decisions about the budget. they have definitely guided our decisions. we have done out reach about the budget and proposed solutions. we have had to community budget meetings. we have been to the commission, of course. we had a positive staff meeting about the budget and we have been talking about with park advocates, particularly with the parks alliance. i presented the budget last week and we do in fact have an e-mail address citizens can use to send us suggestions for revenue enhancements or budget reductions [unintelligible]

next year, we need to work more on the electronic tools we use for budget out reach. we have focused on revenue as the primary solution for both fiscal years. you can see for fiscal years 12-13, of the $3.7 million we're solving four, $3.1 million of that will come from enhanced revenue and $600,000 will come from expenditure savings. how in the next year, of the $3.1 million reduction we face, we will solve 2.4 million through revenue and $650,000 through expenditure savings. the details of the proposals are as follows. we are projecting to budget $1.4

million in increased revenue at the stadium. this includes ticket and advertising revenues as well as the fact that we expect to receive approximately $2 million in playoff revenue in the current fiscal year and have asked the mayor's budget office to give us credit for that unexpected revenue coming this year over the next two fiscal years. we expect to generate $800,000 in additional revenue from concessions and leases. this includes a big things and small things and things such as additional revenue from food carts, the teagardens', and the parking garages. at the end of the day, talking to the mta about the parking

grosz revenue projections for next year, the numbers they submitted to me -- instead of showing a significant reduction, face showed a slight uptick we will see how that plays out. we are also proposing changes to the fees that golf course. in particular, we would look at making changes to pricing at harding park and at sharp park and implementing a pricing model similar to what we currently have at harding. we hope to generate $100,000 from that change next fiscal year. the next year, and the 13-14, we are relying on a slightly different set of revenue

solutions. we propose taking a million dollars from a long-term lease we have with the public utilities commission for parking places that civic center. there's about $1.5 million left on the least day of a less and we are not going to rely on that next year. presumably, half a million dollars in 14-15. it the concession and least numbers here assume we would see 2.5% growth in concessions and leases. we project another $0.5 million from the stadium primarily through tickets, concessions and advertising. finally, we are proposing to implement a new fet model for the recreational programming,

one that is used by a number of cities across the country. it would be a model involving cost recovery for the cost of the programs we are offering. right now, we have programs to recover as little as 10% of what it costs to actually put on the program. while we do not think for a majority of our programs we would ever be close to 100% cost recovery, we think even if we could be in the neighborhood of 30% to 40% cost recovery, that would go some way to generating extra revenue for the department. we do feel strongly, however, that the cost of our programming should never be a barrier to participating in that programming. we would anticipate as the cost for programs go, so what our

scholarship program. i just want to note that last fiscal year, we gave away $0.5 million in scholarships. year to date, we have given away well over $400,000. by the end of this fiscal year, we expect to be well over $500,000 in scholarships given. i would like to remind you that for any fee proposals, staff will be back in front of the commission was fully fleshed out and detailed proposals for your separate approval and we would expect for golf and recreation proposals to be in front of you in april. we have about $600,000 in expenditure savings in each of the next two fiscal years. this comes from a handful of

proposals. the first would be at some slightly additional attrition or delayed hiring and the budget of about $185,000. as we discussed, we are restructuring be aquatics division. this is something that will be implemented in the current fiscal year but it is not in the budget. in making these changes in the budget, we saved about $170,000. we will take the savings and apply them toward our budget challenge. we are continuing to find philanthropic support and have been fairly successful at this over the last 18 months or so. we have a halftime gardner being paid for through a guest and we

have in the past couple of months received a guest to support a full-time gardener at the polo field in golden gate park and we expect while not an overwhelming amount of money, we will be able to continue to generate some revenue to offset operating costs over the next couple of years. we are proposing to make changes and run a pilot project that would reduce our garbage costs. we have a park service area manager who has made a proposal to me for changing how they collect garbage. we think they can reduce the amount of service that would generate about $50,000 savings next year. if the pilot is successful, we would anticipate rolling it out to all the parks service areas in the next fiscal year.

finally, we remain focused on reducing our workers' compensation costs. we are focused on providing temporary transitional work to employees who are eligible, who have been injured and are eligible and we believe if we continue to push that and provide it wherever possible, we can save another $50,000 on our workers' compensation budget for next fiscal year. as we have been working to balance the budget, we have been making changes to implement new policy initiatives in the coming fiscal year. among these proposals we are looking at 412-13 are adding a third gardner apprentice class that would be expected to start in december of 2012.

with this third class, we would be up to 20 apprentices total in our program. we are proposing to increase parked patrol and accountability in the budget. we are proposing to take some of the additional revenue we are going to generate from our new recreation fees structure into needed recreational southeast -- salaries that allows us to increase the amount of programming we are providing. we're also going to implement what the park superintendent has dubbed the custody and release program, which is basically the creation of a pool of as needed staffing of custodians to allow us to make sure our bathrooms are clean and open and this

happens as we have posted on each of our public restroom doors seven days a week. we were able to create this program and a way that is cost neutral to the budget and we have moved resources around to create this new tool. finally, we have increasing use of the scholarship program and we are setting ourselves a target to increase participation by at least 15% in the next fiscal year. >> could we go back one page? >> could we get the power point up, please?

>> one more. there you go. i'm happy to see the apprenticeship program. that is great. you answered one of my questions -- i did not know what a custodial relief program was. the increase -- increasing park patrol capacity and accountability, what is that about? >> one of our most fundamental responsibilities that we have is to keep the parks safe. we have very limited parked patrol resources that do not allow us to actually allow us to adequately cover the to under 20 neighborhood parks and golden gate park's and we have obligations at candlestick for

82470 -- 24-7 basis. that unit has suffered from lack of resources and the lack of leadership and support, it is a unit which has, because it is a 24-7 operation, it's a unit that needs more accountability and oversight. right now, we have paid memory -- right now, our field staff hard doubling as supervisors and it's not a model that is working. we want to have the administrative head reporting and that would allow us to put more park patrol capacity in the field and do a better job with

fiscal accountability and budget issues. >> so there would be a new person as administrator? >> the proposal is to add a park patrol manager. it's a managerial class and that would allow us the classes that are doing the administration work and that the whole purpose is to manage the unit effectively. to add a little bit of public safety. >> how many park rangers do you have? >> we have about 18. >> 18 full-time employees? >> they operate on a 24-7 basis. it is a very large and critical function in the department.

it is one that needs supervision during the day and during that evening. >> 18 people, even full-time, is very small. they don't even carry guns or have any kind of deterrent. >> de enforce park code provisions and have uniforms and radios -- today and for sparked code provisions that have uniform set radios that enable them to retain their own public safety. they do not carry guns nor is that a proposal we would support. >> but safety falls on police, does it not? day and up calling the police. >> correct. -- they end up calling at the police. >> correct. some of our newer captains are a

working partnership with the san francisco police department and that has never been better. we are working on training our own park patrol officers which has never been done. the way are owned park patrol has been instructed to call for support was to call 911. >> are you looking at expanding the force? give them the size of the parks that we have -- >> the steps we are taking i think accomplishes two goals. it actually adds to our overall capacity but most importantly improves professionalism within the unit. would we like to see more parked patrol? yes. i would also like to see more garden and recreation staff.

these are the challenges we face. as you know, the recent study concluded that our operating budget deficit is about $30 billion. this particular panel of community stakeholders' felt it was appropriate. we would need to add to our operating budget by eight a total of $30 million. those resources would go toward gardening, custodial, and structural maintenance staff. we are doing what we can but the resources we have, but this is an important step along without we've recently gotten from s f p d. i'm pleased to report the honda unit that belongs to the san francisco police department is -- has moved downtown into golden gate park which has

helped add to our public safety resources and they can be deployed in places like boyd of the staff and dolores park are we have had some challenges. we are doing it with band-aids and glue and this particular proposal is a good first that. >> what is the dollar amount on that? >> about $150,000. >> $150,000 for a park patrol? >> yes. >> there are about six of the 18 permanently assigned to candlestick? >> it is centrally works that way. it's a rotation, so they are not permanently assigned to candlestick. all of our officers are expected to protect that asset. >> so that has changed? we were looking to increase that

patrol. >> it is a 24-7 coverage assignments, so it works out. >> it is five, perhaps six, so there was a commitment that 5 or six of those are on a rotation down at candlestick. we change it from a permanent assignment to a rotation, but it is true that five or six of them are of the park's schedule and on to the stadium schedule. >> so at any given time, there are a few of them out at candlestick? >> there are one, if not two, 24-7. only 80 or 19 in general for everything -- that means any given shift throughout the day, evening wore night shift, there

is no more than two or possibly three present at any one given time because of the 24-7 commitment. >> the person you are looking to point to this thing, his duties will be management capacity between the staff and you? >> his or her. they will run the scheduling, administrative oversight. all of those oversight and management functions, they will not be out in uniform. that's the problem we are trying to solve. >> that person would oversee the park patrol dispatch unit. >> a very good. thank you. >> that was a good question. as you know, in addition to the base budget submission we have been asked to provide, the mayor's office has also asked

the department to submit a contingency budget proposal. approximately $800,000. at this point, the proposal we would intend to submit to the budget process on tuesday would be proposal to sell to vacant parcels yet to be determined of property. prior to the department being able to sell any property, we would need a vote of the people to approve that sale. >> and there is no determination as to what the parcelled might be? >> the department announced a fair number of parcels that are not particularly useful. for any kind of active recreation, we have a number of steep hillsides, for example,

they are not particularly useful in terms of park lands. if it came to this, we would need to go through a process to clearly identify with the parcels were. >> that would involve work with parks and recreation advisory committee and the charter requires that before that, the city can sell or dispose of, it would require a vote of the people. in a world of bad choices, in terms of the contingency cut, that's the best one we could come up with. >> we are submitting the budget to the mayor's office on tuesday. in the next three months, we have to work with the mayor's budget staff to make any changes, additions, or deletions

to the budget. it then the mayor will submit his budget to the board on june the first. we are scheduled for a hearing at the budget and finance committee i believe on april 11. we will make a presentation to them at that time and after the mayor submits that, the board will hold their annual to hearings on the budget and we will engage with the board of supervisors' budget analyst and the board, the full board will vote on the budget some time in the middle of july. we have a ways to go yet, but very pleased we are almost over the first hurdle. we're glad to answer additional questions. >> when you talk about scholarships, you are not talking about cash scholarships. you are talking about what

instead of paying the fee -- the fee is waived? >> correct. we are operating with a sliding scale. we have people who are paying nothing to use our programming and it slides up to about a 50% payment of fees. the criteria we use would be is your child eligible for a free or reduced lunch in the school district, for example. >> my question has to do with the proposal for cost recovery on recreation programs. i am very hesitant to raise fees on a recreation program. i've talked to a lot of seniors and different groups and people are all struggling right now in this city.

the people who use our programs may not all fall into the category of a scholarship, but what they do pay is a burden to them to enjoy the recreation under taxes, but their taxes fund our department. i think when this discussion comes back to we take a careful look and not forget who uses this department, the people who rely on us, and that we are not going to price people out of this, and weren't privy feel entitled to as taxpayers of the city. >> we feel very sad commentary strongly at staff has are balancing principle states, if there is a fee that somebody can not pay, we would never refuse

them access to programming. i think the growth of our scholarship program over the past several years really does show our commitment to that principle, and we would expect that growth would continue, going forward. from my standpoint, and this is a legitimate policy argument, i believe people who can pay should pay. we are in a time of very limited government resources, as we know. unfortunately, that forces us to a place where we are not able to subsidize our recreational programming at a 100% level. that would be fabulous, but that is not the world we live in. the real issue for us is trying to strike at right balance.

we really look forward to having this conversation with you all about what that of corporate balance would be. commissioner lee: the general managers talked about this, the idea of a set-aside, parcel tax which would help fund our operation, which is what is needed, to keep stable funding and the department. >> absolutely. that would be nirvana for the chief financial officer. commissioner levitan. commissioner levitan: high want to commend you for your work and for the staff people who came up with the idea potentially for us to save with a garbage collection. i know that was an idea thrown out by the general manager a

while ago tried to solicit ideas from our staff. those are the books on the front line, our eyes and ears, and we should be encouraging them to give us ideas. thank you. commissioner buell: commissioner harrison. commissioner harrison: what you gave to us talk about reducing the general fund budget by six full-time employees. in your report, that is not going to happen? >> no, that will not be a part of the budget we submit to the mayor's office. commissioner buell: commissioner molniya -- bonilla. commissioner bonilla: the reductions for 2012-13, 2013- 14, are those hard and fast? could there be some down more upward adjustments in these?

i think there is always the possibility, of course, that there could be new revenues generated. the projections of the city is coming up with all the time he seems to be -- it varies. it is not always set in stone. i wonder what kind of conversations you have had with the mayor's office, in terms of any possible adjustments, a board or downward. >> the numbers for 12-13 are pretty solid. 13-14, much less so. we absolutely will be back here next year and those numbers will likely look different. commissioner bonilla: i would think so.