item. this would be absent the discussion of the match we're asking for for the fema grant. what that means is with the cost of medical supplies, cleaning supplies, we have a sword that into our budget. our population is that today we have 3.4 already in actual expenditures, and we feel by the end of the fiscal year with all of the invoices coming in, we will be close to 3.5 or 3.6. that would not support it -- support next year's material and supply budget. as you know, we will have the reactivation of station 35, as well as approximately 10% of an increase that is expected through that exclusive operating area. what that means is rising fuel costs, as well as medical supplies and pharmaceuticals although i want to work with everyone, i am a realist and do not want to overpromise.

i do not believe further production in materials and supplies would give us or we need to get to. we of 50 facilities that are aging. they need to be cleaned properly. we just feel it is not doable without the current request. >> madam chair, can we respond on each recommendation? on this is simple math. the department gave us the details. we have them here and can show them to the committee. they're absolutely wrong. our recommendation is not a cut in service in any way, shape, or form and based on the documentation that was provided to us and would be happy to show that in writing right out of the committee would like. >> just so i understand, you are saying your recommendation is based on the list of materials

and supplies the department has provided for the upcoming year? >> that is correct. it was simply a mathematical error. totally. have to gsupervisor chu: is thee anything missing from the list? it sounds like there was a mathematical error. perhaps we could ask the cfo to check in and move on to the remainder of the areas where there is disagreement. >> sure. we're happy to do that. just to finish the point, what the budget analyst did was simply add up on the submission everything, and then came to that amount. station 35 is being reactivated. this is a list for next fiscal year based on current expenditures. it is a partial list in that we anticipate the fuel rising as well as additional medical supplies in order to support

the increased and transport as we talked about with the exclusive operating area. i am happy to move on to the next couple of items. >> the department cannot have it both ways. when we request information, documentation, and they provided to us, and we have that and have based recommendation on that, and then the chief today says to you how it is not just what we submitted to the budget analyst, do not forget there will be additional expenditures. the department cannot have it both ways. we work for two weeks on this item. to simply state there is additional data beyond which they have already provided as is not a professional presentation to the committee. supervisor chu: think you, mr. rose. why don't i have the cfo work

with yours, ,, and i understand your point. now on to the attrition issue. to go on the attrition issue, two different line items. one is for miscellaneous or admin. we disagree with a portion of the reduction because it we believe -- because we believe it was an oversight regarding declassification of 2112 medical records classification. that position is in place and the department and on the work chart. we have an incumbent in that position, and we do not anticipate laying that person off. it is a needed position. we have provided this a few days ago. we request a incumbent in that position, reduction to the attrition cut from 132. i have a chart here that i can assure you that clearly spells

out we have and are budgeted for a 2112 medical records check here yet t. supervisor chu: there is a cut of $130,000, and the commensurate mandatory frame that goes along with that the department says in reality you have someone who is filling the position. he provided information that shows the number and set of 130 more accurately should be 63,000 roughly. the budget analyst. to g>> we will work with the chf financial officer on this one. we were working off the chart they provided us. they now say there is a different position we did not see, and we will look at that number. we think there is still a savings, but it may be different than what we recommended.

finally, on the attrition savings uniform. >> basically on this line item, again, i want to caution you that we are very lean. i know i say this every year. this is the ninth budget i have brought to you. we try to be as efficient as possible. we believe analysis did not account for changes in the current fiscal year. specifically does that increase to fire prevention. and the increase in staffing. having said that, wanting to be part of the solution, if we used a methodology of the budget analyst, and while we would be opposed to it, we would reluctantly agreed for our analysis to and attrition about reduction. diaz's suited friends that would go along with that also. >> -

my associate and friends would go along with that also. supervisor chu: the budget analyst has recommended 1.1 million worth of attrition savings and the french that goes along with it. the department is indicating using the methodology and knowing the information you have in the apartment, that you think that number is more like 531,000. its songs like you are reluctantly agreeing? to g-- it sounds like you were reluctantly agreeing? >> we receive the revised budget calculations last night. we think there are some things that are left out. it does not account for when they talked about last week, the retirement in any kind of

savings. the talk about the cost of the new recruits and the academies. so savings and over time as they bring on more permanent staff. there will be a differential that is not in these numbers that is in retirement in terms of the costs. since we did not get these numbers until last night, we did not have a chance to talk to the fire department. we still believe our number is very conservative recommendation for the fire department. >> if i could respond to that, as a reminder, last fiscal year there were 70 retirements. we were able to hire 36, and this fiscal year we are closing in on 50 retirements. there was no hiring, and we are projecting 32 coming in. to your point last week, we're not even breaking even. we're not going to see the gains that i think the budget analysts feels its first year,

because we're playing catch-up in trying to infuse more bodies into the department. we're at an all-time low. we have not been able to do that. we are happy with the news that from this point forward we have a commitment to bring class is in, but we need to get to a point where it will make a difference in the overtime expenditure. >supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, any thoughts or questions? what i would suggest is that the budget analyst in the fire department cfo to get together and hire nine -- iron out the information. i want to make sure the levels we have in there are realistic and based on the position the department believes they have, because otherwise they will come back with a supplemental, which is not something i want to see. on materials and supplies, i

want to make sure if we do have you operations opening up, that we do account for it. that being the case, i want to make sure we have the expenses we expect to have. supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: i appreciate more time to sort things out, but i would be ready to take this recommendation as it is, given that there is plenty of time to work out the differences, and it was not until the last minute that there was an effort to push back on this recommendation. i believe the department is facing retirement, savings that

we can expect to have as well. i will wait until any differences that come out, but i am happy to support the recommendation as is. >> if i could make one comment, all along we have opposed to the materials and supplies, and i believe that discussion has happened. i am happy to provide further details for the budget document that was used by the budget analyst in the documents for public use, and perhaps did not detail everything we are trying to account for in the next fiscal year. with regards to the disagreement on the attrition, this has changed significantly. not necessarily the dollars. i want you to be sure you know we've been working together, but this is a different field for us, because last week it was 1.3

and 1.4 was coming from overtime. my cfo did a terrific job and try to justify the need for overtime. we have conversed, it is just this is a different line item altogether. thus we were arguing over time. this week it is attrition. they actually change their recommendation. i just want to be clear that we have been communicating. there have been changes on both sides. >> when a tour -- department provides us with additional information with respect to overtime, of course we are born to change it. we have to be totally objective. we did, and we agree with the department. on further analysis of the attrition savings is why we came up with this recommendation. the fire department is now stating that they cannot reluctantly absorber about

$700,000 in fringe benefits. >> thinsupervisor chu: thank yo, mr. rose. i do think we would benefit from the realistic changes. what i would ask is if the comptroller's office can assist us and making sure that members are looking like there is an impartial eye on the numbers. i will ask the comptroller's office to take a look at those three items. thank you. department of emergency management.

department of emergency management, a church you and members of the budget and finance committee. it is a pleasure to be here before you. we do agree with the budget analyst recommendation detailed on page 29 and the top of page 30. this totals $36,083 for year 1 and $17,325 for year to. we do not agree with two areas that the budget analyst recommended. the first is part of the exempt transition project. as i think you heard last week, we have been working with the department of human resources for the past six months in converting 33 positions that had been exempt into permanent civil

service positions. dhr as part of that to change the public information officer to a manager one position. since i am a director of emergency management, i have changed the core function of that position. in fact, she used to report to rob and now reports directly to me. that to change theshe has many more responsibilities to determinundr currently. i did not agree with that. i am hoping the board will agree to manager one, which has been approved by dhr. in terms of the policy recommendations on page 31, for fiscal year 13 and 14 the budget

analyst has made recommendations on divisions of emergency services. basically saying that the positions that currently have been great fun did, and we hope to move them into general fund should not be general fund it. i think that to you are all aware of the great progress we have made an emergency management over the past five years and really putting together a program that we are prepared as a city for any emergency that comes forward. we have been able to identify core functions and the department. both of these positions are core functions, and i believe we should continue them. if they are not continued, i will have to lay off those people. we will not be coming to you with every grant that funded position where the current funding expires and asking them

to bring them on to the general fund. many of these are four special projects that will end when the grant funding ends but these positions i feel very strongly about. mr. dungeon is here for the specific questions. monthhappy to answer any questi. supervisor chu: think you. supervisor avalos. supervisor camp. supervisor ckim. supervisor kim: this is for the manager position that we referred to on page 30, it said this manager position does not have any supervisor of responsibility. can you respond to that?

>> that is true. this position does not surprise anyone. -- supervise thanyone. she is my sunshine officer. she manages the annual communications plan. she serves as the liaison to 311. she does dignitary our reach and thetreach and tours of the 91 os that an integral part of my staff. -- tours of tehe 911 center and an integral part of my staff. >supervisor chu: it sounds to me like from what you described earlier it really was a process by which the department of human resources consulted with off your department, and during the course of the process

actually made a classification recommendation to have it at this level. is that correct? >> that is correct. of the 32 positions that dhr identified, 28 remained at the same level or were decreased. five of them dhr recommended an upgrade in the position. this was one of them. supervisor chu: for this issue, is said dhr recommended job recommendation based on skill level. >> thank you. correct. >> madam chair and members of the committee, regarding policy recommendations on page 31, that his policy. we are not recommending a cut, but historically had it -- it has always been the policy of the board of supervisors directed to the budget analyst to point out when a grand-funded

position no longer is supported by a grant funds, to always bring that to be attention of the board of supervisors, and that is what we're doing. with respect to the manager position, i would like miss campbell to respond. >> supervisor and members of the committee. it has already been discussed we of consistently been instructed that those that do not have supervisory oversight be classified as something else. this is -- dhr did the classification study looking at many different positions within the organization. we do consistently recommend pointing out management positions in other management roles. that is what we're recommending here. supervisor chu: to the budget

analyst, with regard to that, how you deado you deal with dr h's recommendation? it sounds like they may recommend different positions whether their managers or otherwise. it sounds like from the budget analyst policy it is if you are not managing people, we do not want to give you a title of manager. >> just for clarification, it is my understanding, maybe this is different, that all of the items in the budget for all departments, it is not the department of human resources that initiates a substitution or reclassification at all. it is the department that goes to the department of human- resources and request a reclassification. this may be different, but that historically has always been the case.

supervisor chu: that does not answer the question about how you reconcile classifications verses management. ok. >> if i may respond, this is a different situation. we submitted a jaq for every single one of these 33 positions in the exempt transition project. they came back to us after analyzing the jaq and set the appropriate classification is a manager. we did not recommend that or go forward and ask for an upgrade. that is what dhr told us. supervisor chu: thank you. we do have a number of items with us with regards to the department being in agreement. that is on page 29. do we have a motion to except

those recommendations. two remaining items. the management item in the policy recommendation. supervisor avalos: motion to except on manager 1. i do not think it makes efficient cents to approve that position, especially when we want to be on board with the principles about not having positions of managers when there is no one there managing. supervisor chu: supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i was second at motion. supervisor chu: we will accept the budget analyst recommendation on manager 1 services coordinator. simply from my perspective, if we have a classification project that was done through the department of human resources were they actually took a look and careful detail

about the skill levels necessitated by positions and have come up with a number of recommendations, some of them to stay the same classification levels and some to have a lower classification level, and to have a higher classification level based on the skills, i would recommend we do follow the department of human resources recommendations, so i will vote against that motion and wanted to speak to that. >>supervisor wiener: thank you. i will be voting against this recommendation. we have a number of critical departments coming before us today. we will have potential cost saving discussions. sometimes the way we do this is challenging because there are times where it is a very

unclear. sometimes we are asked to make the cut before we really know how we are then going to reallocate those funds. i know we have a lot of different opinions about how funds that we availed bailable should be allocated and what are good or critical uses and some that are not as critical. but for me in what may be a close call like this one to make the cuts where i do not know where this committee will be going in terms of the reallocation given the request we have had, which are rather large. i am not comfortable doing that. given that it is hard to view this in the full context, i am not going to be supporting this cut. supervisor chu: thank you. roll-call on the motion. motion to except manager 1 cuts

that is on page 30. >> [calling roll] the motion fails. supervisor chu: on the issue of the policy recommendations, any thoughts on this area? my thoughts are that currently these are current existing- filled positions with the department that is doing the emergency coordination work of the city as the department has indicated, not all projects will be requested in terms of continuing them with general fund of dollars. however, emergency coordination work, i think the city has a lot of work to do still in this area. i would be supportive of these positions. if there are no thoughts on this -- any thoughts?

he is notif not, we will pass on this. this is a concern i brought up the previous week, but given the uncertainty that has been announced in the past two months and the federal government has indicated it is suspending the funding. i do think -- i would suggest we put the city general fund support of $226,000 that has been allocated and fiscal year 2012 at a minimum be put on budget committee reserve as we learn more information from the federal government as to the ongoing developments. >> i did watch the hearing last

week. i am sorry i was not able to be here, i was at a fellowship program and harvard. this parkiprogram has not been suspended but slowed down by the federal government because of the initiative that was passed by congress in february, which is actually right after i came here and address this with you. the government is setting up a board called the first-net board, which will be established by august 17. that will determine the criteria for how under tea national systm will be put together. what they're telling us to slow down on is the purchase of the lte equipment is sold. there will be a national system that comes on line in the next couple of years.

what congress is allowing us to continue to do is build out this site of where the antennas will go. that is the work that has to be done before the equipment is purchased. i am assuming after the first board is established in the middle of august that they will take that suspension away, and if we're not doing it now, that it will put us that many more months behind. supervisor chu: to that point, i appreciate that. it was indicated in a may 16 memo that the federal government had partially suspended them money. i would have made a motion that we reduce the spending by $226,000, but giving it is just so halting as you like to articulate, that is why i am suggesting we put it bu