you may say an inebriated person is not a critical response, however, there is always situations where we get called to a scene and there could be additional mechanisms. instead of being inebriated, they could have fallen struck their heads and are in need of immediate intervention. we would dispatch an engine company to get basic life- support rolling and on board, followed by the transport unit that comes to assist and takeover of the care. supervisor kim: why is the track necessary? i hear this a lot from constituents. they see fire trucks come off and for non-incidents in the tenderloin. as we look at cuts for meals for seniors and a drop in support for homeless folks, why do we have all these firetrucks coming

to address the one inebriated person on the ground? why not just send an ambulance? >> that has come up before. many times it's more than just an inebriated person. we don't want to take the risk. we have someone in need of medical attention, many times to people are not enough. if there are additional complications, to people to assess, treats and triage the person, it is more than a to- person job. some misstating miles signs, someone positioning them on a gurney, someone getting a metaphor transport. more often than not, it is a more than a two-person job. if it is something more serious, related to shortness of breath or a full blown cardiac arrest,

we need at least between four and six people. >> is it not possible to that more people in an ambulance? >> to respond in an ambulance, that is not a model i would support or see nationwide. i know a few years back, we had someone from the committee suggest we operate on mopeds. i have seen it in europe and i think it would be very risky in our situation. but a threat that country -- we look at best practices to see what our counterparts are doing in similar-sized jurisdictions. in some cases, we will put a third person on the ambulance, but not as a practice. many times, firefighter will drive the ambulance because you need both medics in the back, but not to start the call. >> -- supervisor kim: in the stations

you just mentioned, you recommend that those because they operate in areas where response time would not be significantly affected? >> yes. if i could put something up -- and not sure if this is going to work. if i could get the overhead projector. this is a schematic of our city and the different facilities we have and the highlights are the jurisdictions are referred to. you see station no. 2, a very busy station in a densely populated area. it's in the middle of a triangle between 28, 41 and 13. we look at call volume and then look at the closest engine possibility coming in as a second unit and still be able to meet the response time because that's important to us. similarly, station no. 5 is a busy station. it is surrounded by a number of

neighborhood stations. when we look at the call volume, the response time fell within the range we wanted to. station no. 14 -- we don't have as many around them, the call volume is less. we looked at the call volume and we look at some of the responding entities. station 51 is a new station we just took on in october. we entered a 10-year agreement with the golden gate recreational area. we have that asset to comer -- to cover some of that area. in the heart of the mission -- a very busy station. but our analysis shows some engine companies would be able to take on some of that load. nevertheless, and the asset you take away is an increase in the risk. it's not something i am advocating for, but if you are looking for additional solutions, recommendations,

things to consider, these are what we have come up with. supervisor kim: station no. 51 is completely funded? >> we get full funding for that. supervisor kim: station 7 is in the district represent. i don't think any of us want to see brownouts, but we have such heavy and tremendous decisions to make concerning what on balance we have to reduce services in. i would say i'm open to the concept, even if it is a closure in the district represent. supervisor chu: thank you. >> shall i continue? this highlights what i touched on earlier in terms of minimum staffing. the department's minimum staffing requirements total 300

numbers. that is for 24/7 and does not include the ambulance tear. it also does not include the staffing at engine 35, which we propose the continue deactivation with the $2.5 million savings. we also have our dynamic ambulance fleet. there were a lot of questions about the ems system and how it works. we have seen a reduction in our 911 transport. since 2008, with seen our share of transport reduced from 96% to approximately 76%. as a result, we have received reduce revenues on that. although it has not been as dramatic as we anticipated, because to offset that, we've

seen an offset in overall call volume. in 2008, the state may ruling that open up the 911 ambulance system to private providers. as a result, they have taken over a larger share of the patient transport. this has had a negative impact on our revenue is as a result of the decrease in run volume and increase to private. one thing we are following very closely, if you are following up with the assembly and the senate, we have watched very closely assembly bill 678 which is making its way through the legislature and is expected to pass without too much opposition. allows for the department to seek additional reimbursements on transport and the details are not spelled out yet but it is for government providers not private providers. we think this could increase our revenue stream by approximately $300 per transport.

that is a good thing. in addition, we're actively working with the department of emergency management to persuade the emergency medical services agency at the state level to go back to the way the city provided ambulance transport care. the city and county, has since 1895, we believe the scope and manner we offer the service has not changed. it is a bit of conflict from the original ruling came down in 2008. we are working closely to propose we go back to the way we provided the service and are hopeful and have assumed our budget next year additional revenue based on that. we are cautiously optimistic that will come down in our favor. supervisor chu: it looks like in

the budget reduction, there's an assumption of $1.2 million. that is talking about that exclusive right? >> that is my understanding. supervisor chu: i heard numbers that were significantly higher than 1.2. can you explain the numbers i have heard -- there were like $20 million. that is significantly different from 1.2. i'm wondering if you could go into more detail. >> with regard to our total ambulance revenue on an annual basis, it is around $21 million. that covers the entirety of our transports. an additional $20 million would be quite welcome but it is not realistic with regard to the change in the ordinance code.

supervisor chu: what is the assumption for the 1.2? >> it's based on a 15% increase to our call volume, prior to levels of the agreement, the opening of the system back to levels we were previously running. supervisor i know this is in its infant stages, but was there a component estimated for being able to charge private ambulance services for any portion of their access to san francisco? >> absolutely. whatever form of agreement the ambulance system takes in the city, whether we are allowed to follow through on the our opinion that we should have exclusive operating rights or if that falls through in some other agreement, that would definitely be part of the agreement for the city in general. currently, since there is no agreement, there is not really a way we could require them to

pay, but that would be incorporated into whatever agreements for the city ambulances that comes up through this process. supervisor chu: if there was an ability to close the system and to have that agreement, hypothetically, you would get the $1.2 million plus whatever would be part of it -- >> hypothetically, we could formal agreements that would allow us to income -- we could not only our increase transplants but in addition, the first response. supervisor chu: this is predicated on actions taken by the state, right? it would require changes in state legislation? do you know if there was anybody who would introduce that legislation? is it in process, or is it completely not? >> i will let the chief speak to that. >> we are working currently with them. it has not yet been introduced.

supervisor chu: we do not have a very clear idea when or if it would be introduced. it is still a fairly risky assumption at the moment. >> i would agree with you. moving on. supervisor chiu: i had a question for the mayor's budget office. given that the san francisco police apartment, while we were talking about trying to get to our contingency cuts, and if it is a trade-off between 171 layoffs that the chief had laid out or trying to negotiate something around pay raises, it seemed like your perspective was that you were having after conversations with the union there. could you explain in the case of fire department why is when we are trying to close a 1.7% cut across the entire budget, the $5 million we're talking about, and if we were able to get half of

the fire department's pay raise, we do not have to worry about the types of brownouts the chief is talking about. what is the mayor's perspective on this. >> i think it is the same answer, the same approach. we would much rather have the races than consider browning out fire stations -- we would much rather have the raises. supervisor chiu: 1 question to the fire chief. i do not think our body has yet been on the record in supporting the change we are talking about ambulances. would that be helpful for us to indicate our support? >> yes, it would be. i'm happy to work with your office and provide you the work we have done to date, and if we get a letter of support, that would be very much appreciated. supervisor chiu: or some sort of resolution of the board on this issue? immigrate. supervisor chiu: what is the

timing? >> obviously, the sooner the better, but we could work with your office to move this forward. supervisor chu: i would imagine a number of people would be interested in being part of that action. thank you. >> moving on, and this came up in greater detail at the government's audits and oversight, and it all made sense when they met last week, they ask the five top spending over time departments to present. you saw three departments trending down with, which is a good thing, and fire department was trending upwards, which is counterintuitive the way we staff and the way we budget -- you saw three departments trending downward.

we do have minimum staffing requirements, which i explained a little bit earlier. these positions are filled with members working there normally scheduled hours or with overtime. the department has used over time in a greater manner over the last few years to fill vacancies rather than hiring new employees. it has continued to do so in light of the current economic climate we are in, and at this point, it is more fiscally efficient to do so. i'm not a huge fan of having a lower fte count, but it has proven to be more efficient to staff on overtime. we have looked at other departments, and they have at least the same percentage we do if not higher, but i'm interested in having the discussion here it makes sense to bring back some of what we

have cut. it would mean a larger budget for the department, though. we have policies and procedures in place to monitor over time with respect to the ordinance that was in place for the department. we have worked closely on exemptions for employees, and with this slide, it talks about the overtime capped -- cap. the of the slide on overtime talks more specifically to some of the other ways over time is burned. through fire prevention and mutual aid. -- the other ways overtime is burned -- is earned. then mutual aid -- we are part of the mutual aid agreement the state of california has entered into. also, we will be deployed for

wildfire or other neutral 8 response abilities -- other mutual aid responsibilities. we have had almost $2 million paid to us by the state for our mutual aid partnership. supervisor kim: i could not see it on the presentation -- can you remind us what the overtime budget was allocated for the 2010-2011 fiscal year? >> approximately $25 million. supervisor kim: [inaudible] >> i think -- what? 19. we are projected to be within our overall budget. our overtime expenditures are going to run a little over, but it will be offset by the line item for salaries because we do have a cut coming in, but it is

starting later than we had projected. we will be living within our budget. overtime expenditures will be taking a little bit higher, but we will use funding that will be offset through salaries. i just want to offset my numbers. general fund over time is $21 million. today expanded is little over $18 million. -- to date extended -- to date expended. we will have 36 members in the academy, and we are transferring over three members. the academy is approximately $1.6 million for roughly 16 weeks in the academy. that includes the salaries for

the new employees as well as training staff. some of that is because of when the members go out in the field because they've -- there will actually be somewhat of a savings because when they are working, we pay less overtime at the higher rate. but this is the first class we have hired in five years. supervisor kim: i'm not sure how relevant this is or how much it has an impact on the overtime budget, but can we do an analysis on the overtime budget by rank, like how much we allocate by rank -- for example, firefighter compared to battalion chief? >> we did take a look at that, and it is proportionate to the number of members we have in each class. we are paying more time to the firefighters, and the higher you go in classification, the fewer opportunities there are for overtime.

it is based on the numbers within the class. supervisor kim: thank you. >> ok, this next slide is more of a visual graphics on the overtime that we have proposed for the next fiscal year -- more of a visual graphics -- visual graphic. fire prevention is the next largest category, but like i said, all those costs are recovered in revenue, and there is a small amount of overtime -- approximately 4% -- allocated to the remaining divisions. i know supervisor chu had a question for us and probably other departments about america's cup. very exciting for the city. there will be lots of work to do. we do have a station.

we are closely working with the port and other agencies in planning and preparing for the 34th america's cup. we anticipate the re-staffing at pier 22.5, and i wanted to let you know that we were awarded recently $8.75 million in port security grant funding for a variety of projects, the bulk of which is a new fire boat for the department, and we hope to have that in service by the america's cup races in 2013. these grants will be coming to the board in the near -- coming before this committee and the board in the near future. at this point, that concludes my formal presentation. i will be happy to answer any questions for you related to the department. i know you have challenging work ahead, and i will commit to you our willingness to work together and try to find a

solution. supervisor chu: thank you. we do not have any questions at this moment, i would like to open the item up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? if so, please come up. >> hello, supervisors. i have a question, and i would like to face our fire chief, for my question, which i have dreamed to see what answers you have. i'm very upset when i see what happened to japan. i would like to ask my grateful chief fire, if we have something like that -- i wish not, i wish it would never happen, but if we

have something like that, what can we do to teach every one of you to help their community. i am one of the -- one who depend on the fire chief for a long time. when i tell her i will take it to the homeless, she puts money in her own pocket to make me happy with 50 people, she pays for them. ladies and gentlemen, ross mirkarimi en uneveryone of you should give her respect -- and every one of you should give her respect. if we have earthquake or fire in our building or our community,

what we can do until her department can show up. i wish she would give me an answer if you give her time. maybe she has a plan better than my plan, and maybe she can help us if we have any problem like that happen in the future, which i wish not. she is here, and we would like to hear what she can do and what she can plan. supervisor chu: 90. are there any other members of the community who would like to speak? please come on up. >> thank you, supervisors. i want to mention a couple of things, why you should consider granting the fire department a little bit of slack in terms of the cutbacks you are expecting. one, taking the long-term financial performance of the various departments, if you look

at fire department, it has been very lean and efficient over the last 20 years. since fiscal year 1990-1991, until last fiscal year, the general fund grew by about 130%. during that time, for example, the police department's budget, not surprisingly, went up by about 126%. which is not bad. kept pace with the general fund. by comparison, the fire department went up by only 30% over 20 years. it has been run very efficiently, especially over the last six or eight years. and eat you check, for example, the number of lost workdays due to sick leave and disability leave, that has been improved upon very much. i think the fire fighters have responded. in addition to the fact that over this time, the department

has absorber em -- absorbed ems, and the number of runs the fire department is handling is double what it was just 20 years ago with the same total number of personnel on duty. supervisors, your district is the host to station one, and you will find it is competing with station 34 having the busiest engine company in the united states each year over the last 10 years. that productivity gain support, and the other thing i want to remind you is prop f from 2005, which was approved by the voters to maintain the level of fire protection in the city. that is important. supervisor chu: 90. any other members of the public who wish to comment on item two?

seeing none, public comment is closed. -- supervisor chu: thank you. if there are no other questions from the committee, i want to thank the chief for your presentation and for the information. i'm positive we will continue to have conversations going forward with the budget process and the mayor's office, so i want to thank you in advance for that. we can do so, can we continue this item to the call of the chair? without objection. thank you. are there any other items today? >> that completes our agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.