are out on the street. whey have to learn the community; they have to know what they're doing. i don't think that -- i would prefer to dip into our reserves to deal with anybody challenges rather than mess around with the delay in our fire and police departments because of the challenges that i know personally, firsthand, from the fire department, from a former fire commissioner, with this mandatory overtime situation which is completely out of control and secondly from the issues around public safety that i experienced directly in our district. and i have been there and situations where we have had -- it took a while to get a sufficient number of officers at the scene that could be really ugly in terms of a riot. and the delays of getting

backups and support when dealing with issues of violence in communities is definitely a challenge. from my perspective i just want to see more police officers on the street walking, talking to folks, developing relationships. that is definitely a deterrent. it is a combination of law-enforcement as well as community-based organization and other things but i do of course agree that we have to put more money into some of the programs that actually help stop our young people from becoming tomorrow's terminals, becoming engage with police officers at too early of an age in a negative way. i don't want to delay this particular classes. i don't want necessary to speak to the challenges; i am not

familiar with the challenges of the sheriff's department but we have other ways to look at potentially getting additional support savings that messing with these academy classes. i would like to see them online now rather than later. >> supervisor mar: i appreciate the controller's data. look like the sheriff's academies proposed for six months of the delay. i wanted to ask chief sur (sounds like) - what is the projected number of retirees in the next couple of years? >> 98 for sure by june 30; and anticipate another somewhere around 20-30% on top of that which is the sunsetting of the drop. normally it is 60-90 officers retiring but it is accelerated tremendously with the sun setting drop.

>> supervisor mar: mr. rosenfeld, i wanted to ask -- you mentioned that for the savings that you are estimating here that you are factoring in the balance of the overtime costs for one month of delay. where is that in this chart that you have given us? >> this is a summary. we can provided more detail but for simplicity we rolled numbers. to be clear we do account for increasing overtime costs for both the fire department and the sheriff's office; the police department analysis is not include the projection of increase over time as a result of later hires. and the sheriff's office reason for six months rather than one month analysis and thank you for reminding me of this is simply that the way the

sheriff's office looks at other facilities for training so they don't have an option, of a one-month delay. they have a window every six months that they can adopt which is why we presented the numbers this way. we can certain provide you the breakup (indiscernible) >> supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. on the specific issue i have a preference not to do the delay in the police academy. our classes -- it is taken us so long to get back on track for having the classes so i would prefer not to do the one month delay. similarly to the items discussed earlier about the reserves i would prefer not to reduce what we deposit into the reserves. both of those are preferences on my part. the fact is, the reality that we are doing with is that we have you proposed budget that does not include some priorities of the board

including some amount priorities, including the need to backfill 3 million dollars in hiv funding as well as the needs in housing and lgbt youth for example in some of the critical needs. in the end we are really working to balance all of these things. my preference would be not to delay academy classes, not to reduce what we deposit into the budget stabilization reserve but it all has to go into the mix as we sort through how we are going to fund these really critical priorities. we are in a very tough position now as a board because we don't have as much disability in the budget process as the mayor has. we are a little bit hamstrung. i'm hoping that we can avoid that delay, but i want to see how things play out over the

next day or two. >> supervisor farrell: colleagues any for the questions or comments for the chief? thank you. okay. up next we have our fire department. i don't know if chief -- is here. is to clerk can you call a number two. >> clerk young: >> supervisor farrell: do we have item 2 agendized in last weeks calendar?

>> clerk young: we did not. >> here on this first item i wanted to make clear, this is not in your request. if you recall in april the fire department came before you to ask for reallocation of funding from our salaries over to overtime due to the low staffing levels. at the time of projected we would need 466,248 dollars. at this time we are looking at actuals in the pay period, estimated 446,354. i would like to acknowledge mr. mark -- he was on target. we agree with the budget analyst's recommendation of 446,354 be allocated from salaries to overtime. again to remind you that this was not a request for

additional funding, simply a reallocation within what we were budgeted for in 12-13. and the final to that is for the record of the time we had concerns and stated that clearly in the committee in april. the analysis we felt again at a time was low on the pay period data reflects why we were concerned so at this point we would be in agreement to accept the recommendation which we had brought before you in april. thank you. >> supervisor farrell: thank you chief. mr. rose, i believe you have a report on item number two. >> mr. rose: mr. chairman the numbers of the committee on page 14-15 of the report we have an analysis of this request for reallocation for overtime as i understand it the chief concurs with our recommended reduction of 19,894 from 466,248 to 446,354.

and we recommend that be approved as amended. >> supervisor farrell: chief, are you okay with a reduction? >> yes. >> mr. rose: on page 16 of the report recommended reduction in 13-14 wold result in a savings of -- and in 14-15 recommended savings would result in 869,751. the recommended salary savings are less than one third of one percent of the salary budget of 219 million dollars. >> if i could ask for education those are the numbers that i

have in terms of the final recommend a reduction from your office, sir. i have the final commendation from your office as 987,202 in 13-14. >> mr. rose: that is correct. there's 15,539 of unexpended encumbrances, when you add that number that you mentioned plus the -- the 987,702, comes up to 2,200,541. -- and i commented to the committee that our savings recommended salary savings

result in less than one third of one percent of your budget of 219 million dollars. >> supervisor farrell: can you clarify exactly what the amount in dispute is. >> the bulk of the amount that is in dispute, it is timely to point out on the last item that we refer to, the work of my chief financial officer who has been doing this for a while is right on the money. we can to you in april same we thought we would need 466 it was held because it was a question about whether or not that would be needed; we came within 19,000 dollars. the main point of contention -- at this point we would be willing to concede to a total of 627,329 off of what mr. rose and his staff is asking for. the bulk of the contention is the salary piece. we have a fundamental disagreement.

we provided numbers and calculations over to the budget analyst office. we agree that we will be hiring people and having people retire but we believe that we do not get any tabulations back to look at the methodology but we believe that there will be an increase in our salaries, in the fte count. we cannot assume all of the production; over the next fiscal year will hire two classes which we are grateful for, the pendulum is swinging in the resurrection to increase our staffing. we will have our projections and we will have it laid out for you; we send out an e-mail the other day. we will have a net increase of approximately 29 ftes, that is why we are concerned about the level of reduction that the budget is proposing at this time. >> supervisor farrell: if this sounds right there is a dispute

of 359-- includes 15,000 dollars for encumbrances-- >> -- maybe you could be precise and we could respond. >> i'm having to run through starting with the first recommendation related to stationary engineer, where there was a position and the budget analyst recommended a reduction of -- we would agree a total savings proposed 33,864.

we also believe that position has already been accounted for in terms of attrition. so our numbers would not be the 112.914, rather 33,894 and we provide to technicians to the budget analyst and your office. >> can we take one at a timemr. chairman? >> i want to discuss the first item. on the talk about those two pieces together, miscellaneous. the second one, 100,000 reduction and attrition savings of miscellaneous employees. >> are you talking about the 143? >> yes. >> we would concede that. >> the second point is that

this is a long-term vacancy, not a necessary position in the department. i know the department things we are double counting in terms of the attrition savings. in fact we are not. when we look at the two numbers combined, we look at the attrition savings we look at the salary component, the mandatory fringe benefits is something that gets calculated as it rolls for the budget system so we look at that separately. both of these are well within the salary budget and within the sort of their experience in the current fiscal year in terms of surplus and selling salaries. no we cannot double count those numbers. >> supervisor farrell: one thing is a policy debate about decisions, and another one not having the right numbers talking to each other. have you provided these numbers to the audit analyst office? >> no. we have been working together;

however in the last week we had stalls candidly did not provide those numbers so it is challenging to see the methodology. >> within the disagree with their numbers, that is the difference. we looked at the projected salary savings are, miscellany salary savings if you look at the 76,000 recommend a reduction in the stationary engineer and 100,000 dollars in attrition savings, 176,000 that is well in the expected surplus that they would have under the spending category this year. >> we have absolutely provided the rationale numbers to mr. -- that is absolute, 100%. >> if i could -- i'm sorry. go ahead. >> supervisor farrell: let me

suggest this. we have one more department here, waiting out on the whole. and occ here, that i neglected to call earlier, my apologies. i suggested we call you back in a little while and in the interim have you discussed with the budget analyst office so we can have some transparency in the numbers. again i don't have a problem having policy debates but when people don't have the numbers in front of them that is a problem. supervisor breed? >> supervisor breed: yes, i want to go back to overtime. mr. rose you provided a report to us back in april and based on their projections your suggestion was a reduction of almost half a million which we did.

i'm trying to understand because i don't feel that i have enough information in front of me to understand exactly what happened, what is the difference between then and now, number one. number two, in terms of the minimum staffing requirement, does the overtime that is being requested exceed the overtime that has been issued over the course of what is required for the minimum staffing requirement? and has that been looked at by your office? >> supervisor farrell: ms. campbell first. >> i'll respond to the supplemental appropriation. we based our numbers on the reasonably expected increases over the end of the year. >> based on minimum staffing requirements? >> looking at supplemental we were looking at the average spending per pay period per overtime, accounting for the fact that there were holidays

coming up between that day and the end of the year. >> supervisor breed: i want to be clear. you don't take into account minimum staffing requirement so that over time does not exceed the minimum staffing requirement? >> yes we did. we looked at the number of ftes the expositions they have to staff the fire stations as of that date and how it compared as of that data prior years, and how it compares to overtime spending as of that date and how it extends out to the end of the year. >> supervisor breed: how do we account for the discrepancy? >> they were spending at that pace through the pay period ending on may 24, the last pay period for which the data is not in yet, they were projecting significantly higher overtime.

we had not seen in the original translations. they were spending 1.5 million in a pay period, higher than in any other pay periods in the academy have completed in january of that year and higher than the prior year during those months. >> supervisor farrell: supervisor breed, correct me if i'm wrong, that is not a supplemental request per se, that is simply switching from salaries to overtime. there was also a discussion around the fire department saying that we dissipate, we did the same thing a few months ago shifting from salaries to overtime and the fire department anticipated they would have more than what is allocated.

>> we don't know all the reasons for that spike. they spent the money now at least they said they will spend it to the end of the pay period. we don't think that we made a mistake when we look at the projections several weeks ago. >> supervisor breed: are you suggesting this is money anticipated to take us to the end of the fiscal year or are we looking at an additional allocation of overtime support

for the end of the fiscal year? >> it would close the loop on the fiscal year, simply moving one line item to the other. i know you want to move forward but will stay here all afternoon however long you want us. clearly when we came in april there is a slight frustration because this was fully predicted by us. we know from history and trends that may and june we will be spending more in overtime; there is a higher absenteeism, and higher amount of retirement in june. this is absolutely predictable. i know we had a conversation with supervisor avalos this morning; there was a lot of theatrics in april that this would not happen, dead on. it is what it is. we appreciate the work that everyone has done; we were

within about 19,000 dollars or without we would be, that is pretty good, not a science but we are moving forward. in the fire department a staffing cyclical and the needs in terms of overtime expenditures are different from month-to-month. we appreciate the work that was done and now the recommendation that is very different from april and the recommendation of 400-some-od to cover the additional year but no additional funding request is made by the department this time. >> supervisor farrell: -- >> i want to reinforce that we made ballot isolations and accounted for all the assumptions of the fire department made.

cannot control how they manage their overtime. >> supervisor farrell: okay. questions or comments at this time? i know for the record i know there was a dispute a few months ago; the way the process unfolded to me is completely appropriate. t we agree what we could agree upon a few months ago and now we are back. on where the other is completely appropriate the way it has gone down.. one the make sure everyone's on board with the numbers and then we'll call you back and look at. ms. hicks, thanks for waiting. my apologies for not calling you your the police department.

>> good afternoon supervisor farrell and members of the finance committee i understand why the occ was overlooked because we are part of the police department but we are separate in how we manage our budget. since last week's heairng we did reach an agreement of the minds. we did not have an agreement of the minds on the vehicle for just but i do understand that the board of supervisors, or your committee is taking a closer look at the healthy and clean air transportation ordinance. particularly for departments such as mine that only have two vehicles other clarify with the department of environment the for small fleet such as mine the five percent per year reduction for four years for

20% reduction would not apply to the two vehicles that we have because that result in a 50 percent reduction. i did also clarify that the vehicles at the occ don't qualify as public safety vehicles for an exemption such as the police department vehicles, fire and sheriff. as i indicated last week, because our vehicles are over 12 years old they would have to be retired by june 30th, 2015. they do not have high mileage and each fico has about 55,000 miles on them. there is currently no exemption for the vehicles under the ordinance . should the ordinance not be amended to accommodate our vehicles our continue to urge

the board of supervisors to approve the replacement. thank you. >> supervisor farrell: thank you ms. hicks. we don't have a separate report; this is contained within the police department, correct? okay. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor farrell: thank you very much. okay. at this time district attorney gasco, thank you for patiently waiting.