an administrative aide position. and i also know there are up front costs in civilianizing, so i am curious to how the program has gone in the cost impacts. >> supervisor, it is at the comptroller indicated, that is a balancing act with identifying positions that can be civilian ized and adding positions to the budget. we had an aggressive program years ago in better financial times, and we feel quite a number of positions, i think approximately 100, over a two- year period to move forward with

a program to identify these. some repositions, unfortunately, because of the budget constraints were eliminated. we have what classifications would be appropriate, and we way those in terms of establishing priorities for which could move forward and be filled. for example, we just hired 15 new community service police aides, and they started a special class this week to assist with the non peace officer duties, in particular looking at customer service out in the field, and that will eliminate some of the duties of the police officers so they can be better deployed.

chair chu: thank you, supervisor wiener. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: what about economizing approved using other partners, like the sheriff's department, for example, since we have sworn personnel in the sheriff's department? stationed transfer unit, the serving of warrants, felony warrants, etc. it dollar for dollar, it is probably a little more savings on the efficiency of allowing another department to do some of the work that has some of the same credentials to do so. it what sort of assessment is there and perhaps dollars savings? >> i have not done any assessments. we can look at that income back. supervisor mirkarimi: with the

controller like to opine on that? >> suba, supervisor mirkarimi, we didn't look at certain functions last year, with the sheriff's department and the police department. i can recall the results of that review at this moment, but i will be happy to pass them to the committee. inmate transfer, warrant serving, fingerprinting function, and a couple of others. so i would be happy to pull the analysis. supervisor mirkarimi: that would be helpful. i was looking at how that was summarized in your current budget, and it was not clear that those recommendations were implemented, so i am curious if that is in line for the upcoming budget consideration. >> we can look into that. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you.

chair chu: thank you. >> continue? chair chu: yes, please. >> with the grants, i do not think we do our best job in that. we need to actively seek out as many grants that we can get, and we are looking to do that. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you for bringing that up. to the comptroller's office or another, do we have, with best practices, an idea of what other municipalities do with the grant procurement for their police department? is there any way to about the way if we are on target or not? >> supervisor, it is a great

question. i just confirmed with the comptroller that i do not think either of us have an easy way to answer that question, but it would be worth looking into and see, like you say, compared to our peers, as we are bringing in. i do not have a sense on whether we are doing better or worse or the same, but i think you'd be worthwhile to say, and if we are not stacking of well, what services other folks are tapping into that we might look at. i think it is a good idea. chair chu: thank you. >> ok, when we go back to the slide, looking at the fringe. $4.40 million for dental and so on and so forth with the fringe broken down. the next slide talks about this goat 2011, 2012.

if you look at the rays, it goes up to $265 million, so it is an increase just in the hourly cost of the mobsters themselves. the good news, i have a good news slides, as you can see from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007 projected and fiscal year 2012, especially in one, we decrease in overtime from the general fund, and how we do that is we are very more attendant for the overtime costs for court appearances, looking to see if we can use some of the grant funding to supplement the overtime costs. supervisor, i get an overtime report every two weeks. it is a real simple process. we do the math, and there is a certain amount of time they get to perform their function, and i look at it every two weeks to

make sure we stay below, and we do a very good job of that. fiscal 2011, 2012, this last slide it basically talks about the reduction we have already given back. the fiscal year was a need your reduction, and the reduced through attrition, retirements, those who have left the department, slight revenue increases, and some current-year savings, that comes out to about $11.30 million. if we were to give back another 10% or another $11 million -- i have got to jump in here and tell you that as chief of this department, i would be remiss if i did not tell you that i would like to have all of the money. this budget gets titans, in you and this board have to make decisions as to who gets this funding, i also understand that after-school programs, domestic

violence programs, daycare programs, and all of the others who will come up and talk about their budget, in order for the police department to be successful, they have to be successful, so i understand that the budget has to go around to the other departments. for us to give back the $11 million second 10%, $11.30 million contingency would be 79 officers. now, in order to deeply to those 79 officers, because most of those officers, especially those that have the latter was with the grant funded, we would then have to lay off the 50 officers that are grant funded. then we would have about a $6.10 million give back to the federal government because we laid off those 50 officers, even though i am sure we can negotiate with the federal government in reference to that.

conceivably, worst-case scenario, we could lay off 17 per district or 171 officers. that is what the numbers would be. chair chu: could you explain this a little more proof for the additional $11 million contingency, which essentially represents another 10% reduction, what you are saying is what? >> first of all, the grand officers are not a savings. we get a grant for the first three years, so those 50 would go out the door first because they are not in our budget. they were hired from the grant funding. chair chu: so what i hear you are saying is that if you are to meet the additional 10% contingency, where you go would be a lay off, and the first officers to go would be the

grant funded positions because 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