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 on budget reserve so you can come back to us after the august meeting to indicate what the federal government has finally decided.

i think there has been a lot of uncertainty on at the nationwide publications network. of course, we're moving in the right direction, but i think you will have adequate time to come back after some decisions have been made so we have more information before we invest in a system that we do not know what is going to be. >> that is a policy decision of the board. supervisor chu: if we were going to put this money on reserve and intend to bring it back afterwards, how did that impact your schedule, and is there a schedule we should be concerned with? are you, at this moment, i process of securing those sites? is there something that would be problematic with us reserving it until a later time, like september, when we hear back more information? >> most of that money to pay for stepping in dt -- staffing in dt for the city and realistic.

so real-estate would not be able to negotiate those leases until september, and department of technology staff when not be able to do what they need to do at the site. so, yes, it would put us basically three months behind schedule if we do not have the money beginning in july. it is very difficult to talk about, because it has been a very confusing project. ntia told us, and i think last time i came to you, our yeah, we have to spend the money by august. we have to have two-thirds of the project complete. we have been pushing, pushing, pushing, and then you get a different story from the federal government. it is very difficult to understand. i totally get that. i do believe that there are things that we could and should be doing right now to keep the project moving forward. but, again, that is a policy call of the board. supervisor chu: from what i am

hearing, the federal government has not said that they do not want to invest in an interoperable. that is not the direction? >> quite the opposite. they have come out strongly and said they're going to build a national network. supervisor chu: ok, so that is still the same objective. the area where they have a halt is an actual type -- >> of purchasing the equipment because they want to make sure it is all interoperable across the country. san francisco is actually, at this point, one of the four series -- cities that the feds are looking at to be a pilot. there are a few others. i feel that if we have this funding allocated and we can begin the work, we will be one of the, i hope, one of those municipalities that will be leading the federal government as this develops and showing best practices. supervisor chu: irrespective of

the technology being used, the department will still have to continue moving forward with building up the course site. >> absolutely. supervisor chu: and it is just a matter of the technology. >> that is correct. supervisor kim: i completely understand. but as a policymaker, i feel uncomfortable investing in a system that i have no understanding of what is going to look like. given, a kind of, the surprising need by the federal government over the last six months, i have little faith that they will not make other changes in august on a system that we are intending to build. i am very sympathetic to the position you are in. also wanting us to move forward and not having perhaps the three-month delay. but it does not seem like there is this level of urgency to build the system when the federal government has not made decisions around what type of system it is building. i guess i am worried that there

will be other changes that will come out in august, so i think three months is not a huge price to pay to get a little more certainty. i am not asking to reduce the budget of the department of emergency management because i understand the importance of supporting a public safety communications network. for me, personally, i have some questions about where the federal government is heading and would like as many answers before we invest in that system. supervisor chu: to the department, with regards to the amount, you talked about how it really pays for staffing at dt and real estate. do you know what portion is needed to allow the department of real-estate to begin conversations and to be able to move forward in getting us ready in case a decision is made and we're able to move forward with it? i do think and interoperable system is necessary and good for the region. so from a high level concept, i agree with that.

there are concerns that there are a lot of moving parts to the federal government, so what will really end up being with the federal government wants? are we building something or investing something that will not look like that? i think there are those legitimate questions. at the same time, it sounds like the sites are going to procure, and it will be the same no matter what. you are still going to need the real estate to have an interoperable system, no matter what it is. is there a value on this $226 ,000 that was still allow the real-estate department to continue negotiations and make sure we're not that much behind if we do get clarity from the federal government about the technology and other things? >> i appreciate the question. we think the process will take about six months. if you think $226,000, three months' worth is $113,000 -- i mean, if we had