we have at least one fte out of my office to increase capacity. so we can insure that a level of captive problematicly happens in a more efficient manner. the cost to operate those one stops covers around half a million to 150 roughly. and that includes, you know, everything from the operational costs to the program costs. while everybody may not be equal it w it was primarily with the one general fund to support those efforts. so the challenge to see that the staffing is adequate. we've tried a number of

different approaches with a number of nonprofit. so i'm hoping to move forward this new model to have one fte out of your office as well as a cd are will help. the two communities probably if i looked demographics a population of individuals utilizeing the things. >> so clearly some of the other successful one stop job centers are able to leverage other fund to make sure they have the capacity to be successful in delivering on job opportunity for their constituents. and what that means clearly from

my prospective the ones most challenged need a lot more sports from our office in terms of oversight as well as appropriate capacity to deal with the levels of needs in terms of helping with the job opportunities >> yeah. and as i said we're trying something new to provide the fte to provide an enhanced level of support services >> thank you. >> colleagues any other questions at this time? >> mr. rose we're going to go to our budget analyst and a members i would note on page 15 of our report the report that america's cup organizes

committee there's expenditures for the america's cup but the detailed expenditure budget provided to the budget and legislative analyst office is 70 million 56009. there will be an appropriate reduction but there's a discrepancy in the budget right now >> could you highlight that it's on the page. the proposed budget includes $10 million from the america's cup organizing committee but i'm referred e refer to expenditures of 9 million plus. the detailed expenditure budget put to the budget office is not

that 9 million 175 but rather 7 million plus. to support that 9 million is not there are. our understanding is the mayor's office will be reducing the budget for the discrepancy that's included in the budget and the details of 7 million plus. again we've report to you back next week. with respect to our recommended reductions on page 17 of our report. our recommended reductions total 4 hundred and plus. including 34 thousand 130 are ongoing 336. in addition we recommended

closings out the funds and it would have a return to the general fund. so for 13 and fourteen there is a series of numbers. and have that amount 41 thousand ongoing a one-time we're still working with the department and we'll report balk back to you next week on our reductions >> colleagues any questions. >> maybe if you could come back. i understand from your prospective with mr. rose and where the principle objections lie right now >> as we mentioned we're going to continue to work with the analyst budgets office.

very closely and it's been good conversations >> so we'll be seeing you back next week. >> colleagues before we move on any questions from mr. rose? >> okay. why don't we move on. we're going to call one item out of order. so mr. ram in your group if you want to come up and present >> while we get this set up.

i'm happy to report from the past accomplishments. on socioeconomic issues. just quickly the department went through an experience of changing our admission statement. this better reflects the work who we do it for. it's a mission statement that's kind of captures the work of the planning department in san francisco. quickly the past year there's been a number of substantially accomplishments. we had an item that was adopted unanimously. and the planning eir was

adopted. we started the work on the central corridor and separately it includes the moscone center. the public scoping meeting actually has been held. we're very heavily involved in the development neighborhood program. and we're doing the case studies and the democratic graphic studies for the conditions. we have essentially completed the jefferson street for broadway and castro street and we're working on hate street working with the neighborhood open hate street and we'll soon be working on the outer mission. we have an internal process that will help our review time to

actually sign a staff person in the process of a prim point of contact. i'm proud to say with d b i we're on schedule and on budget and we're about 80 percent complete and we're scheduled to go live this fall. for next year we're working on a number of initiative. we would like to have a general update of the plan that have not been updated for a number of times. and we're required to produce a new housing project this next year. we are starting and one of our budget requests for a new outreach program. this is something i want to be

more pro-active to get out in the neighborhoods why we do things not a plan but l about the larger issues in the city and how the neighborhoods can get involved. we have a number of monitoring and reporting projects that was staffed by the mayor this year. we need to create a new monitoring reports. there are a number of large sites on pier 70 and 32 and on admission rock and on bcs f properties. we want to get ahead of those projects. we're getting involved before the operations are submitted to so we can get involved in those

projects before. as i said we the the permit tracking system is expected to go live this fall. in terms of the sober economic initiatives there's a number of things we'll continue to work on. we're working on a 3 part program. and one is to have staff attended community events. and second our series of webinars that are task basis from how housing plans in the community and we're organizing those now. i'll be hosting varies topics probably about three-quarters of topics that are interesting to the neighborhoods.

we've had staff attend community outreach programs. this was a furious from the grants. it's a week-long training that broadens our approach to reaching the non usually suspended, if you will, to get involved in the community. again, the investment neighborhoods community is par of a key effort. we have a public outreach and community policy and procedures. we've also conducted staff meetings on the ordinance and are making changes to our website and commission out

wastepaper to hospital those are published. we have multiple language pamphlets. we have brool of our staffing and we're routinely sending out group information to latin folks. and recent staff we have a diversity. so more specifically to our case and permit trend. since the downturn and deficit the department reduced the staff and beginning in 2010 we began to experience some growth and value in both cases and permits and, of course, with fee revenues.

and the vice president has run can i feel service clarification and has been filling positions for the last 3 years. in terms of numbers of the projects the volume is to increase by 4 percent in 2013 which is one percent higher than overwhelming budgeted. in terms of sheer numbers in cases in environmental reviews increased. so we're reviewing the number of projects every year is going up. interesting enough the permits is about the same but the size of the projects that we're seeing is growing substantially as the committee improves.

we promgd a revenue increase which is from the review fees from large projects. we're proej 4.3 million of revenues and thank to you have pled a budget implement so we're in the process to hiring 8 new staff. for the fee revenue it the anticipated to increase by 19 percent in the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 from the budget. and this includes 2.5 percent increase. that's automatic by code for next year. so it's flat from this year but

subsequently higher. and in fiscal year 2014 the second part of the year we're currently anticipated they're going to increase by the c pi at 2.6 percent. that grant revenue is about flat from 2013 to 2014 and we'll see some decline from expenditures in other departments. on the expenditure side, of course, for us salary friendly represents the vast majority of our budget and the proposed budget is over 8 new ftes to allow the planning staff to continue to address the load increases which are increasing subsequently for us.

so just quickly the new positions we're talking about we are proposing the equivalent of one fte to allow some of the planning staff to help with the orchestra load. we have the urban planning design program where we're trying to get ahead of those projects. we've spent a lot of time working with the folks to get ahead of those projects. we are proposing a historic project this is one of the things we're getting behind and this will free up staff preservation time. chinatown open space and the

shipyard which is actually going under the construction. market street and review for major market projects. we're spend more time on policies. we have one bay area grant program that will be working on a transportation policies. and, of course, we want to make sure we have the proper staffing in place to work on the tracking system. and we're proposing in addition to the 2.8 supplemental for this year we're proposing an additional little over fte unfunded positions. it's a little bit unusual bureau we're going funding to allow for an center fte which will only be funded in the revenue is realized.

this will shortly the time between the budget request and the time we can hire people. because of the length of time we're hiring staff we're falling behind. i hope to get a heads up and get those funding to pay for them in the short run and the fund would be during the fourteen, 15 budget process. just to wrap up here. we did receive a report from the budget analyst they proposed about $600,000 in cuts. we have not had a dialog about the details. i understand that the proposed cuts are on the fee revenue side and now on the general fund. we're proposing about a 37

percent decrease which is lower than the mayor's office. thank you >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i'm glad you're going to continue to talk with the budget analysts. without getting into the budget cuts. none of this is general fund. some of those planner positions i mean, i that we can all see this calls for the department it's pretty backlogged. i say that every year we picked the worst system to fund the departments so it's a boom bust we have to layoff people and the

departments are not able to handle the volume. it's a terrible system but it's a system we have and i think we need to support the department in staffing to be able to meet those needs. in addition i saw - some of those kits does not benefit the general fund. they seem rather small and i don't understand the need to cut the parks program which is a very modest promising program that is often funded through grant. it's one that frankly should be bigger not smaller. this one in particular is a bad idea. but in general i'm not saying that all of those cuts are inappropriate but they seem to be trying to allow the

department to keep you been up with the growing demands >> colleagues any further questions? >> thanks very much let's. >> members of the committee just for clarification. we looked at the expenditures or represent of the general fund norms our charge is are the requested expenditures justified. certainly there a cab a valid take about that but in terms of why we had made a suggestion cut >> and mr. rose i wasn't

suggesting i shouldn't be focus on general funds i want to articulate that even if those kits are correct they say within the planning department. >> absolutely supervisor wiener as you noted in our report we will state those are general funds and they're not general fund reductions. on the recommendations on page 34 of our report the recommended reductions total 66119 and 5 would 1950 and then for 401570 61 and 28 thousands are one time. there's also a - let me just

mention. there's one recommendation on page 35 of our report is for a public remittance assistant. we're going to cut the position because there are 3 positions that do the same functions. there is also and the department head referred to this we have a policy recommendation on page 37 of our report. this is a very unusual request and a very unusual situation where the department is requesting you approve situations that are not in the report. we have not made a recommendation to sdauf it but we're going to say that is a policy decision bauts it's

unusual. we're still working with the department and we'll report back to you next week >> thank you. i do realize that because the cuts are suggested from fees and i know that the general fund support to the planning department is a really small number and i just had a question would it be appropriate if there were a reduction would it be a appropriate to reduce general fund dollars in this particular case and allow for the fees to make up that reduction through this budget process? >> is that a question or a comment new. >> it's a question i believe to either the - yeah. maybe the

controller or the budget analyst to understand what exactly if that is at all possible. >> mrs. rose. >> members. as i understand your question i don't think it is possible if you made those reductions it would monies would stay in the department they couldn't expend those fund and if they had the funds to support it they would have to justify the expenditure of additional revenues beyond what you would be approving but i don't believe that you could include that. it would - okay. i stand corrected >> supervisor. >> so legally fee revenue can't exceed the cost of the program

that's a prop check. >> they continue to propose to use general fund money to support the programs so if you make reductions in those program you can choose to reallocate the money back to them or take the money and spend it elsewhere it's a policy choice for the mayor. so if we decided to reduce the departments - if we follow that recommendation and i i understand the recommendation is based on the fee then we could technology reduce the looks and reallocate the fees the savings and the fee reduction to make up the difference from the general

fund reduction. did i - was i clear maybe? >> i wanted to make sure that was possible because this money is not able to be taken and reallocated to any other department. okay. i got it. thank you >> thank you. supervisor mar >> i agree that the program and some of the other recommendations by the analyst and when the legislative analyst was talking about the position shaking his head there might be some justification for some of those position. >> yeah, the position we're talking about is to support the community outreach efforts.

the third position that's actually anns position and working with you all. in fact, we have there's two other people working on legislative work because of the sheer volume. it's really only two positions that are focused on xhungdz and not 3. >> i wanted to say that the community outreach program is really critical for maximizeing the projects. to make sure that they're a stakeholder buy in as well. the major initiatives make a lot of sense. i know that the airbag sea level there's anticipation of lots of housing needs but how to coordinate with the maximizeing

of the community it's important because of the disparticular time of large communities. i hope there can be some discussion so we can understand the justification of those positions >> okay. colleagues any other questions for the planning department? >> week we'll continue to look forward to seeing you back next week. so we're going to plan to break at the 130 so we have