mou schedule with the organizing committee is important. that should come along prior to was approving the dda, and i think we need stronger language. i don't think any side is at fault, given the tentative language that was put in place around endeavors and the polls. i think we need to make clear the outcomes that we can commit to ensure the risk with the of that authority. i think i have some very clear reservations about our general funds being used to fund this event when we have some in the service needs and gaps already existing in the city. some of them were discussed earlier today at the budget committee, but we continue to get cuts from the federal and state of all. i don't think i need to educate anyone about that in this room, but we have difficult decisions to make in june, and i would prefer that the america's cup is

not one of the bourbons at the table the next three years. i would still like to look at the 11% interest rate. i am not sure if that is the appropriate interest rate of return. i would like a re-evaluation of the economic benefits so we have a better understanding of the jobs that we expect to gain, the short-term jobs we expect to gain from this, and what specific economic benefits are, the range both at the lowest kind of felt tuition and the highest a valuation of the event. i have concerns about the long- term marina least for the bradstreet open water basin. i would like more discussion on that. and the last to which supervisor avalos mentioned, higher wage and local higher ordinance and working with the venues. if we want to reap the benefits

of all of the many members coming to the city of san francisco, it is important that our local arts community is engaged in putting on advance with the event authority and making sure that we have members coming to these events so that we have long term future clients. what we're talking about is a long-term benefit to the city and a long-term benefit connecting these folks who are attracted to the city by america's cup, making real and meaningful connections with the arts venues here in san francisco. supervisor chu: 90, supervisor kim. -- thank you, supervisor kim. i think we have come a long way in terms of getting to where we are, i want to thank the port, oewd, acoc for doing all of the

work they have done. at this juncture, i think many of us understand the economic benefits, what that possibly be and potential, but as supervisor kim alluded to, i think some questions have arisen as to what that actual benefit is and whether there is a range to it. in terms of our responsibilities at the board, i think though it is very tempting to get caught up in what the america's cup event could be and to try to move it forward, our responsibility is not to get caught up in what it could be. it is really to evaluate and make sure that it is physically -- physically feasible and to make sure that we are protecting the port's long-term viability. these are fundamental and key things that i think our foremost in our responsibility as supervisors here. i want to say that i have heard -- stephen, you talked about

appreciate we have gotten there so far together. we appreciate where we are so far, and we hope we will be able to get to that stage together, through negotiations as well. again, with a mind that it really needs to be something that is fiscally possible with the general fund and that is protecting the port long term costs of liability. i also hope that the of that authority that appreciates in addition to the risks you are taking, we are also taking a risk. if the fund raising does not come through as we expected, we would be on the hope for providing some of the services. if the attendance does not come in as we hope that it would, we are still on the hook for some of the risk. there are many things that think both of us are seriously considering, and i want the authority to appreciate that, as we appreciate your risks heading into this deal.

i think as supervisor avalos and kim mentioned, i think these are worthwhile in terms of pursuing. i think some of these items are frankly easy to implement and get into the deal, so i would hope that we would be able to direct the port and our staff to go forward and get as much of this accomplished by the time it comes to us at our next meeting. with regards to some of the items that i want to pull out, item number one, the first recommendation with regard to controlling the city's cost, i think the idea was being based on a third-party engineer rather than actual expenditures is really the idea around how it is we're making sure we are spending. lake, that we're not over- expanding when we don't need to. if there is a way of the port and the of that authority can come up with a way that we are

guaranteeing and doing our due diligence and expenses are what they should be, i'm open to looking at that. i think the spirit of item 1 is not necessarily the exact definition, but it is to make sure we are capturing how it is we're looking out for the expenses being undertaken by the of that authority. the recommendation of item three, eliminatingll be up to wo figure out how to make ts work for both sides. i agree with supervisor avalos and support him and his desire to make sure local hiring provisions make sense, given what we have done before, and we have heard from the arts community. supervisor avalos and i had a sidebar around local sailing, making sure that what we're doing is appropriate but just for a large sophisticated boats but for smaller boats and sailors here who have other

recreation needs. i want to reiterate the issue around fund-raising. i cannot agree with the characterization of the controller's memo that i have requested is an affirmation of the fundraising results so far. i don't see it that way. i appreciate all of the effort that has been put into fund- raising. i know it has been challenging. but i am interested in proposals to protect the city if we're not successful with fundraising, if it turns out that as our city costs continue to rise we're not hitting the numbers that we expected to hit. i am interested in looking at other alternatives for how we handle piers 30-32. i also have a question to the port staff. i had heard the was the possibility of pdr's is another way to think about financing,

and i am wondering if there somebody here from port staff who could discuss those development rights. >> i am representing the port. transferable development rights are an approach that the city has used to promote historic preservation among privately owned buildings. there are two different areas designated and the planning code for this, and essentially what happens under the planning code provisions is that an owner of historic building and sell the air rights above that building to somebody building taller buildings and the downtown area in the c-3. it is a way of promoting good density and in-fill development, while preserving older structures, and it is a way of getting private money into

storage facilities. the port is very interested in seeing whether the port piers could participate in this. we spoke with the planning staff and your office about that. we are worried about the financial feasibility about 26 and 28 development under this agreement. the agreement already has a provision that would allow the financial tales be removed for piers 26 and 28 if the city identifies another fundamental commack and t.r. would be the prime tool for accomplishing that. we are looking for to explore that idea further. >> i would be happy to help further that conversation. it is a good way to help finance historic preservation.

i would be interested in your thoughts at that could be a creative solution. the last thing i want to mention is what the chair woman referred to, given that the port has already stated they are ok with sea wall 351 coming out of item nine, if that was an issue we could get off the table today so it is one less thing we have to focus on in the next week. i would be happy if the budget committee were to do that today. isupervisor chu: thank you for your comments. i like to entertain a motion to amend the item 9, strike lines 18 and 19, sea wall 351. if we can strike that language, and also a motion to continue both items, 1 as amended, to next week's meeting. ok, we have that motion, second,

and we do that without objection. thank you. do we have other items before us today? >> item number 10, hearing to consider the annual review and adoption of the draft board of supervisors/clerk of the board fy 2012-2013 and fy1013-2014 budget. >> good evening. i am angela, the clerk of the board. i am joined today by deborah, are administrative deputy of administration and finance, and she has increased our capacity by 1/3%. we're here to present the budget proposal. this committee approved the department guidelines in december, which helped me assemble the budget proposal

that is before you. i wanted to thank you for your direction to provide a plan for essential records in storage. already, we have found cost savings by exchanging a managerial position down to an 18-23. we will still be up to provide the level of expertise that will be needed and creation of a viable plan for your consideration. in a moment, miss landers will make a brief budget presentation. if i could have one minute just to indicate -- i am very proud of our department staff and their commitment for being compassionate about meeting the numerous requests that they fulfill, which is the public's right to know, and a day this -- and they do this day in and day out. that is what our department stands for and we're proud of that. i would like to highlight some brief points with the current year's general fund allocation,

$10.8 million. looking at the productivity of the last 12 months, we have clerked 1772 meetings and the department. 45 were board meetings, and we have coordinated 1369 lidge the files to completion. technologically speaking, we have done very well utilizing technology as a significant mode of communicating information to the public, and we have accomplished this despite the small investments we have made over the last decade in technology. we continue to make new advancements and providing more information to the public, and when outpost all of our notices and advisory notice of vacancies on the website, in addition to our own website. while this has doubled the staff requirement, the benefit has been that it has reduced our advertising budget significantly. in the year 2000, the

advertising budget was $1 million. this year's request was 48,000 others. besides what we provide online, the front office has fulfilled approximately 10,000 public information request. in 2008, the assessment appeals board received approximately 2000 assessment appeals. today, the third year in a row, we are at 6000. we're working with the treasurer's office to find new efficiencies in on-line filing of assessments, and improved cash and a link to see jurors -- and improved cash handling procedures. i am not proposing any new positions or asking for any huge amounts of money for projects. but we are. all we have found some savings, while being able to fill our mandates. with that, i will asked ms. landis to present the budget presentation, and after that we're both here to answer any

questions. thank you. i>> good evening. i have a power point if you would like to take a look. briefly going over the budget right now, we can either look by divisions? but we have lafco, clerk's office, budget and appeals, the supervisors' offices, and the sunshine ordinance task force. one thing you'll notice is that lafco is not using any general fund money. this is true of the proposed budget as well. they have a balance that can carry forward. you can also defied the budget looking at the expense types. salaries and benefits, as with all departments to the city, are by far the largest amount of money that we spend.

we have professional services, the bulk of which is the budget and legislative analyst contracts, and the comprehensive annual financial report contract, which is about 3 $314,000. services of other departments, the work orders, just over $200,000. we have money in there to replace a server at the end of its life. we are not having any capital requests for 2012-2013, but will have another server at the end of its life and 2013-24 team, so there will be a request for capital for that. looking at a couple of different ways to divide that our pie of expenses, the labor and contracts is 93% of what our

budget consists of. everything else is $736,000. not a lot of wiggle room. we also have a number of mandates. at the board of supervisors, we have the charter and administrative code is that require arrest to have certain offices, services, and looking at the mandate it discretionary spending, we have just under $9 million that is mandated. in more detail on the next slide, the board members and the clerk of the board, the assessment appeals board, sunshine, youth commission, advertising, budget and legislative analysis board a ides, and the clerks,. the discretionary spending is

administered of support, things that are necessary to run the organization, but not required in any code or in the charter. supervisor chu: can you remind me it the official advertising budget, the $48,000, we had changes in the requirements that were supposed to reduce to reduced costs and advertising? is this reflective of that? remind me where it was and how much we have reduced it? >> essentially what happened is the board change the requirement for the clerk's office to publish in the newspaper, and indicated with a post that information on our website. we are no longer paying for those notices. there are certain notices that still require some noticing in the newspaper, according to state law which we abide by. supervisor chu: what was the value had budgeted in? >> approximately $190,000 the past couple years.

down to 48,000 others. supervisor chu: thank you. >> moving forward, because i know it has been a long afternoon, looking at the changes we are proposing, we have, as angela mentioned, the records manager position. at we are changing that classification to 1823, which gives us some savings there. we have some retirements we are expecting the next fiscal year. as new employees, and at lower steps, we will have some savings from the employees at the end of their careers being at the top step and new employees coming in at the first that. unfortunately, we will see some increased costs and are vacancies, because we're filling those this fiscal year. we will not have the salary savings we had intentionally kept this year through this point.

we have identified cost recovery for city-wide and countywide membership, and initially we had hoped we might be able to get up to $85,000 of the cost recovery. upon further investigation, it looks like we will get $57,000. it is a little bit of a change from what we had discussed last week. we're still looking at increased revenue, the assessment appeals board. we believe that $70,000 is a good estimate for that. and the entire volume will have increased costs for mail, communicating with applicants. we will see requests in 2013- 2014 to replace the ceqa server, which will be at the end of its life. there was a contingency in the budget analyst contract for $50,000, which we have used this

year, so we did not have to budget for next year or the hereafter. -- or the year after. to outline some of the request that will make, which are not in our budget, but which will hopefully be found it -- supervisor avalos: just a question, i don't recall what the contingency is to the budget analyst, what it was used for, the 50,000 others in the past? -- the $50,000 in the past? >> wasa servers or software? software, a belief. >> ken can probably better answer that question. >> it was for server and hardware costs. supervisor avalos: great, thank you. >> >> the coit requests are in

two main areas. we have a number of tracking systems that need to be updated and replaced. the assessment appeals board in particular, that one is running on office 97 software which is outdated, no longer supported, and in moving forward with streamlining the cashiering and moving forward to an on-line filing system, which are projects we are are starting to put together with the treasurer/tax collector office, we will require an updated tracking system for assessment appeals. at the same time, we also have the boards and commissions tracking, also on office97. at our inventory, which is mostly just i.t. inventory and usage, we need a new system to track at, and the park system needs to be updated. but getting all of the tracking systems is our first proposal

for coit. then records digitization is the second project we will be requesting. we have records manager coming on board this fiscal year to give that person some time to create the documentation and preservation and, really, management. we will be requesting to digitization as coit funded projects. and we have the usual end of life refreshed that will be putting an as a coit request. this year they were able to find smaller department's computers through smaller pot of money, and it is our understanding they could do that again next year. there are any questions, i would be happy to answer them. i-- if there are any questions,

how would be happy to answer them. supervisor chu: thank you. you lay out fiscal years 2013- 2014, just remind me in terms of the mayor's budget instructions, i thought the instruction was a 5% reduction in year one, and an additional 5% and the second year? just looking at this, it looks like we have not met that, correct? >> that is correct, we have not been able to meet it. these are the cuts that we have identified that will not have an impact to the board's activities and the required activities of the board. supervisor chu: as a reference point, what would be 5% reference point look at? what was the target value? >> the mayor's office had requested a $335,000 or $385,000

reduction, i cannot remember. but it comes out to 95 percent -- $95,000 out of discretionary. supervisor chu: i know that you'll continue to work on it and follow up with individual board members. just a few thoughts from a with regards to the required spending, some areas that like to look at and perhaps share with us an update about whether there are opportunities are not. under the clerk's office, i think broken out, i am interested to see whether we have any shared back-office functions that we might be able to work with. we are relatively small department. does it make sense in terms of being up to work with other smaller its cities to share some of our back office functions? that is something out be interested in. in particular if we had vacancies in some of these places, doesn't make sense to look for those opportunities for

shared synergy? on the cafer component, i want to know whether or not we provide a benefit to many enterprise departments and if we do whether we are recovering for that. that is something i would be interested in. with regard to the budget and legislative analyst contract, as always, it is a large part of our budget. a look to the budget analyst to work with us and see what the trade-offs would be if we were to look that contract and the values. i think that is something that we should look at. again, i think some of the technology items that you are requesting in terms of record maintenance and digitalization, those are report for us to measure our records are right, so i encourage you to go to coit and make those requests. those are some of my initial comments. i know that will come back at a later time. thank you. thank you for your presentation.