we're very supportive of a local filmmakers and i think the other thing you will remember from last september, we asked to lower the fee to $100 for a low- budget film. we are doing what we can to support local filmmakers. >> that is great to hear. i was not sure if the space opened up. i thought there might be issues with the landlord but i am glad to see it resolved that i know that rent is one of the obstacles and the city for office -- for our local filmmakers. supervisor avalos: thank you. i would like to thank supervisor farrell for bringing this board. we have to ask ourselves if it's worth up to $2 million for film

in san francisco. i actually came to more accept this program and it was based on some of the experiences we had in 2007 and 2008 that attracted the production of "milk" that was able to attract a lot of business. it seems like the investments we made with the rebate program helped to make sure those films came about and had a lot to do with hiring local residents, especially -- i was especially pleased to see that happen. it's not like an open-ended program. it is based on what we have available for the rebates, so up to a certain amount, i can

accept it. what else can we get out of it in terms of later film productions? i'm excited about woody allen coming to san francisco and maybe he will reprise himself as virgil stark well or do something like a new production of "what's up doc" or vertigo. he needs -- we need something iconic to put san francisco on the map again and it shows san francisco in the greatest way, the beauty of this city is what we are going to make happen and that will have a great effect on this city and the city's economy in years to come and i think the art form itself is something to invest in as well. i do appreciate the concerns supervisor kim has around local hiring. i think the room is packed with people here who are local residents who i think expect to

benefit from the film program. if we need to tighten up, and i sure if we do it in this legislation or separately, but it makes sense we invest locally in our protection element and staffing and services we have in san francisco. but i will be supporting this ordinance and i want to see a move forward and be successful. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor farrell: a few comments -- i take your point about the local nature of this. one thing to note is when we talk about the number of residents employed in the local wages paid, those all local wages put in the statistics. i worked very hard with susanna and we spent a lot of time with spread sheets to make sure we carved out what are the real

benefits locally. if we're going to spend money on any programs, that we spend our money as efficiently as possible and get the biggest bang for our buck locally. a few other points -- although it's not a reason i would doubt this program, but -- without this program, but this is actually a moneymaker so every dollar we spent, we get more than a dollar back in general fund revenues. it is mainly through permit fees, the substitute sales tax and what have you. it is expanding the money by getting it back in whole right now. it is a major thin margin and it's not a reason to promote this. it is something to be noted. the question was asked about the

trend. we had $1.5 million over the last few years and why is it this amount here? you will see that based upon the great work, evangelizing this program in los angeles, middle of a producer's here in san francisco, the amount of productions has ramped up over time as the awareness of this program has grown. in the first two years, the same dollar amount was extended is because it was not adopted early on. if we can build on that momentum, that is the reason we were building it out. in my opinion, why it is important, it is creating global jobs in late san francisco and i think that is of the utmost importance. this diversifies our local economy in a greater way. it's not massive, but it is

real. these are real folks and we should be supporting them. one folksy -- one. the folks at the san francisco travel association made, -- does it promote folks shooting locally and having san francisco on the big screen and from a general civic pride point of view, having san francisco on the big screen, we don't disappoint and i think that's important for our city and i want to make sure i was clear on why i think this is important. >> if i could add some comments -- she was just hired for the witty alien -- for the woody allen movie and they will be doing local hire.

another local writer-director and production manager is local and they intend to hire local. very often, the key people have, the head of costumes and set decorators are often brought in from l.a.. but the more production we get here, the more these companies will see we have this talented group and with all of the loss of production to other states, so many of these people have had to go to louisiana, the mexico, and new york and we have lost a lot of work force. but the more productions we get here, we can build that up and continue to hire more and more locals. supervisor kim: i want to appreciate my colleagues points. i see the benefit in terms of tourism in general fund dollars, but it's important week support employment growth in the city.

i appreciated the points and i would love to see the numbers on that. i understand as you lose certain part of the industry, it's hard to develop an important part -- a job -- and employment pipeline. we want to make sure there is an existing supply of jobs if we're going to train residents in a variety of aspects of the technical and production areas. i would love to hear more about what we can do to encourage the training of our local residents and hope. >> i don't know if you are aware that in order to qualify for the rebate program these companies have to interview for the hiring program. i know on "hemingway" one of the

people they hired who never worked in production at all is now working consistently because he proved himself so and valuable. little things like that are helping to bring people up and i hope we see more of that. >> thank you for reminding me. supervisor chu: thank you for the work you have been doing attracting folks and getting the word out. i think supervisor farrell described a lot about the diversity and the point about the more youthful, the deeper bashan have in terms of talented individuals and staying in san francisco and i am sensitive to the residual impact on the economy. but with regard to promoting the

san francisco, we could not pay $2 million and get a potential advertisement for san francisco. these films hope to evoke a place these people want to see and have memories of. there are many reasons why filming in san francisco is beneficial to the city. given that this is a time limited piece of legislation, i would encourage the department to make sure you are familiar with the control offices report and make sure you respond to some of the points that was made and share it with the board to make sure we are moving forward. i think it would be educational to know about the local hiring component. you have talked about the first

source hiring requirement but the other things -- i think it would be educational and informative. also, the metrics going forward, i think you have talked about some of the new data you are requiring and providing information about various things. i think it would be helpful to understand what you are tracking and come to years down the line, we will have a strong track record of how this program is going and hopefully at that point there will be no question about the benefits to it. i would just recommend we do that. we have this item before us that we have public comment -- do we have a motion to accept the amendments articulated -- there were three of them which were fairly straightforward. we can do that without objection.

to the item as amended, we have a motion to send it ford? we have a motion to send the item for word and we can do that without objection. -- ford without objection. i would a asked to give redline copies to the clerk. thank you. any other items before us a? we are adjourned and we will see the committee members. back at 3:30. [applause]

>> there are kids and families ever were. it is really an extraordinary playground. it has got a little something for everyone. it is aesthetically billion. it is completely accessible. you can see how excited people are for this playground. it is very special. >> on opening day in the brand- new helen diller playground at north park, children can be seen swinging, gliding, swinging, exploring, digging, hanging, jumping, and even making drumming sounds. this major renovation was possible with the generous donation of more than $1.5 million from the mercer fund in honor of san francisco bay area philanthropist helen diller. together with the clean and safe neighborhood parks fund and the city's general fund.

>> 4. 3. 2. 1. [applause] >> the playground is broken into three general areas. one for the preschool set, another for older children, and a sand area designed for kids of all ages. unlike the old playground, the new one is accessible to people with disabilities. this brand-new playground has several unique and exciting features. two slides, including one 45- foot super slide with an elevation change of nearly 30 feet. climbing ropes and walls, including one made of granite. 88 suspension bridge. recycling, traditional swing, plus a therapeutics win for children with disabilities, and even a sand garden with chines and drums. >> it is a visionary $3.5 million world class playground in the heart of san francisco. this is just really a big,

community win and a celebration for us all. >> to learn more about the helen diller playground in dolores park, go to sfrecpark.org. supervisor chu: hello and welcome. i am joined by supervisor and joined by supervisor: and

supervisor wiener and supervisor kim will be joining us shortly. our clerk is mr. baker young. you have any announcements for us today? >> please silence any bonds or electronic devices. adams acted upon today will appear on the may 22, 2012 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. also wanted to mention that sfgtv -- we have mike and jennifer. >> item #one. hearing to receive update from the comptroller's office. item two. hearing to include financial update and information on budget instructions and process. supervisor chu: we havemr mr.

rosenfield and howard will talk to us about the edges -- budget. and there are some impact we might expect from the state. where do we begin with mr. -- why don't we begin with mr. rosenfield? >> our office issues periodic updates regarding the current your financial status and this is our last such report for the fiscal year we are winding down. we can -- we see a continuation of the trend we have seen thus far through the fiscal year which is a continued improvement in the local economy, fueling better than expected tax revenues. and continued savings in departments as they work to plan

for next year's budget. as you see on this slide, the bottom line news in the report, we project $172 million ending balance in the general fund. that is a $43 million improvement versus the six month report which we issued three months ago. it can also see on the summary slide and i will talk about the details in more depth. this $43 million is being driven almost in even parts by improvement in our local revenue picture and department told expenditure savings. it is kind of split on both sides of the ledger. >> off to highlight some of the revenue news, we do see now at the nine-month mark $20.70 million in projected improvements vs. our six month report across most of our general tax fund revenues.

we have summarized those on the slide and it is mixed news here. we have very good news in accelerating improvement in our local payroll tax and property transfer taxes which are to of a larger revenue sources in the general fund. that is offset two. or partially offset by some unexpected weakness in property- tax. you continue to see the local employment picture improves in san francisco and that is in terms of the number of jobs, all of which is driving a larger than expected improvement in payroll tax. we continue to see considerable acceleration in our commercial real-estate market which is driving property transfer tax up. we have seen a number of appeals now awarded by the assessment appeals board in the current fiscal year related to prior years' tax appeals which were worse than expected.

that leads us to revise down our thinking about property-tax because we have a number of appeals, we expect the out fund -- the outcome to be worse. that is a mixed revenue picture but generally positive. $20.70 million in revenue improvement versus the six month report. as you are aware, we have a number of different cases where this close to special dedicated uses where the voters have required us to spend a certain amount of certain dollars on certain services. for the property tax fund set asides that exist in our charter, the weakness i mentioned is -- means we are revising down their estimates of property tax and the children's

fund, and the library space -- fund our property based allocations. their revenues will be better than the current year budget. they are revisions down from our expectations of the six-month mark of $1.20 million in the current year for the children's fund and the open space fund and $1 million for the library preservation fund. i should say in all cases each of those departments anticipates ending the current year with available fund balance still. what we're talking about here is weakness in the current year that will not affect spending in those departments are in the current year but will affect the planning for the next two-year budget which you will see in coming weeks. the other baselines, those that are driven off of overall general fund tax revenues, those are improved. while property tax is down as we talk about, and that overall the general fund revenues are up. that means, among other things,

$1.10 million in career of improvement for the mta. that is their baseline and their tax allocation. a small improvement for the baseline portion of the library, half a million dollars. >supervisor chu: with regards to the lowering of the amount in the nine-month projection, because we saw $22 million less in surplus than we had anticipated for the property tax line item, we're seeing a smaller allocation going to their respective children's fund and library preservation fund. do the department anticipate spending -- to the anticipate using the previous six month mark worth of good news for their budget balancing? >> i think the asnwer -- answer is departments have been using

those prior property-tax projections in their budget assumptions. we're working with departments now, we believe there will not be a significant impact in the first year but that we may see some impact in the second year. we're working with them now to revise those projections. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: just a question on these funds, i thought they all had the same formula for the allocation. how is the children's fund different from the library and the open space fund? >> same formula but different amounts. the children's fund is larger than the open space fund and a library preservation fund. it was amended eight years ago. and so the amount is bigger. proportionally, it is -- has

declined but the dollar value for the children's fund is greater. supervisor avalos: i thought it was the same amount a different formula for the children's fund. >> the formula that drives them up and down is the same but because the children's fund is a bigger base, the percentage reduction of that means a bigger dollar value. and i should say in all cases of these funds and others, the report does include at the end of the report, it is focused on the general fund, pages 17-22 of the report are details regarding each of these funds and their status if you are interested in more detail. the report includes a more detailed update of operations and we have details department by department, the variances we

expect and surpluses to pull it out and highlight it briefly. we are projecting $42.40 million of net departmental operating savings versus the budget adopted last year. last summer. that is a $20 million improvement from the nine -- for the six-month report and the vast majority of this is driven by savings within the human services agency. of the $42.4 million in savings across general fund departments, three-quarters of it or $34 million is savings within a gsa -- within hsa. the report includes additional detail but it is a mix of savings -- and caseload programs, salary savings resulting from hiring slowdowns, in anticipation of next year's budget deficits.

$4.80 million in additional non- county revenue. some of that, the majority of that is a revenue. a lot of which ends up redistributed at the end of the year from counties that under spend their allocations to counties that to match their allocations which we typically do. some of that is good news on the revenue side and other factors. hsa is driving the department told -- department all savings. -- departmental savings. we have $2.9 million in savings across the other departments in the city. as i mentioned a minute ago, the report does touch on other funds in the city and some of these are listed here. you can see generally speaking, the starting balances in most of

our funds at the beginning of this fiscal year are now growing in our estimated ending fund balance is across different funds in the city and that is good news overall. again, a sign of our strengthening economy. the building inspection fund, convention facilities fund, the airport fund, the port fund, the puc are all generally outperforming their current year budget which means there will end the year better than they started it. financially speaking. of note, i will highlight on the page is the mta. the mta had began the year with approximately $25 million in fund balance. we're expecting them to exceed their budgeted revenue by about $14 million which will mean that the end the year with $39.20 million in fund balance. the department is currently overspending its salary budget,

fairly dramatically. this report assumes that that salary over spending will be covered with non-salary liquidation, encumbrances and supplies, professional service contracts and others. the department will need to implement to get themselves back to board approved appropriation levels in the current year. supervisor chu: the assumptions with the mta overspending is there will be managed -- and they will be managing it without tapping into the reserve? >> exactly. it will not require supplemental appropriation which would take approval and review by the board of supervisors. so just briefly, to highlight our reserve position at the end of the year. the general reserve, the board has approved a $2.70 million appropriation for wage increases which was not anticipated last year at the budget adoption

train that leaves the general reserve at a $22.30 million balance. the budget savings and center preserve began the year with $9.60 million. this reserve -- and began with approximately $9 million and we're expecting to contribute another $9 million in it in the next fiscal year. this is a reserve that receives 25% of department operating savings. it has been available for that department subject to approval by the board of supervisors to spend on onetime initiatives, efficiency generating initiatives. this is the result of legislation passed by the board many years ago and abandoned five years ago. that -- amended maybe five years ago. that -- the rainy day reserve we have talked about after the current year withdrawal for the school district, we project to in the year