have housing that they do not want to leave, property-rich but cash-poor, whether the case may be, do we have an infrastructure set up to accommodate or anticipate the level of need? >> no, as you will see but the percentage, the city and county augments the service now. depending on what the state does -- we're very much dependent on the state funding for this. but we are seeing a steady increase in the population that need the services, and we may have seen a couple of spikes as we move people out of laguna honda. but this is something that we monitor. every month, we are running our staffs on the clients. it is something that is a little bit fluid. it is whether the longevity of people staying and needing the services versus the new ones coming in. you're balancing people on both ends of that sector. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, thank you. supervisor chu: thank you very

much. i believe we have done public comment for this item. we had a budget analyst report. so colleagues, can we accept the amendment to change the total amended about for the public authority agreement from $419,058,271 to $419,187,910. >> motion. >> so moved. supervisor chu: we will do that without objection. under -- and then on the underlying item without objection. ok, next item. >> item 3, resolution authorizing the airport commission to accept and expense funding in the amount of $600,500 from the transportation security administration for the airport k-9 explosives detection team program. supervisor chu: thank you. we have a member of sfo. >> good morning.

gosset with the san francisco airport. the airport is requesting your authority to accept and expend the funds for the operation of the canine explosives detection program in the amount of $600,500. the grant money will be used to partially reimburse the airport operating funds for expenditures associated with operating our canine team, which involves personnel, vehicles, food, and veterinary services for the dogs. this particular grant funding is dependent on federal appropriation announce, as well as a number of other regional airports who choose to participate in the reimbursement. sfo has been fairly aggressive about pursuing these funds. as a result, we're able to access some federal money that was left on the table by other airports at the end of the federal fiscal year. it is before you today. i would be happy to answer any

questions, but this is something that we used to reimburse the airports for the costs associated with operating the program. supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, there is not a general fund and back, so there's no budget analyst report. if there's no objections from the committee, let's open this up for public comment. do many members of the public wish to speak on this item, number three? seeing none, public comment is closed. on the item, can we accept it and send it forward with recommendations? we will do that without objection. thank you. the next series of items are related to mou's. these are actually part of the functions that we made in the budget that was passed in july of this year. there is an item that i do have to recuse myself from. so if we can actually pull the items that i do not have to recuse myself from first, and

then we will do the others after that. if we can call item number four, six, seven, eight, and nine, and not call item number 5. >> item four, or in adopting and implementing amendment number 5 to the 2007-2013 memorandum of understanding between the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco firefighters local 798, unit two. item number six, or in its adopting in implementing amendment number four to the 2007-2013 mou between the city and county of san francisco and the sentence is the police and officers association, a unit p- 1 and p-2a. and the 2007-2013 mou between the city and county of san francisco and the municipal association of fire. item number 8, or in its adopting and implementing amendment number four to the 2007-2013 mou between the city and county of san francisco and

the san francisco police others association, a unit p-2b. item number nine, adopting and implementing amendment number 4 to the 2007-2013 mou between the city and county of san francisco and the municipal executives association, police, by extending the term to june 30, 2015 and by implementing specified terms and conditions of unemployment for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have a member from the department at human-resources. if i can ask you to speak on the contract briefly about what they are, what they include, and leave out item number 5.

>> good morning, supervisor. i am the employee relations director with the department of human resources. i am happy to be here today to share with you yet another wage concession package agreed to buy the city's public safety unions, in particular, firefighters union, local 798, and the san francisco police officers association, and also included the management group's for police and fire. what you see before you is a package in which the unions, and these have been ratified by the members. the members have agreed to begin sharing in the cost of increased retirement contributions.

this will be a first for the city and county of san francisco. it models the agreement reached between labor and the board of supervisors and the mayor's office in regard to an additional retirement cost- sharing that is going to the ballot. whether or not the measure passes, these employees will begin retirement contributions at a level of -- at a level of 3% additional to the amounts they're already paying. that will be a package which will produce between $20,000,000.30000000 dollars additional over the next two years. we have three moving pieces to this agreement. number one, we have a wage referral for each contract, and i will be excluded references to the unit one and 798 referring to a unit two. but we have wage referrals in the police contracts, fire

contracts, and the value of 0.5% for your wind. and then in years one and two, we start seeing the 3% retirement contributions kick in, and in years three and four, under the agreement, they have all agreed to agreed to, abide by, and waive any contract to implement the consensus measure on retirement that is now before the voters. with that, we had the third moving piece, which is contingencies. what happens if a pension measure that the unions feel unfairly disadvantage is their members, then the concession stops. this particular provision is modeled on last year's agreement, in which case the public safety unions said if proposition b passes, then the

concessions they give that year would stop. this year it'll be known as proposition d, and if that passes, than the existing terms of the mou's will act as a contract to the enforcement of that measure. that measure stands in contrast to the measure that the mayor and board of supervisors has placed before the voters. with that, we believe we have a contract that saves us at least the 20 two million dollars, as referenced by the controller's report. that is essential to the budget, and the city's budget was built around at these savings, so we feel that this is the fourth year in a row that the police and fire contracts have stepped forward with concessions. we thank them for that. we recommend this contract for your approval. supervisor chu: thank you. in summary, for the fire, as

well as fire unit two, we see wage deferrals of 1% for six months, and that is effective july 1, 2011. and then effected july 1, 2012, we are going to see that those employees and those bargaining units will begin paying an additional 3% on pensions, basically. >> correct. supervisor chu: and for the police and the different units, we will see a 2% wage deferral for three months, effective july 1, 2012, and the same 3% retirement contribution beginning july 1, 2012. >> correct. supervisor chu: all of the savings, the $22 million, is roughly anticipated in the budget we just passed? >> yes, in years past, we have had the contingencies affect the wage concessions that were in effect at the time of the election. this year, we wanted to ensure

that those 3% contributions would stick and would not be affected. and with the 1% wage increase. if the proposition d or some other state measure passes that is detrimental to the unions, then what happens as a remedy, this year as opposed to last year, is that we have got the protection in the two out-years, or the concession, in essence, would not continue, and that would be the difference between this year and last year. but it is the same principle. labor was clear that they're not going to take a way to decrease, start contributions, and then live with additional burdens that they feel were unfairly placed before the. if that happens, we have an agreement that we go back to the bargaining table and negotiate from that point, and those would be subject to the charter. so if we were to reach impasse, we would have binding arbitration over that pursued. supervisor chu: if we were to

approve these contractual commitments, we would realize a savings from the percentage of deferrals on wages, and we would continue to see the 3% pick up from the employees on retirement contributions irrespective of what would pass. and then what happens is if a certain measure would pass. >> yes. we had a 1%. when the two years of 3% retirement contributions additional to what their plan. if prop d or another state measure passes in san francisco, then we will see renegotiations of what happens in the years passed that implementation, and that is subject to interest arbitration. in the meantime, by virtue of the contract, the existing language would already bar implementation of prop d or many other provisions. the contract already says that the retirement contribution is locked in at 7.5%.

that exists already, even if we did nothing today. what we're saying is that there is a waiver to go ahead and start paying unde, under the agreement, if that is implemented, but not for prop d. supervisor chu: ok. we do not have a budget analyst report. i no cost estimates were prepared. is there anything you would add to the presentation? given that, why don't we open this item up for public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak on item number four, six, seven, eight, or nine? >> supervisor chu gonzales used to extend public comment to five minutes when there were few people speaking and there was a key issue. any chance of doing that? supervisor chu: we're going to keep it how it is now, three minutes. >> thank you. that is an extra minute. this is an outrage, and you all know it.

this is shielding the city's richest workers from carrying part of the burden of pension reform. that is all it is. just the rich, that is it. what do you get? you have 350 cops on drop now. they make 300,000 -- $300,000 a year total. this morning, i am going across the street for coffee, and there were six big cops surrounding one little chinese-american woman selling her groceries to pay for her rent. on every other corner, it is full of heroin dealers and people buying stolen goods. the police department is dysfunctional, to put it mildly. the idea of shielding them from something -- and i have a message for you from? solomon. you cannot be here today, because he actually has worked. it is hard to get work. he says, just do not do any taxes, and that is against all pension reform, because his partner works for the city, and he does not want anything cut.

he sex, do not give any raises to anybody, let alone the cops and the richest employees you have got. what these guys just that is garbage. they are getting raises. you are losing on it. a public defender will follow me, and i got a chart this morning. you'll see the reality. but the idea -- where is your -- i will just go slow. three minutes is plenty of time. why are you not exempting local 1021? 13,000 workers, why are you not shielding them from having to pay anything more? where are they? where are their representatives? no, you're only shielding the richest workers in the city, and you should be ashamed of yourself. that is enough. i did not need any more minutes, but thank you for going at least 23. but, honestly, on key issues

like that, you guys do not like the public. you really do not like the public. i can understand what the public comment at the full board. that is a regular zoo. two minutes there makes sense. but when you have been born hearings, you should listen to people. supervisor chu: thank you. i want to recognize the public defender. >> good morning, supervisors. i am here today as a proponent of proposition d, san francisco pension reform act. it was placed on the ballot by 50,000 voters who signed a petition to put real pension reform before the voters in november. the san francisco pension reform act does three things. it requires a fair apportionment of pension costs on a graduated scale among employees. it stops penchant spiking and creates a new sustainable

retirement plan for new or future employees. mr. grand says this is a good deal. i agree, it is a good deal for the police and fire units, but it is not a good deal for the people, the people of the city. i am here to ask you, at a minimum, to have an independent cost analysis done of what this mou will cost the people of san francisco. we have many able people who could perform that, including mr. rose, who is here. i am sure he is very busy, but this is a contract that could cost the city over $100 million. there are two parts to this

contract which affect pension costs going forward. the first is a 4% raise. that 4% raise, mr. grand says, is going to be offset by a 3% contribution in pension costs. what will that cost the city? it is not cost-neutral. if you look in the short-term costs to the city, and i have a chart here, it shows that the cost to the city is going to be about $4.5 million a year. that is the difference between the increased contribution and their race. that, incidentally, is in nearly enough to fund a new academy class. that is enough to fund a summer school, which has been cut for the last two years for four years for over 10,000 kids a year.

in the next 10 years, we're talking about $45 million in costs. now when you go beyond that, the second problem is that the pension costs are going to be increased. why? because when you give a 4% raise to every officer, it results in a spiking of their pension. so they will get 90% of a 4% increase. the result is, over the next 10 years, $127 million to $381 million over 20 years. one last thing, this contract also shields the police and fire from making additional contributions between 2013 and 2015. according to the comptroller, that will cost the city and county $61 million if proposition d passes. i am asking you to please have an analysis done before making a

decision. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on items not -- number four, six, seven, eight, or nine? >> good morning. my name is tom o'connor, a san francisco firefighter, and president of local 798. the public defender believes that if he tells you a lie often enough that it will become the truth. these concessions are very real concessions, entered into by police officers and firefighters to reach into their own pockets to help pay for public safety. the value of the going forward is a $22 million in the first two years. then in the last two years, we will pick up the increased contribution on the consensus measure, proposition c, which should pass. those calculations have not been made yet because the actuaries have not determined how much the pension increase cost will

affect the city. but these are very real concessions that the men and women, the fire department and police to permit, are feeling in their pocket. it is money coming out of their paychecks to make sure every police station is staffed at every firehouse is kept open. when you're shown these charts to say it is an increased cost to the pension system, he refuses to listen to the information he has been given time and time again by the retirement board that these raises were already factored into the retirement system five years ago when his contract was signed. this 3% raise that we are taking and putting back into the pension, this money will actually decrease the cost of the pension going forward because we are front-loading the pension with money immediately that the retirement system had never calculated. this is a real effort by police and fire to get ahead of the curve to help try and solve the pension problem, show our commitment to pension reform, and support proposition c, which addresses the same things he

tries to fix. this does it smarter, better, and legally. i urge you to support this wage concession and help us address the real problems facing san francisco. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to speak on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to hear from the city. speaking to some of the assertions that have been made to help us may be reconcile some of the difference of perspectives. >> thank you, supervisor. and through the chair, yes, i was about to swing forward, and i am glad to give me the chance to point this out. you'll be seeing this chart at a number of hearings. the point that a significant flaw in the logic. we have a comparison of apples and oranges. in 2007, we had a contract which called for a 4 peace and raise,

which has been pushed out over and over again. we're way beyond the expected end up the original contract. so we're now seeing sending that was decided upon five or six years ago. so when we evaluate the cost- savings impact of this amendment, we have to look at where we are now and what we have done by this amendment to save money. and what we have done in this amendment to save money is in the neighborhood of $22 million to $30 million over the first two years. that is locked in. he is saying to look 4% raise that has been deferred time and time again, look how much that is costing us. that is not what is before the board today. what is before the board is an amendment which drastically reduces the cost of a five-year old contract. so is charged, as colorful as is, is misleading.

i wanted a chance to point that out. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: through the chair, and the future focus of the public defender's comments about 2013-2015, were then the contribution and then it ceases, can you speak to that? >> as i said, labor made very clear last year and this year that it is willing to step up and make concessions. last year it made eight% in concessions over a two-year time span. we're still feeling the effects of that. on top of that confession, they have agreed to start another 3% concession for two years. that is locked in. as in last year, they said that if the measure passes, we're not going to pay the public defender's real contribution level on top of a big concession. we did not have a voice in that, so they made it very clear that

we could only get the money by agreeing that if that happens, we will go back to the bargaining table, and that is what our contract reflects. this year, we think we have improved the contingency plan for the city in that we have locked in the concessions. they will not disappear in years one and two. for protection, it was a way to saying we are not going to pile on your original 7.5% contribution that is locked in the charter in contract and then have you pay the mayor's consensus measure contribution and then agreed to a new 3% contribution under the contract and then have to deal with the public defender's measure. that will not happen. in the event that the voters approved proposition d and it is implemented, then we'll go back to the bargaining table. but in response to what labor is saying, we're comfortable saying that we will deal with that of the bargaining table. we will not change your contract

to change the language that bars the public defender oppose the measure from being implemented. the contract already does that. supervisor mirkarimi: since the board has just now returned from its august recess, this is the first time we have congregated since propositions c and d have been made official on the ballot. so there has been no conversation regarding the level of information that has since emerged or questions about lack of information. what about the call for an independent analysis? what is missing in the data? >> i think the analysis is complete. it does reference increases that will be due to the changes we have made. it reflects every aspect that the public defender is questioning. supervisor mirkarimi: maybe you can speak to the inference.

i am hearing this from a senior retirees in the public union system who believe that there is a bit of a caste system that suggests that police and fire are protected and others are not. i think that is an inference that should be addressed head- on. i hear this from police and firefighters about the important contributions they are making. but it is not an argument in which to shy away from. i want to hear your response to that. >> the three-year contract that you see has a wage deferral for the first year. that locks in a zero wage increases for the next three years. first of all, if any other union would like to come forward and give us a 5% concession for this year and next year and agreed to two years of wage freezes, we will take that deal. so no one has stepped up to make that offer to us.

supervisor mirkarimi: you are suggesting that the benchmark by public safety unions are and is that particular group that has offered to do that? >> yes. you're asking, is there something nefarious or are we protecting police and fire, and we're saying, no, we're not. they have stepped up and make concessions for the fourth year running. it is driven by contract. they are the only ones to do that. i do not know that anybody in the -- in any other union would have grounds to say that somehow unfair. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, i would like to hear from the controller. five weeks is a long time when it comes to election season. when there is now been the blessing of the proposition that has come on board since they were in discussion and now a full-fledged campaign, i would like to hear anything has developed where there is the

analysis that is needed to help give us a better understanding of what is before us. >> through the chair, i am from the controller's office. the controller did wait until we receive to the most up-to-date actuarial information before we submitted our costs of these mou's, as required. and using the most up-to-date information, the dollar sign22 -- the dollar sign -- the $22 million is the amount that was calculated. and we had the latter two years. again, what we did is we costed out the difference between the original contract and the amendments. the delta between those two. the wage concession, wage concee deferral, the wage concess,