supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to send forward with recommendations. >> without objection. supervisor chu: before we call item no. 4, i meant to think of -- thank mr. young. your work yesterday on the budget, you were very important in making sure that everything was in place. i wanted to thank you in front of the committee. thank you. [applause] >> item four. item 4. resolution approving the first amendment to contract no. cs - 159 between the san francisco municipal transportation agency and the transbay joint powers authority for transbay transit center program services pursuant to charter section 9.118 in an amount not to exceed $3,280,677. supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, we have joy hoolihan from the mta. >> good afternoon, president, supervisors. for this amendment, basically, we are asking for an additional $997,000 for services over t

supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, we have joy hoolihan from the mta. >> good afternoon, president, supervisors. for this amendment, basically, we are asking for an additional $997,000 for services over the course of the next five years. extending the contract for an additional 11.5 months over the regional contract amount. basically, it is for traffic calming, bus services, to keep the buses on schedule and on time, and we have already provided the services for the beginning of august of last year. we anticipate the amount of $189,000. if you have any other questions, please let me know. supervisor chu: thank you. i do have some questions, but i will reserve them until after the budget analysts report. >> the amount referenced is and the number that sfmta was provided in services and then would be reimbursed by the joint powers authority. we recommend you recommend the resolution to fund retroactivity since august 9, since services have begun, and that you approve the resolution as amended. supervisor c

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: what is the number of the property that the city owns currently? >> each year, the apartments are required by ordinance to report to the director property as they are either under-utilized or declared surplus. again, this is a self-reporting process. there are about two dozen surplus properties. the majority of those are strips of rights of way under the public works jurisdiction. a few of them are under the housing of office jurisdiction ordinances' from the mid-2000's. some of which are moving forward with either development for sale purposes. others are coming back to the granting department, as they did not look feasible. supervisor chu: how much property do we own? >> enterprise apartments are not required to record surplus property. i cannot speak to that. we do assist, as the real-estate arm of the city, with the puc we have disposed of many assets. recently we have provided funding for the 525 gates project. supervisor chu: what about the proper

supervisor chu: thank you. if i could make a recommendation after hearing the comments from my colleagues, what we will take -- i think there is no disagreement -- the interim positions. we will not allow the positions to start july 1st, we will begin as october 1. and rather than taking the budget analyst recommendations, we will leave those open at the moment and place a budget committee reserve on those items, pending the department coming back to the committee with information. would that be fine? ok, we can do that without objection. thank you, mr. reporter. surry. -- sorry. the next department have here is the treasury/tax collector. [laughter] >> good morning, supervisors. we are here to report to the budget analyst office. we reached an agreement. i do not have the number in front of me, but it totals $110,000. we will proceed with that amount. >> madam chair, members of the committee, actually, our calculation is 121,001 $32. the changes -- we had $188,000 and we are reducing that to approximately -- o

supervisor chu: thank you. our budget analyst, i believe, articulated. >> madam chair, yes, i do not have any further comment. the policy recommendation is on page 56. i would be happy to respond to questions. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, to recap, we did take the budget analyst recommendations and the $84,000 in project close out, so the remaining item is the policy recommendation of the budget analyst with regard to the economist. from my perspective, given that no we are going to be heading into -- given that we know we're going to be heading into complicated conversations around tax structure, i think it is worthwhile to have an economist. their proven very helpful in these policy items over the year, and i am open to this. supervisor kim: at this time, i am ready to support the department position. while not completely in agreement, i believe our business tax reform will be an important policy issue, and i agree we will need extra hands to help support that. is a really heavy lift. also, thank yo

supervisor chu: ok. budget analyst? >> madam chair, for the record, it is $52,981 all general fund recommendations. >> we have that amount for the cuts being proposed that the health service system, mostly in staffing adjustments, some copy machines and specialized services cuts. the department is in agreement with that? >> efp president chiu: can we take that without objection? ok -- supervisor chu: can we take that without objection? ok, thank you very much. the next department is the public library. >> good afternoon. i am the city librarian. we are in agreement with the analyst recommendations and very much appreciate the support and the help we received from javier and kate. we're pleased with the proposed budget. supervisor chu: thank you. >> madam chair, members of the committee, the total recommended cuts are $264,486. they're not general fund reductions. supervisor chu: thank you. and to the comptroller, because these are actually savings from the library baseline, these would remain within the

supervisor chu: the department supervisor chu: the department of technology.

supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose? >> members of the committee, this was recommended by the pec based on a competitive process. $10 million per year for a 15 year term. payments will be administered on a test basis. table two, page 5 of our report, provides a breakdown of the budget. the bulk of that would be labor. $134 million. an average hourly rate of $206.30 for an estimated 36,000 hours. the puc estimates the cost at issuing commercial paper on page 6 of our report, a $150 million principal and $159 million in total cost of $340.2 million based on an annual interest rate of 5.5%. in terms of the impact on a single-family residence on the bottom of page 6, the average impact would be $1.74. that would be on the monthly bill. we recommend that you approve this resolution. supervisor chu: thank you. with regards to the project, i understand the project still has major components outstanding that we are working on? but that in the cycle we should be seeing those projects coming to completion fairly soon? av

supervisor chu: good morning. welcome to the budget and finance committee. >> please turn off all cell phones. if you submit copies of documents to the committee. items discussed it will appear on the board of supervisors in jeddah on july 12, 2011, unless otherwise stated. -- the board of supervisors agenda on july 12, 2011, unless otherwise stated. item one, consolidated budget an annual appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts an estimated expenditures of the city and county of san francisco for fiscal year ending june 30, 2012 for the airport, port commission, and public utilities commission. item two, and will salary ordinance enumerating positions in the annual budget and appropriations ordinance for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2012 for the airport, port commission, and the public utilities commission. item three, resolution approving the budget of the redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco for fiscal year 2011-2012 and approved the issuance of three development

supervisor chu: thank you.i understand correctly, there was a series of recommendations with regard to reclassification, and the department is in agreement with those recommendations. >> correct. there were down with substitutions for the three positions and one remains the same period supervisor chu: with regards to the -- the same. supervisor chu: the budget analyst is withdrawing their recommendation and saying that it is fine for a july 1 start because these are all existing individuals who are employed by the city. >> just one other clarification -- on page nine, we have a reserve recommendation, so we will take out that portion of the interim for the reserve amount, and we will work with the controller for that specific adjustment. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any questions from the committee? if there are no questions, if there is an agreement, we will take that without objection. >> one further clarification -- i am sorry -- at the recommended reduction that i initially said that i will adjust d

supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose? >> madam chair, members of the committee, our total recommended reduction for this department is $200,236. the dispute -- i would like ms. campbell to briefly respond. >> the recommendation is specific to an understanding said wide -- citywide, and employees on standby can receive 40% of their rate of pay and receive a pager or cell phone or 25% update. the concept is they have to be near a location of a telethon to be available. gradually the apartments are moving away from that and providing -- departments are moving away from that and providing a cellular phone. it is understood city-wide that everyone will be provided a pager or cellular phone and be paid a portion of pay. we do include the cost of the cellular phone in this recommendation. so as not to impair the ability of the individual to respond. supervisor chu: supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. said the $10,000 difference the department is asking us about, is that in the making of this cellular phone? wh

supervisor chu: thank you. >> good morning, supervisor chu, supervisors. i am with the san francisco commission. my biggest concern is we went into a contractual situation with recology for all our children to go to work at their recycling plants that we were helping them to set up. i am sympathetic to all the police from yuba county and the people from yuba county. i believe that is the situation yuba county and recology can work out for themselves. my concern is to pass the budget and you need to go to the next step and work out the problems of this contract. i hope so much for the people who could not be here today, working at those recycling plants, the baking continue to work as recycling plants. and there would not be some big lay off because no one wanted to take action in this situation. like i said before, i am very sympathetic to the folks of yuba county and what they had to say to today. but we have a different scenario down here with our young people and how we need to put a lot of them to work because of our relationship with recology. and we

supervisor chu: thank you. any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations, we can do that without objection. next item please. >> item 7. ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code by amending section 10.82 to authorize the controller to establish cash difference and overage funds for the use of any county officer or department head or judicial district handling judicial funds; to increase, reduce, or discontinue the funds; require any county officer or department head using such funds to report to the controller; and require the controller to annually report to the board of supervisors regarding the cash difference and overage funds. supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, for the controller's office or to the treasurer's office, who would like to make a presentation? >> good morning, i am with the treasurer's office. the proposed ordinance today amend the minister did code sec

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: madam chair, i wanted to add to the chorus, as i co-sponsored this. community driven, rallying around the great work of the office of labor standards and enforcement. i believe that they are stretched beyond their abilities and they continue to try to make the workers and the city crowd in their aim to make sure that people are fairly treated. what concerns me the most and why i like this legislation a great deal, sometimes san francisco has a reputation that we do not always live up to. and i always believe that that reputation eclipses and cheats immigrant communities in san francisco where those who are preyed upon and made vulnerable are not benefiting from the kinds of laws that others take for granted because they are the laws that are unique to san francisco. as it applies to immigrant communities and low-wage workers in particular, this important correction in enforcement standards earnings san francisco that particular reputation. it would make sense for

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: to the chair, to mr. roh's, you mentioned -- i am trying to qualify this a bit more -- they resist the annual minimum guaranteed because of the uncertainty of the economy. providing more uncertainty to that the economy. >> right now, under this existing agreement, they are paying 65% of gross revenues. it is a five-year contract. they had been exceeding, but in this particular case you would be providing the titan outdoor with wrap the windows and they would guarantee no additional compensation to me. i do not think that that is a fair compensation for the city. supervisor chu: thank you. i am wondering if you can follow up. i do not know that the statement that they will not be providing revenue is accurate. kenny you explain that a bit? -- can you explain that a bit? >> i believe that this is the case, they will proceed as they have through fiscal year 2012 because of how they have in 2011. this, we believe, will be incremental and automatically increasing to 6

supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim: just wanted to thank redevelopment on the memo on some of my questions. i still have a concern -- this is not just redevelopment, actually. it is general, any reduction in funding for workforce development and job training, but i understand we have and others that led to some of those reductions. just showing that we have a continuance of job training. >> just to clarify, the committed -- the commission had committed over $4 million over three years for workforce development, and we are now in the second phase of the 18 months. while we did see the exploration of the area and the tax increment seceded, we did provide extra funds. just to keep in note that with all of our funding, and i think there were some reductions in some workforce organizations this year, we did more money in it organizations. that said, we were mindful that some of the organization's were not serving our project areas. under those recommendations, we cannot use our tax increment for anything outs

supervisor chu: thank you. on this item i would echo the comments from supervisor cam. my first reaction was -- another one of these contracts. we have to evaluate it to see if we want to renegotiate. understanding that the budget already anticipated half of a million dollars for this, i would not be thrilled to add more to the budget item without knowing more. but i can pass this along with the knowledge that it is a three-year agreement with one- year options to exit from it. i hope that the mta will reevaluate and if there is an opportunity to renegotiate, knowing that we will do so aggressively. on a larger message about bringing contracts forward to the board, as the supervisor said, it becomes harder and harder to agree to contracts that do not seem to be as advantageous. i know that there are changes occurring at the mta, but we want to make note of that as i do not know that this board and committee can continue to approve contracts. fat >> thank you, supervisors. we hear you loud and clear. supervisor

supervisor chu: thank you. budget analyst? >> madam chair, members of the committee, our recommendations that we provided last week totaled 1,460,008 $67. we're recommending cuts of 1,000,003481 $47. mr. ian hart will briefly go over the disagreements. they recommend approximately 70% of the reductions in this department. this department' recovers nine items in need -- in the general fund, but the department is basically disagreement with 75% of our recommended cuts. >> madam chair, members of the committee -- just to step through our reductions. on page 80, with regard to training, the department was allocated $16,950 for training in the current year. it is projected to spend less in the current year. therefore, we are recommending a reduction of $12,950, which is still low. it is above what is projected for next year. on page 81, in the past three fiscal years, the department has underexpended maintenance service agreements by over $1 million. the current fiscal year, that is also the case. the mayor's office

supervisor chu: thank you. given the budget analyst report, showing $3 million or so, there is no way to have that reallocated to any general fund except to actively appropriate from the department, correct? >> madam chair, member from the budget analyst at's office asks supervisor wiener a question. each year, there is an appropriation of two -$75,000 per resident in the city. in prior years, the mayor had deappropriated funds from the balance. the current budget we institutes funds previously taken out of this budget to make them whole. at this point, there was a supplemental appropriation of $3 million just a few months ago, an additional appropriation this year. right now, with what is in the budget, they are completely whole in this fund. if any funds are reduced, there would be protected about $3.5 million fund balance at the end of the fiscal year, 2011-2012, at the department projections are correct. you should know if any funds are taken out, they would have to be restored in the future. supervisor wie

supervisor chu: ok. to the budget analyst. >> madam chair, members, the agreed upon recommended reductions, these are general fund reductions, $295,101. as you know, we also recommended the one-time additional general fund revenues of $1,025,000, anticipated to be received by the district attorney's office. the total general fund savings for your consideration are $1,320,101. supervisor chu: thank you. the department is in agreement with the ongoing cuts for the department, in addition to the settlement dollars. >> yes, we are. supervisor chu: ok. colleagues, given that there is agreement, can we take those cuts without objection? ok, thank you. >> thank you very much. to go our next department is the adult probation department. -- supervisor chu: our next department is the adult probation department. >> good morning. i am the chief adult probation officer. i am pleased to report that we have worked with mr. rose, and public to thank he and his staff, and i would also like to thank the mayor's budget sta

supervisor chu: thank you. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this item? item 8. >> madame chair, supervisors, my name is tim. 25 years have passed since the loma create your quick and we have seismically updated or demolished all of the buildings near the civic center but two. the veterans building and the health department building. the federal building at un plaza is currently under reconstruction. the veterans building was damaged. no damages were repaired, but it was also seismically impaired. the next earthquake could cause incredible damage in the building and, particularly, damaged the theater. the engineering reports that are mentioned in your document talk about the building on a three out of 4 scale. in discussions with the engineers, reports, testimonies, the issue of whether the building should have been closed was raised. they recommended, if the city had a plan to be -- rehabilitate the building, it would be safe to leave the building open until such time it was clo

supervisor chu: thank you. budget analyst? >> yes, a couple more points in terms of clarifying our recommendation. what we are recommending against is one real property appraiser and one single property appraiser. rationale for the principal property appraiser is the supervisory functions that review work, we are recommended for one additional, which would give them 70 reassessments caseload -- which would give them seven reassessing the caseload. we thought it was actually quite reasonable. the other that we recommended against was a lower-level position, and that was based on an understanding that -- looking at what they actually achieved with seven positions limited to 1000 hours each, and the coming year will become regular positions that will not any longer have that limit. we felt that given the caseloads we were able to process in the current year that that was adequate. those are the main two things. the other thing, on the productivity measures, what changes are presented you with something we looked a

supervisor chu: thank you. a question -- with regards to the break-even policy, can you explain that a bid and whether it sounds like the rate setting happens at a particular point in time. did they anticipate there would be these renovations, and were they able to take into account the loss of revenue? >> yes. as you know, the airport budget is set at the beginning of the year with anticipated revenue coming into the airport for the year. any shortfall in the revenue would be made up by increasing rates and charges the following year. because the airport was aware that the work would be done, the loss of the $470,000 would have been contemplated in the budget and would be reflected in the rates and charges of the airport. supervisor chu: thank you. what we open up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on items one and it we will? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we send these items forward to the full board with recommendation? we will do that without o

supervisor chu: thank you. >> angelo king, a view hunters point environmental action committee. a couple of things really quickly. i want to do everything the reverend said. but also, he is absolutely right. our landfill diversionary rates are the most of the county and the nation. we did this hand-in-hand with recology. furthermore, they are the kind of operation that set up a recycling program, knowing full well that would cut down on the building for them, but because they knew that was the right thing, they put out their architects and engineers to facilitate that process so we can relieve some burden of that bill on the housing authority. this is the kind of company we are talking about. this is a company that reads with san francisco, even when we are giving tax breaks to other companies so they will develop roots here. they are always doing something philanthropic in the city. they are always out doing the community cleanups, district cleanups, things of that nature. this thing with the department of env

supervisor chu: with regard to the budget analyst recommendations, they are recommending the cuts based on historic spending levels. >> i believe when they look at our budget, and they see we have not extended those dollars, they recommend reducing or eliminating those dollars. while i appreciate it, i am not a fan of use it or lose it. some years, we're not able to use all of our dollars because we're focused on other things. sometimes our maintenance agreements fluctuate. i do not believe cutting our budget in this area because we did not spend it in the previous fiscal year is pretty. supervisor chu: so, what about this year would convince me that you are going to spend at this level? what is it? >> we have many maintenance agreements related to our equipment, to the new data center of equipment. a lot of the aging equipment around the city. again, because we are highly decentralized, a lot of departments have not maintained the equipment's -- equipment. date usually gets -- they usually get a one

thank you very much. >> supervisor chu: chu thank you -- supervisor chu: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion by supervisor mirkarimi to send the item forward with recommendation. we have a second. we can do that without objection. item four, please. >> item four, resolution approving the feeder agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district for payment of transfer trips with the term from july 1, 2009, to june 30, 2010. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have sonali bose from mta and jason lee. >> we are here this morning to seek retroactive approval. this is one of the two major agreements between the two agencies. you heard the fast as agreement a couple of months ago. as you remember, you table it, and now, it needs to go back and renegotiate. we are here with a second agreement appeared about a year- and-a-half ago -- after almost two years ago now, mta and bart began discussions. the agreement initiations were put as

supervisor chu: thank you. i believe that we have [unintelligible] for this item. >> good morning, supervisors. not to exceed 170 in terms of financial improvements on the building. i will speak specific to the certificate of certification. this requires the city to release the assets to the trustee. and then the asset goes back to the city. we have worked with at the department to clean up the two buildings and assets. that would be the opera house as well as the veterans building. they both exceeded the paramount of the bonds and are sufficient to act as collateral deficiency. we have lived with that assumption to capitalize interest, $168.4 million. with certificates of participation, investors require funding over the amount. under state law you are required to fund a capitalized interest during the construction. . as you can see, the bond was felt in somewhere around 2012. we had planned to fund the project and made a few assumptions here in 2012. through competition we can save up to $50 million. by appro

supervisor chu: thank you. given there is no general fund impact and no budget analyst report on this item, so if there are no questions at this time, we can open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. seconded by supervisor kim. without objection. item nine please. >> item 9. resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for the purchase of a permanent tie- back easement and a temporary construction easement over, on, and in portions of assessor's parcel no. 038-200-020 located in the town of hillsborough, san mateo county, and required for the crystal springs pipeline no. 2 replacement project, known as project no. cuw37801, for a purchase price of $87,570. supervisor chu: thank you. please also call item 10 and item 11. >> item 10. resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for the purchase of a two permanent access road eas

supervisor chu: mr. rose? >> madam share, on page 6 of the report would point out that the total cost to purchase the facility, as shown in table one on page 6 of the report, that amount does not include the total cost for needed capital improvements. as shown in the second table on page 6, the total capital improvements are currently estimated to range between 25,000 -- [unintelligible] on page 7 of the report, as shown on table 3, the total estimated cost of purchasing an occupying the facility, including acquisition costs, capital improvements, and other costs, would range between $40,000,000.50 $0.2 million. -- $40 million why and $50.2 million. we have compared leasing this facility with purchasing this facility. it would cost about 5,325,000 more, or about 99.1% more to lease, rather than purchasing. of course, capital purchasing would need to be constructive whether it was a lease for a purchase if this building could use the location for the medical examiner. currently we are considering approval of th