in concept, the mayor's office would be in agreement with the proposal. they want to see how it all works out. from my perspective, what i wanted to see was a greatly expanded unit where i could defray costs to the olse to help us investigate these cases, where i would be able to pay for the services i could a tribute to these cases and take that responsibility of the general fund. understandably, the mayor's office wanted to see how this would all play out. and the compromise that we reached it was -- which i thought was too small, but i was willing to work with them -- i said i would be willing to take an attorney and a paralegal because i am so confident in

what we do. there's more money sitting there that no one else can use. the assistance we're getting from other general fund responsibilities -- i can pay for those myself. and that's what i want to do. supervisor wiener: i just want to be sure i understand the budget analyst's explanation here. the staffing could be diverted from general funds to this unit without hiring the positions as proposed by the city attorney? >> des moines understanding from the discussion with the city attorney -- my understanding from the discussion with the city attorney is they have been moving from affirmative litigation to do other city

attorney responsibilities. what they need is an additional attorney and paralegal to be dedicated within the affirmative litigation unit to consumer protection. what i am suggesting is taking the existing attorney and paralegal and dedicating them to the consumer protection unit, which would be the dedicated funding. instead of taking them away to do other demands, because it is acknowledged these two other positions are an expansion. supervisor wiener: right. but by pulling people off of other responsibilities, that could be taking them off the trial team, evaluating whichever

department? >> that is correct. but that is what has been happening here for. i would also note that is discussed in our recommendations. it is an expansion. as you know, in the department budget, there is an increase in general fund costs of the next two years. in fact, over the two year period, there is an 80% general fund increase. supervisor wiener: from what to what? >> $6 million this year to $9 million. supervisor wiener: when you're talking about a small part of the department to budget -- >> wright. it is $6 million to $9 million. supervisor wiener: i'm just talking about the city attorney resources because the department

provides critical resources, and so that is a zero sum game. >> that is why we did not put it on the ship and made it a policy decision, because it is an expansion of what they do, the way they presented it in that regard. we are presenting it as "this is the way it is," and we're not offering it as part about. supervisor wiener: right, and i'm not being critical at all. i'm just trying to make sure. >> the budget analyst's office i have no dispute with. she described it exactly right. in theory. that would be a great thing. that is what i have been doing. that is what i have been doing.

diverting people to do other critical city work and that has gone by the wayside now. my people are stretched too thin to do the work that is in the best interests of the residents of the city and county of san francisco and at the risk of the tremendous financial benefit already brought to the city's general fund. $8 million. $4 million invested. that which is measured, gets done. here, you can hold me accountable. you can hold me accountable for the production. if you say, ok, how much have you brought in? what have you developed? with what it is i gave you -- and judging by the results, i can guarantee it will be a worthwhile investment for this board of supervisors and residents of the city and county

of san francisco. supervisor chu: thank you. i appreciate the comment on the accountability component. i think that is something we all look for. the consumer protection dollars, roughly $5 million, but that leaves a balance in the pot of money. are there other eligible expenses he might be able to use out of that? i'm imagining it is not restricted to say it has to be for the city attorney? >> yes. i was thinking of one settlement, supervisor. i have more. supervisor chu: great. >> i have about $8 million there, but it is restricted. this goes back to the discussion with ms. howard. i appreciate all of her help. i appreciate a greatly expanded program. in your standing mayor wants to

see how something will work -- i understand the mayor was to see how something will work. there are things it can be used for, but it has to be used on behalf of the city attorney's efforts. what i am telling you is in use -- i am willing to use that money for what our general fund responsibilities to help me investigate and prosecute and pursue consumer protection cases. ultimately, if i am paying for that out of money that is restricted that i can utilize, you are going to be able to free up other general fund money, to do other things that are a priority to you. and i'm willing to pursue that. >> thank you. to the comptroller's office, with regard to the $8 million -- whatever the balance is, maybe $8 million for consumer protection work -- do you have a sense of where that money could be spent? are there other general fund

expenses we could offset with that finding? >> supervisors. i'm not aware of the balance. i would be happy to work with the city attorney's office, but this is somewhat news to me. supervisor chu: ok, if i could ask for you to work with the city attorney to analyze what that money could be used for, or if there is an additional balance, and if there are other general fund expenses that can be offset against that restricted funding? i think that would be something the committee could look at. so, colleagues, given that the city attorney has agreed to some of the budget analyst recommendations, can we entertain a motion to accept the $220,000 roughly worth of recommendations currently? we take that without objection? and with regards to the policy?

no thoughts? would you folks like to carry this over? supervisor kim? supervisor kim: this is actually one that i do, that i would like to carry over with regard to the issues that have been brought up. supervisor chu: ok, supervisors, why don't we carry over and not take action on this item at the moment and ask the city attorney to follow-up with committee members on there questions -- their questions. in supervisor avalos as questions. >> thank you, supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you very much. i am wondering if we have the department of technology here? i would actually like to call dt, dpw, and then we will come

back to admin services, because i think they do have a number of outstanding issues. >> the afternoon, supervisors. we're here to follow up after last week's meeting. we are here to report to you today that we are in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations and to answer any additional questions you might have. supervisor chu: the department is in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations? >> that is correct. supervisor chu: is there anything else you would like to add, mr. rose? >> madam chair, nothing at this time. supervisor chu: colleagues, can we meet kaine -- can we entertain a motion? we will do that without objection. department of public works. >> good afternoon.

so, we were able to work with the budget analyst, and we are in agreement with the budget analyst. supervisor chu: the department of public works is in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. i was so happy to see that. i did want to raise my own personal concern about the $1 million in reserve for the law library. given the discussions we have had come up we think that is a very high amount. certainly, we would not want to spend general fund dollars to that extent. we can look at this by relocating location such as the library, and i hope that that would be a consideration in the following year, and that this

committee would consider such a large allocation. i know this is for the next fiscal year, but i wanted to bring that concern up today. >> supervisors, we will come back and talk about what happens with the law library. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. i just want to clarify one thing. the cleaning crew positions -- those are not funded, so those are being eliminated. >> so, the agreement is for four labor positions. supervisor wiener: and so, i am very interested in picking up dpw staffing around cleaning crews for the city, as well as

gardening and landscaping work. i think dpw is very under- resources in those areas. we have seen a hollowing out in recent years in those functions. i would love to have more. i just want to raise that point. this is more a technical adjustment and would not in any way -- it is not really an ad back, but doing whatever we can to increase those positions so we have even more cleaning capacity. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose, any comments? >> no, madam chair. supervisor chu: ok, colleagues, can we take a motion for dpw. without objection. to ethics commission.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. the commission agrees with the revised recommendations from the budget analyst. supervisor chu: any comments? >> madam chair, and no additional comments. supervisor chu: 2 we have a motion to accept a budget analyst recommendations? we have a motion. we do that without objection. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. in the past week, the city administrator's office work with the budget analyst and came to agreement on many things. on the current cut list, we agreed to the recommendations on page 68. however, there are four items we

would like to discuss today. the city manager 0932 position, the earthquake safety implementation program, the community specialists that would go into the neighborhood power network division, and attrition for gsa hr. supervisor chu: can you just speak to the items you're saying you're not an agreement with? >> yes, those four. supervisor chu: can you specify which ones on which page they are? >> sure. on page 69, that is -- attritions savings from the general services agency, a human-resources department. the key issue for us with the

attrition as whether or not we have enough salary to support the positions currently listed in the budget. the budget and attrition savings are currently listed at 1.43 positions at $200,000, which is approximately 3.3% of the total positions. the budget analyst proposed an adjustment of $118,000 which would increase attrition savings to 6%. the proposed cuts are unrealistic for us in the city administrators of those given there are no anticipated vacancies and this attrition rate has been 0%. what we propose is instead of this attrition, we propose delaying the hiring of the 0932 position until january to garner savings there. on page 69, the second issue is

the earthquake safety program. the budget analyst is recommending decreasing the position from a manager 4 to a manager 2 position, and we respectfully disagree in that this position requires a highly technical person with the knowledge and ability, who is likely an architect or engineer or certified this -- building inspector. this person would require extensive knowledge of local and national building codes, which are in constant change, and experience and emergency planning. the ability to work with the community with outreach to improve these vulnerable buildings and also to work with any of the different departments. as you know, we don't know when

the next earthquake will occur, so we want to staff this position immediately. the former city administrator amy brown had proposed last year to hire at three positions. in stead we are just asking for one position immediately in this fiscal year. with regards to the professional services on page 70, we understand the budget analyst with like to put money for the professional services contract on reserve for the earthquake safety implementation program. however we would propose possibly moving this money to the comptroller, as we were trying to get this off the ground running. we would still have an independent or neutral party and a spending plan for consultants.

and last -- moving to page 70 is the neighborhood empowerment position, the community development specialist. that would work with the mayor's office. this is responding to the solution of the redevelopment agency and the community development programs that basically ended when the redevelopment agency was dissolved. particularly in the bayview neighborhood, the south of market area. this position would provide technical support to the bayview pact and would also help with the midmarket. there is definitely needed community outreach with these

bodies, and possibly developing a citizens advisory committee in this area and in this position with outreach to the community will provide the needed technical support. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. with respect to the earthquake preparedness position, can i just ask is that a $60,000 saving over two years? if i am not mistaken? >> let me turn back to that. supervisor wiener: correct me if i'm wrong. i saw in the report, there was not enough detail provided about the program.

can i just ask what the rationale is for the recommendation of manager 2 versus manager 4? >> supervisor wiener, we were given a description. the reason we recommended manager 2 was the scope of the program. they had not developed yet. they had not come up with any detail. it is a $400,000 budget. we did not see this a significant program to justify the higher level manager. since they are now saying they need someone with higher level technical skills, that is not information provided to was previously. supervisor wiener: would you have come to a different conclusion? >> i think it is new

information. part of the reason for recommending the service is that we have no information on this program, so i think it might be worthwhile to talk about this program a little bit more so we understand it better. supervisor wiener: ok. maybe you can do that. we talked about the desire to accelerate, because, you know, we all know we have an enormous amount of work to do. given that new information is not a particularly huge amount of money. but if there is a legitimate amount of rationale, that would be good to know that. >> thank you, supervisor. to the budget analyst, with regard to the remains of your report -- are there areas

agreement? >> madam chair, members of the committee, given the fact that the department concurs with all of our recommendations on page 68, we would concur with their disagreement to our recommendation on top of page 69. we would withdraw the recommendation. if you want to -- >> i would like to verify there is agreement with the first three items. the administrative analyst position, the attrition savings, the salaries in the second year. if that is the case, what we're recommending -- what ms. kelly is recommending is there be a delay in the hiring.

that, we would concur with. >> yes, i agree. that is correct. supervisor chu: colleagues, can we entertain a motion to set the budget analyst recommendations on page 68 and with regard to the attrition savings items, they withdraw that item? can we do that? we do that without objection. with regard to the senior administrative analyst on page 69 -- it looks like there is no dollar value associated with that, correct? item on page 69? >> we would clarify that is a limited, a tenured position rather than fullbacks >> yes. >> to the director, just very quickly -- on page 69, the position we are having a little discrepancy over, that is not the earthquake position? >> no. supervisor cohen: maybe i missed

something. can you tell me what happened to bthe admin position? did we approve it? >> no, we have not gotten to that yet. supervisor chu: colleagues, can we approve that? without objection. the items remaining relate primarily to the earthquake safety program on page 69. and of course, the reserve on page 70 as well as the community development specialist position. just quickly, in terms of the project close up, do you have anything for the close out on page 71? >> no disagreement. supervisor chu: colleagues, can we entertain a motion to close out those projects? >> so moved. supervisor cohen: i want to speak to the admin position. supervisor chu: we have not

gotten to that yet. the only items relate to the earthquake safety program, and that is basically to have a manager 2 position and it requires a programmatic budget reserve for contracts. i know supervisor wiener had spoken to this issue earlier. there is basically new information regarding the need for an engineered by position. i would think a manager 4 position would be something we would want for something that is of $400,000 project budget. i do not know there is necessarily a a difference to managing different individuals within this department or this area or this program. i would ask that the budget analyst work on that issue.

be preserved -- i'm neither here -- the reserve -- and neither here nor there about it. so, those are my thoughts. supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: thank you. i apologize about being anxious about this position. i just want to echo ms. kelly's articulation that we need a position to support efforts that were formally -- formerly conducted by the bayview area under the pac. in bayview, we're seeing significant changes in many projects. pac provided a structured process for community members to make recommendations to the city.

it also received delegated authority from the planning department to review projects, review development proposals. it is my hope that this position will help my office revision the structure of community input. i think we all agree a lot of these plans are for significant changes to the southeastern part of the city. thank you. >> being that the city administrator is reducing the general fund request, i would support the city administrator 's defenses in bad area -- in those two areas.

the remaining two items, and then the reserve recommendation, i would go with the city administrator and the two items. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, with respect to the remaining two items, do we have an interest in holding over or action on these items? supervisor cohen: i would move to hold over the manager position, whether that position should be hired in or approving the final two, which is the community specialist, and i reserve recommendation. >>supervisor chu: ok. supervisor kim has moved to not accept the