>> i know harvey rose -- looking at the legislative analyst report the president chiu, and the board of supervisors on revenue and expenditures i am wondering if you could comment on the potential risks a supervisor breed said, digging into the budget stabilization reserve or other reserves. what are the risks involved? >> we can provide more information on this. the city does like everyone else, goes through economic cycles, revenue cycles up and cycles down. proposition a and the policy that followed were meant to insulate the city; when times were better more money could be saved. the city adopted a rainy day reserve in 2004 which provided

helpful relief during this period but our analysis at that time indicated that we needed more to avoid really significant service cuts streaming down the economy. we can never predict when that downturn will occur which is part of the challenge frankly a budget revenue projections but we do know that when it does occur, having adequate reserves help us carry us through to the extent possible.although we have improved at this level (indiscernible) -- from a high-level perspective the concern that creates for us and the mayor and the board in adopting this policy was the you have less money available at the exact moment in time when the demand for public services tends to be the highest? when unemployment is higher? when the economy sucking down? i think that is what this reserve was intended to get to.

>> we specifically commented on two different reserves, the litigation reserve and the -- benefits reserve and we continue to stay to the board of supervisors that there is the potential of reallocation of 3-10 minute dollars in those two reserves based on prior experiences and projections to the best that we know them today. >> thank you. >> supervisor breed? >> supervisor breed: just two quick questions for clarification. i know that there are a lot of different funds and in this particular case is this where reserves are kept for potential litigation? >> to the controller. >> supervisor breed, the two

reserves that mr. rose mentioned, one, the litigation reserve to handle comparatively small dollar value settlements. it is historically budgeted around 9 million dollars. we are doing a review of our spending of the 11 1/2 month mark and we do expect to see savings this year in the litigation reserve, and we will provide that to the board on an update to the board later today. the second reserve, the salary and benefits reserve is also reserve budgeted annually by the mayor and the board to account for mou related expenses that aren't directly budgeted in the departments. such as police department

retirement payouts; we do not project at this point to have savings in the current year. i think that mr. rose rightly pointed out that the last year at this time or roll forward approximately six dollars and that reserve to the current year budget. the purpose for that carry forward was to pay for the expiration of furlough days in the police department in the current budget that were not explicitly in the police department so we had a very explicit use. >> supervisor breed: we are proposing to take what we will put into this reserve and utilize that basically to potentially utilize that through this current budget process, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> if i can respond, yes. we can choose not to and maybe

we don't have to come up with an agreement with the mayor's office, -- to fulfill the priorities that we are trying to achieve at the boarded the the mayor with the next couple of days and to answer your other question, we can choose to suspend a portion of the 60 million dollars before the budget stabilization reserve, maybe suspend half of it and maybe still make a deposit, significant, into the budget stabilization reserve to be available for smoothing out our loss of revenue when we have an economic downturn in the future which happens every three or four years. >> supervisor breed: last clarity question. we are here, and budget analyst

report says that the objective is to use the projected 23.4 million in budget savings -- whereas in looking at the controller's numbers here, i guess it is 20 million, a little bit of a difference and i don't know what is the accurate number that we are potentially proposing. >> mr. controller? >> supervisor breed another good question. is referencing the budget savings fund, a different account that when departments save money over the course of the year, 75% of it ends up in this fund which is historically reappropriated in next year's but for one-time expenditures like equipment and capital and programs. >> just to clarify supervisor

breed, on that item i believe the board of supervisors approved file 130552 the other day. our report -- for the item that supervisor avalos has introduced, we do state on page six of that report that this resolution would suspend deposits to the budget stabilization reserve for 13-14 and 14-15 so the remaining projected balance with continued at the 12-13 ending balance of 102.5 but in dollars and in addition the resolution if it is approved to suspend the 13-14 and 14-15 budget the 13-14 we continue allocated - and the 14-15 would contain

14,377 million. >> and the idea is not to pull money out of the budget stabilization reserve but to not put as much -- or what was scheduled to go in the deposit. >> supervisor farrell: perhaps we should hear from mayor's budget director on this item also? >> thank you supervisor. briefly in response to one of supervisor breed's question, you're right to be present the five-year financial when here in this committee and it does continue to projected at the shortfall in the remaining three years of the five-year projection. the mayor has presented a two-year balanced budget for the next two years but that does not necessarily mean that we are out of the woods for the subsequent three years.

you probably remember that in my presentation at many of your town halls i talked about over the next five years projected revenues will grow by 13 percent; that is what is assumed on our budget over the five-year period. at the same time we expected our expenditures will grow by 25 percent just at the same city government that we have today so to the degree that the economy than place an additional role, whether revenues are better or worse than what the project, those deficits in those out three years will be smaller or larger. the other thing that i wanted to remind the committee of is that in both 2008 and 2009, some of you will remember that the city had to make really significant budgetary cuts during june in the budget but we also made midyear

reductions. we did so in 2009 because of the economic downturn. and so i think it is important to remember that those reserves -- we use a rainy day reserve in 2009 to help balance the budget. that is what that money is therefore. i would just caution us about not making a deposit that we are committed to making and i certainly look forward to working with you, and i know the mayor does over the next few days. >> supervisor farrell: thank you ms. howard. any questions colleagues? we have to go to public comment on this item? no, mr. city attorney. >> we had public comment on this item last friday. >> (off mic)

>> discussion did not occur until after public comment passed, so we do need to take public comment. >> supervisor farrell: we are still missing supervisor wiener coming off bart. it is 11:35, going into recess for 15 minutes, give supervisor wiener a chance to come back and we will reconvene at 11:50. motion going to recess? >> hold on. (returning from recess)

>> (off mic discussion) (gavel) f >> welcome back to the budget and finance committee for june 26, 2013. coming off recess beginning with items 6 and 7. can we speak mr. clerk two items 4 and 5. items 4 and 5 are no longer

under the jurisdiction of the budget finance committee. >> supervisor farrell: thank you for that clarification. continuing for budget items up first we have the police department. >> good morning supervisors. as far as the recommended budget cuts from the budget analyst, the original budget recommended cuts were 2.643 million we would agree with 1.46 million. i cannot agree with the cost for the housing authority; the officers at work housing authority it offers likability to keep those area safest.

recommended in year two we agreed to 716,195 recommended reductions but can't agree to the 1 million for the officers. >> supervisor farrell: okay, thank you chief any questions for the chief? whether we go to the revised report. >> mr. rose: recommendations are on page 16, and in 13-14 result is- i'm on the wrong page excuse me - page 24. the recommended reductions total 1 796,016 and 1, 842,643

and in 14-15 the total recommended reductions are 1,016,195. my understanding is, if i understand with chief is stating, he agrees with the recommendations except for on page 26 of our rerport the 1,016,195 regarding the san francisco housing authority, item under contention is on page 26. >> supervisor farrell: to be clear it was a 2.6 million number inclusive of the million dollar housing authority, now

whittled down to 1.8 million, inclusive of the housing authority. >> mr. rose: actually really unencumbered closeouts it's a -0 if you would subtract it would be about 800,000 left. similarly in 14-15 we're talking about 1,016, 195, but of that amount -- excuse me, that would be entirely agreed-upon, the 14-15 amount, nothing there about the housing authority. >> supervisor farrell: so we're talking about purely fiscal year 13-14 this agreement at this point in time and nothing to do with 14-15. >> except that they zeroed out

14-15 and we want it to remain for both years. >> mr. rose: we are undertook the occasion that ms. howard has clarified that the unencumbered expenditures have been taken so withdraw the recommendation. page 27 of the report. >> supervisor farrell: there seems to be a discrepancy between you commented there is not agreement regarding the second fiscal year we are talking about here and i think the chief is articulate in something different. i want to be clear. >> mr. rose: oh, excuse me. it's the other way around. i'm sorry mr. chairman that was my mistake. the chief is correct on that. >> supervisor farrell: okay so it is that 1,016,195, if we

were to reject the recommendation then there would be a zero dollar reduction in year two. >> mr. rose: that is correct. >> supervisor farrell: okay. colleagues? questions? supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: if you could explain the need for that 1 million to better police the housing authority buildings, if you could explain and justify that again? >> essentially this is the community policing model, the same officers, a desired assignment, 32 officers plus supervision. the overtime makes it is sought after assignment where i can have complete likability and officer's schedules. case in point on tuesday there was a double shooting that

resulted in homicide at west point/middle point. the first responders were these 32 officers, the vehicle was identified, location was isolated, sks assault rifle and a glock pistol with an extended magazine, those were recovered by the officers in the two suspects; the case was made and the 14 yeard old and 19 -year-old responsible for the homicide were arrested. since the shooting there were other problems that could potentially present themselves. we have the flexibility to move these offices around. they are in the public housing, working with the neighborhood, allows for connectivity.

since 2004 there has been a 22% reduction in calls; they're not junior officers, they're not just going in and out. >> and again the commitment from the police department is in excess of 6 million dollar that this other million-dollar matches. >> from your other testimony it allows you flexibility to have 12 hour shifts to deploy more strategically? >> in a static deployment it would be a 12 hour shift. in this case we could double up or ask the authors to work a

14-hour day or bring officers on that day off. the officers seek out this assignment. >> and without this extra million dollars, can you explain that would hamper or hinder your efforts? >> they would work a fixed 10 hours just like the other officers in patrol in any movement of the shifts or days would be in an emergency situation unless that overtime would have to come from the existing 9.4, 9.6 depending on the mta that we would use. and will use that this weekend. >> that is helpful but. this is maybe more of a general request. i know that since the zone strategy and incidents like the

t-line violence a few years ago it shifted staffing to some key stations that have more crime or there is more of the need. i'm wondering given some of the concerns about tenderloin advocate fund, public safety, you can provide staffing levels for each of the stations. if it is sensitive information that can't go out to the public could you provide that to our office so that we know that staffing levels over the past three years have been evened out so that each of the stations has adequate staffing. >> worst-case scenario it is down 15 percent staffing. -- as was the case of any housing area where they had a housing complement. i believe tenderloin received more officers because they are and fto station that they are

now down 7%. the traffic companies have been bumped up back to normal because of the training involved and with the pedestrian safety priorities here in the city as well. >> supervisor mar: and i know you have to deploy to where you will strategically need more officers. my concern is that you have adequate staff so that is why i have a request of that information. also the new academy will help with increasing staffing levels and i want to ensure that the stations are adequately supported even if you have to strategically deploys you need to. >> i want to assure you that the smaller houses, places that enjoy lower crime levels, when they got to 15% down, nobody

was allowed to take personnel off the stations. the pain was shared equally. the difference is that we have certain specialized units that we move around as we anticipate or experience concerns with regards to violent crime and those officers are not routinely deployed to the areas that don't experience those levels of spikes in violent crime. >> supervisor mar: thank you for providing that information and my staff wold like to follow-up with your staff. >> supervisor farrell: do we want to go to the budget analyst office? >> -- i do have to reiterate the recommendation for reducing the overtime for the housing authority detail based on the audit finding and we are not recommending -- to undermine in

any way the community policing program but we see no evidence that the two hours of overtime in any way enhances the program rather than to schedule 10 hour shift which they are already providing. we already see a great deal of efficiency in their staffing; they have an overlap shift on wednesday when they have double playe staffing and every wednesday with no indication that they need double the police force and housing authority whether there is an improvement in the community leasing program by overlapping and double staffing every wednesday. this overtime, i know there is flexibility in the regular staffing. if they need to switch shifts around, they have a flex ability, already knew they need to change the regular officers assignment they have the flexibility. they showed no need for the overtime and it seems to me the cost the city could better use elsewhere.

>> having been pretty much in every staffing committee that the police department has had over 32 years i have to respectfully this agree with ms. campbell. wednesdays is also a day when we scheduled things like this summer it will be midnight asked about. we take full advantage of the fact that we have additional housing officers on those days and the officers well into the evening utilizing some of the overtime to do just that, to try to engage folks that would otherwise be engaged in less productive activity. >> supervisor breed: from a community perspective, i didn't really understand the details of exactly why one point the san francisco housing authority was paying this additional fee in order to have the same support in terms

of what i believe everyone else should have in the city. i was concerned also that because initially this money was coming from public housing that with the challenges that we will be facing in the next couple of years we need to save every dollar which is why i think it is appropriate for the city to reserve this particular expense. and this expense being reserved by the city definitely helps alleviate the burden of public housing responsibility with this expense. one of the challenges -- one of the frustrations, i know that of course there is a poa and they do protect their members and there are certain

things that they do with the understanding of the ability to deploy officers in a way that effectively serves our public housing residents. it definitely has had a positive impact over the years. i wasn't completely as i said -- and i don't necessarily think the chief has mentioned the fact that with the way that shifts work and i don't know if i'm starting this appropriately, it is not always easy to get the same officers in the same locations consistently during regular times and also for event times. i never understood why one of our officers would always call me, check in and say i am going to be there whereas before we do not have that but i thought they were helping us out and doing us a favor but i realize that a lot of it has

to do with the flexibility and the ability to again move people around in various kinds of situations and i know that i enjoy that relationship. i don't want to do anything to jeopardize that relationship. i still continue to have challenges fortunately not as bad as it has been in the past. i know that has a lot to do the combinations of things which includes the department but also includes a lot of the community-based organizations working together and sadly it includes the loss of life, from jail as well as some people who are not here with us any longer. i don't want us to go backward. i understand we have a fiscal responsibility to be responsible about the budget overall. there are better ways to do

things. and i wish there was a better way to change what is negotiated between the poa and the city in order to make this a better, more financially -- more financial cost savings to the city but unfortunately i don't have direct access to negotiate those deals which is why i'm going to be supporting the chief's recommendation. i need these officers. i need their support. i need their enthusiasm in my district. i need a consistency. more importantly, and a more recent example -- not recent but a couple of years ago -- i remember because of our developed relationship with a lot of our housing authority cops,