they have the least at the moment could >> correct, and they do not come out of our general fund chair chu: . and there is no savings because they come out of the general fund. what $6.1 million, what does that represent? that would be the money the fed have already spent. supervisor chu: we would be for fitting the money because they're not meeting the staffing level? >> correct. the 79 would be for the $11.3 million. the reality is it comes up to 171. we can work with the federal government as far as the $6.1 million and possibly negotiate with them. we are looking at that also. the reality is when you have almost 90% of the budget that pays for salary, there is no reduction we can have on the budget but police officers. supervisor chu: if there is a fair way to think about this, if

we do the layoff scenario, it sounds like we would have savings of $11.3 million, if we did it. but we would lose $6.1 million and so we would get about $5.1 million in savings but lose 171 officers? >> correct. supervisor chiu: if the overall budget is close to $470 million, 10% is $47 million. how does that compare? >> that is why i brought deborah because i asked the same question. >> i can't answer that and deborah can feel free to weigh in if she likes, but the way we calculate the target for the police department is we include a factor as we do in other departments for charter mandated expenditures. before we set targets for the police department, we back out a

factor for the staffing requirement in the charter. we calculate the value of the staffing requirements, the remaining general fund, the discretionary general fund. that is what we used to calculate the 10% target. it is not 10% of the total general fund, its 10% of the discretionary general fund. that's the case with most of the departments, we make an adjustment to the base from which we calculate the 10%. supervisor chiu: very clever. the number of sworn officers is -- >> 1971 para >> assuming we have 2200 officers -- is that approximately how you get to that? >> + civilian, staffing i.t. and

other things. >> another note to this 171 projected layoffs. the numbers are taken into consideration -- the 3% to 5% pay raise is due to the officers this fiscal year. these are the calculations based on the perret's being in the equation. -- the pay raise being considered in the equation. i'm going to talk about some of the issues -- i have instructed my command staff to come back with a 20% reduction in all areas, operation, administrative, and even my office as to how we can cut and get as many people out in the field as we can in the hall of justice. but as you see on the slide, all

of these things have come into conversation. i know that supervisor mirkarimi and myself have talked about community policing many times. possibly closing down some of the police stations, close the front desk after 5:00 and lock the door. chp does that on a regular basis. looking at the dog unit, we have two officers assigned. we have an officer assigned to the library overseeing civilian personnel and officers assigned to the misdemeanor courts. i am looking at possibly bringing them all back. there is no way around it. a brownout of sector stations, possibly closing district stations to reallocate resources in order to continue the high grade of service we give in terms of answering radio calls

and handling investigations. every idea is on the table as far as we have to do to handle the possibility of losing 171 officers. that is the completion of my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: you had walked through with us the balancing plan and had given the joint report. we talked about action to take the first 10%. we talked about the value of taking the first 10%, roughly $100 million. does that include the additional $11 million? >> that is correct. the calculation of the second 10%, about $108 million is the 10% for all departments combined. supervisor chu: what we are

connecting the dots back, when you talked about walking through the balancing plan, we had a $65 million gap, but that assumes we take this layoff proposal? >> correct. to get to that remaining gap would require we actually use reductions of the full value of the target. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener: you are saying right now the plan is to lay off 171 officers unless we figure out something else with the rays or some other source of revenue we do not have on the table at this time? >> i think the second 10% is on the table. this is what the department has said is the option and, based on

our situation with balancing, we need to look at the contingencies, so i think this has to be on the table, like other departments contingency plans are on the table, unless we can find an alternative way to do it. as he suggests, in the past, this is always an issue with several departments, the police department among them. they're very salary intensive and the bulk of their expenditures are in uniform salaries, so we kind of end up with this decision -- do we want to cut the number of positions, or is there a way to look at reducing costs through reducing cost per position -- looking at wage and benefit costs and whether there is an alternative way to go after that savings.

>> would you be able -- supervisor chiu: would you be able to provide what the specific cuts were across the department? i now remember the calculation formula you are talking about. it would be good to know which departments have either set- asides or staffing levels we need to keep in account. >> you want to see the total fund as opposed to the discretionary fund? >> particularly with the top 10 departments. this discrepancy between a 10% cut as opposed to 10% of the difference between the overall budget-what is mandated under the law -- would be helpful to put that into scale what you are asking as far as cuts department by department. >> i would be happy to provide that and, it is not unique to

this department that we do this. in human services, they have a huge amount of general funds, a large portion is exempt from the target calculation because it's our share of aid programs. other departments do something similar. i would be happy to provide that that is why we emphasize when we talk about percentage targets, we talk about a percent of the discretionary fund. >> -- supervisor chiu: even if we had the contingency cuts we are a long ways off. we would have to 20% cuts just to balance the budget unless we figure other solutions. >> that is correct. supervisor wiener: let me make

sure i am clear. if the police the further raise again, will that cover the entirety of the second 10% contingency cost? >> that's a good question. i have to get the exact number, but i believe so. it is right about the same value. i believe it is about $12 million. >> and then we would avoid layoffs? >> that would allow us to reach that goal without having to do that. supervisor wiener: my second question has to do with the federal grant funding. in terms of flexibility, you mentioned there could possibly be some flexibility in terms of reclassifying which officers are actually being paid by the federal grants, so that instead of being it -- instead of being

all of the most junior officers, it is 80 or 90 above that. if, heaven forbid, we have to do layoffs, and i know we want to do everything we can to avoid laying off a single officer, but if we had to cut that number in half by emphasizing which officers are being paid through the federal grant, i'm wondering if that would be possible. it seems ridiculous that in order to get any general fund savings, we have to lay off all of these officers we aren't paying for anyway. >> i agree. we cannot do that at a time, but we are looking to work closely with the federal government. if we were able to take the revenue from that and pay for other officers, it might drop into the '70s range. but i would be remiss to tell you my concern is not only the layoffs, but my concern is every

month we lose six or seven officers. if we do not get a more classes up in the academy, we will continue to lose officers whether we lay them off or not. i understand we are running into a perfect storm and we're looking at laying off existing officers as well as hiring officers at the same time. with reference to how we can work out how to not pay back the 6.1 -- we are looking at that. supervisor wiener: i think one of the reasons we were pressing in on the cost of those classes is that we are all interested. i know a number of us are very interested in trying to have academy class. i know that i am. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim: what are the additional costs of specialized

units? even if we were to disband a unit, we would still be keeping the officers, but maybe moving and around to different areas. are there specific administrative costs? >> that is just to look at all of these specialized units and get as many people as i can back to those districts. we're looking at narcotics, gangs, all of those units to say how many people do i need to be assigned to that yet to perform a function which i need them to perform. how many others can go back to back fill those stations? that's where i'm losing the personnel. supervisor kim: has the sfpd done an evaluation of these task forces? maybe one is not as relevant today. i'm familiar with many of these task forces and i would not want you to get rid of the community relations, for example.

are there certain units that may not be as high priority as they may have been previous? >> i'm not inclined to shut down a specific unit as much as pull bodies from the unit and run it more cost effectively. the k-9 unit and some of those entities, do we need those? i have a lot of officers that are alone for specialized task forces. i think in san jose, one of the agencies where they have shut everything down, they don't investigate property crimes anymore -- don't quote me on the san jose -- but they don't handle property crimes and they are investigating high priority crimes and that is it. supervisor kim: how seriously are looking at the closure of district stations?

how many districts stations? >> there are 10 district stations. supervisor kim: how many did we have 10 years ago? >> 10. supervisor kim: we always had 10? i was under the assumption we had fewer. the tenderloin station is fairly new and i thought the park station might have been created in the last -- >> the tender land was a task force and we moved them to the station. -- the tenderloin was a task force stationed. we have police stations that do not do the load of radio calls and crimes of others and it would not be a cost savings as much as it would be a personnel efficiency plan to move the stations back to the ones that need bodies. supervisor kim: i am very concerned about the efficiency of how we deploy our officers

depending on need. i think the current structure can sometimes stifled at a little bit. i know that new -- i know that no supervisor wants to lose his station. but we want to be able to give you the flexibility that you need to deploy officers to the area based on need and not just an equity between neighborhoods. there is clearly not equity among the neighborhood's in terms of the level of crime for public safety officers. supervisor chu: thank you. even taking a look at station's staff across the way, it's interesting and i think it might warrant a further conversation. but we only have 118 staff out of the 1300. but the patrol area is one- fourth of the city's

geographical area. i sink it's not illegal level of crime we see but how large of a space we are talking about. >> when we look at the deployment of resources -- it supervisor mirkarimi: i'm curious -- just in the time you have been in the san francisco police department, in your capacity as assistant chief and then chief, has anybody ever orchestrated the discussion to asked who is it that police part -- the police department keeps arresting? the reason i have asking is that when i look at the repeat offender rate, it looks like the police are spending a fair amount of time going after people who are repeat customers considerably and i don't know if -- it would be great to know if there has been any kind of discussion with all partners involved to zero in on -- you

are charged with taking care of that front and need. but it is a lot of people who are repeating their offenses, at least that is what the statistics are. has there been any discussion within the chief executive for criminal justice partners, the d.a., probation, adult and juvenile, sheriff, defender, etc. that is literally trying to address this? it feels like 8 merry-go-round's when the stats are fairly high on the question of recidivism, especially on the cusp of the fact we are about ready to receive, if this goes through, a prison realignment population from the state coming back into the city.

has that taken place? >> yes, and you bring up an interesting scenario. when you look at the studies across the united states and the focus on crime, there is a small percentage of people -- the same people commit the same crimes over and over again. we answer radio calls to the same locations over and over again. when you identify your victims and suspects at locations, that is how you get a focus on a problem is. you have to have issues were really the problem location and you continue to get the radio calls. are we are resting the same people over and over again? who are the people calling for police service? i would say hi percentage of this community, probably in the 90 percentile, have very little content -- real contact with the police department that have more than a traffic ticket they would say they did not deserve. but we -- we will never be able

to arrest ourselves out of the problem. the knot of time, effort and money it takes to put handcuffs on somebody and find them 24 hours later, it's a very -- that issue needs to be explored much deeper because we spend a lot of money and time on it. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we open this item up to public comment? is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on this item? seeing it none, public, disclosed. if there are no other questions from the committee, i would like to thank the chief for his presentation. there are a number of items folks on this committee are certainly interested in following up with. thank you for that. quickly, so we can recap, the items people were interested in was the civilianization

component. people are interested to see what would happen with the wage increase in the coming year. with regards to command staff, i think if further explanation would be the level of staffing we have across the board. with regards to i.t., i know that supervisor chiu mentioned that component. can we continue this item to the call of the chair? without objection. >> hearing to receive the update on the fire department's budget for fiscal year 2011-2012. supervisor chu: i believe we have the fire department to provide a presentation on this item. >> good afternoon. yes, we do have a presentation.

before we get started, i would like to acknowledge the presence of my chief financial officer who will be assisting in the presentation as well as the deputy chief of the administration. also the good work of the comptroller's office as well as our budget analyst for their assistance in getting as to where we are today. it has been a collaborative process. we did submit our budget to the mayor's budget office on february 22nd. it was that there are five member commission and submitted with their support. as we get started, i want to remind you that the mission of the san francisco fired marvin is to protect lives and property in this 49-square-mile city. we provide fire suppression, fire protection and the assistance of medical services in the city. in addition to being surrounded

by water on three sides, we do confined space rescue and all hazard response and protection. the department has the chief and i assisted by two deputies. one overseas the department and one oversees the administration. we have six deputy chiefs overseeing the airport which is funded through the airport. the support services division, homeland security, we have that fire marshal who oversees the investigation of training and as well as our ems division. the first slide -- and i believe all of you should have a copy. the department has approximately $306 million in our operating budget. approximately $280 million is

general fund dollars. we look at our budget sources and we see we are predominantly funded by the general fund which makes up approximately two- thirds of our funding. our second largest source comes from the public safety sales tax. fees for services like ambulance transport and fire prevention services account for approximately 10% of our sources. we are also reimport -- reimbursed by the airport and port for staffing and services that those entities. as far as our budget expenditures go, similar to what you heard from the police department, approximately 91% of our budget is set aside for salary and benefits of department members. that leaves approximately 9% of our budget for all of the functions needed to keep the department operating, including 50 facilities, 43 working fire stations, and it includes fire station maintenance, utilities to keep the lights on and

running at those facilities. maintenance and repair and fuel for vehicles and all administrative functions for the department. 91% as salaries and benefits. 9% is for all the other stuff. this next slide -- as we look at how the program funding breaks down, not a surprise. a large majority of the budget is designated for operations, which is our sole purpose. one of our biggest priorities is the provision for protection of life and property. direct fire suppression and emergency medical services we provide to the public, including the staffing of the fire stations as well as ambulances we have. the budget covers all the administrative and support functions, including workers' compensation for the department. as well as the division of

trading and fire prevention and investigation. as you know, prior to mayor newsom leaving to become lieutenant governor, all department heads were asked to submit to part of the 10% reduction. this explains how we arrived at that. the department was able to realize some savings in the auxiliary water system that was transferred to the puc. 2.5% was about $1.3 million, which we achieved. we realize some attrition savings from unfilled civilian positions as well as previous savings from non-suppression and blaze. the department received a reimbursement receive from the state due to be delayed we provided in 2008.

that was approximately $80,000. finally, the are always able to seat savings from the uniform allocation set aside for new academy classes by absorbing cost in our current year budget. we took approximately $258,000 for that. that rolls and to about $1.3 million. all of the items were taken as part of the 2.5% reduction that we made a. this next slide highlights -- the december savings, we needed to come up with the overall 10% which represents $5.2 million. approximately 573 in additional net revenues from back payments for rent. you see the line item. that is predominantly from rent we were owed to to some of the sites we have on some facilities.

as well as increases to profit -- to fire prevention revenues. we are seeing more people go to the bureau and get fire prevention permits. so we saw a slight increase in that. an additional $1.2 million in ambulance revenue is assumed and predicate on the assumption of the department regaining exclusive operating rights for san francisco, which i will get into in greater detail later in the presentation. 470,000 was for additional recovery for providing services. approximately $400,000 of the work order savings from the water bill. they are paying for the water bill for some of our facilities at the public utilities commission. they are assuming that water bill. approximately $2.5 million, a large portion, is in savings for

the continued deactivation co. -- deactivation of company 35. there is a major renovation under way at that station and has been deactivated. the proposal is to continue deactivation while the station is under renovation. that is approximately $2.5 million in savings. some of the increases reflect annual purchases stripped out of the budget as well as increases to premium and overtime pay as a result of the mou increases. these costs are absorbed by the department. i know that supervisor chiu, following the police department presentation, there's a similar formula for how the 10% was arrived at. one of the reasons it