why i'm going to be supporting the chief's recommendation. i need these officers. i need their support. i need their enthusiasm in my district. i need a consistency. more importantly, and a more recent example -- not recent but a couple of years ago -- i remember because of our developed relationship with a lot of our housing authority cops, there was a time when one of our young people had a shotgun; he was being chased by someone, a police officer who didn't actually know him and definitely would have been shot at the other police officer who eventually joined him, had he not stop him, and hold up for a minute. let me deal with it.

within the department as a whole regardless of additional revenues or not to be that kind of department. i know that chief -- has been that kind of police officer his entire career. i know he has a desired to try to make sure that new officers, current officers, bring that same level of commitment to the people of san francisco. we definitely need to do more work around making sure that there is more of a connection, more of a community policing model. our entire city, we need to work on that. this is really challenging decision for me because i think about of course ways to utilize these resources. i definitely don't want to change what we have in our

district; unfortunately i believe that if we do not move the funds forward that it will have an impact on district 5 for certain. my biggest concern is the visitation valley and baby hunter's point, in those areas where they are needed more. that is what i wanted to say, and i will be supporting the chief's recommendation. >> supervisor farrell: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: i will be voting with the budget analyst recommendations. i do understand with chief is saying but i do believe the policy is how to do our deployment in housing authority and the most cost effective way. i do believe that more of what is convenient politically,

the labor practices are getting in the way of what could be a much more efficient way of doing deployment. so i'm going to do a roll call vote on the recommendation. >> supervisor farrell: colleagues, any other questions or comments? supervisor breed, do you want to make a motion to accept the budget analyst's accommodations except a little bit north of 1 million dollars for the housing autority. what we have a motion to accept the budget and its recommendations except for the housing authority recommendations, a year one reduction of about 774,421. could i have a motion to accept that recommendation from the budget analyst? do we do that without opposition? so moved.

(gavel) and then do you want to make a motion to accept -- >> supervisor avalos: i will like to make a motion to accept the budget analyst's recommendation on the overtime, suspending the seven cisco housing authority, 116,195-- excuse me, 1,116,195. >> supervisor farrell: mr. clerk could we have a roll call. >> supervisor avalos: aye. >> supervisor breed: -- (off mic) breed no. >> supervisor wiener: no. >> supervisor farrell: no.

the motion fails. (gavel) thank you chief. >> supervisor farrell: colleagues -- well chief, any other questions around the police department's budget at this time. we'll continue to work on the budget over the next 24-48 hours. >> supervisor avalos: i would like to report on the possible savings that we might have if we were to have small delays in county classes, and if mr. rosenfeld could present those findings? >> supervisors we provided the

committee members a one-page summary of the committees request, what the cost savings would be on each of the public safety departments with delays. the police department is at the bottom of this page. the police department has three proposed classes each year. if you were to delay each one of those classes by one month over the two-year period that would result in a 1.27 million dollars savings in year one, and 1.3 million-dollar 17 in year 2. the 1.3 million in year one is three times that. we also provided analysis of the fire department and the sheriff's office.

in both cases over the two-year period we find that the cost in overtime increases the results in delays, actually exceeds the cost savings. overtime costs will exceed the cost saved by having a later hire. we can see those numbers at the top of the page. i'll be happy to answer western you might have. >> supervisor avalos: we would have an increase for the fire department if we were to do that? >> that's correct. delaying their fire department's hiring actually results in higher cost. because the staff is not available to staff apparatus up until a month later and that results in more overtime costs. >> supervisor avalos: the

committee is not ready to make a determination. perhaps we could have an option to consider before we do a final gavel down, tomorrow or the next day. >> supervisor farrell: chief you want to comment? >> sure. you look at the screen these are the proposals that i was asked of the board of supervisors and the mayor's office to come up with a plan to get a department up to the charter mandated in 1971. this body unanimously supported the least expensive plan that would take the longest to take the full staffing. as you can see right now we are in june of 13, we are at the lowest staffing in as many years as i can ever remember. any delay in hiring is a delay in getting the officers that pretty much every member of the board asks me for; the foot-beat officers, the bicycle officers.

we are doing well fighting crime in san francisco but i would remind you that we already adopted the least expensive, longest plan, six-year plan; we are not even started into the second year in the way we got in the six was by delaying classes. that was usually when we were at high water staffing where it seemed okay to delay classes. i believe that would be unprecedented to delay classes when at a low. i would put that out for consideration. >> supervisor avalos: i appreciate that analysis. i do believe that yes, i have called asking for beat officers, i call my captain, making sure to establish beat officer south of geneva, really critical that it happens. is important that we increase public safety as well in

conjunction with the police department and those of things that we have for consideration as well, some of the priorities that we want to put forward in the budget towards that. youth employment, afterschool programs, childcare programs, things that make a huge contribution to overall public safety in san francisco; these are the trade-offs that we have. it does present a longer-term plan even if it is just a month on in this case for getting the deployment that we have overall in the police department. >> i don't dispute that partnerships are critical but again cops do count. we are low; we anticipate another 125, which far exceeds another attrition. you are sort of answering your own question when you call me for police officers, if there is a delay my answer is constantly " they're coming." this will be, it'll be longer. >> supervisor avalos: we are

approving three classes. we want to help as much as we can. i do appreciate the dilemma we are in. >> supervisor breed: i can't necessarily -- i appreciate your bringing this forward supervisor avalos, i cannot speak to the sheriff's the proper because i don't know whether challenges are but the fire department in particular in one year i think we had definitely over 80 people retire. it is continuously climbing. over a ten-year period we actually had no classes for the fire department. currently we are experiencing mandatory overtime; and institutional knowledge of the department is walking out the door. it is a similar case with the police department as it relates to that institutional knowledge. but i do think that the time is of the essence to move these classes forward as quickly as possible because when they are

finished in the academy there is still a learning process; there is still time that they need to adjust and learn from some of the other officers who 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.