agreement. >> it has been as low as four percent and as high as ten percent and i believe that it is seven percent now in terms of what is budgeting. >> okay. so i mean just to be clear, this is basically to provide some cushion, from your perspective. and well it is to insure that we remain whole. i mean that we are, as a supervisor breed asked earlier, what happens to the money from the supplemental from last year and that money going back to the general fund. clearly if there is any cushion, we will go back to the general fund. we just would prefer not to be on a situation where we are midway through the year and we are coming to you and saying that we need a world of spending because we don't have the money, you know, the alternative will be that it is no longer, we are letting

people off? i don't think that will be the intention of this body and certainly not my intention. >> supervisor breed? >> i just, i am not necessarily clear on the analysis presented and i think that the positions in your office are approved and if there is a problem in the fiscal year and there is an overage and you have to come back before us we will be obligated to support that. and so, i am just not certain, i am not clear on the explanation in terms of the back sale and what that all means, it is not making sense to me. >> sure. so what it is is we are fully funded, with the current budget assuming that we do not have this 270,000 reduction. if we were to take the 270,000 reduction, we will start a year on the deficit spending. and whether that will be directed during the year, as the people leave when we do not

hire people and there are vacancies that remains to be seen. >> okay. >> supervisor weiner? >> i don't think that they will be obligated to do a supplemental and if we think that they are going to need the salary, and we should appropriate it, because what will happen is that in the nine months out or however, they are going to come back and no one is going to remember when and it will look like they want more money and no one did a good job and it was really a board that cut that budget. it is a question if they need the money or not. >> okay, folks, supervisor breed? >> my biggest problem is i just don't understand, i just don't understand what that means. it just does not make any sense

to me. and i'm looking at this report, and i have reviewed the report, and i feel like the budget analyst is saying, one thing that i do understand, and the da's office is saying something that i don't understand. and it makes sense in terms of what the projection is, based on the salaries, and based on the full staffing and based on what we have over all for the district attorney office. and what i'm saying in terms of if there is a concern for the future, if there was a mistake that was made, which i don't necessarily see or i don't have a clear understanding for the basis of the mistake, then there are positions that have been approved and were

obligated as a city to pay for those positions. and i am not seeing or i am not hearing exactly what this means, and operating it as a deficit sounds, so for example, there is potentially an overage for this current fiscal year from the supplemental that was provided to the district attorney's office. and there is an expectation that anything that was not necessarily spent will be coming back to the city. and so, we are talking about potentially a small surplus. and i don't understand how you are approaching the coming fiscal year in a budget deficit when you are starting from the beginning and you are operating at full staffing and what is budgeted at the appropriate steps and the appropriate benefits are to meet the needs

of of course, the existing staff. understanding that potentially people retire and find other jobs and there are costs associated with maybe a pay out which from my understanding that has been accounted for. and but i don't understand, i don't understand anything other than that. >> and i appreciate the points that you are raising. the concern that we have is that we are going into a budget that we know that if we have no salary savings, we would be at a deficit, right? i don't believe that that is a good business model. >> so it is salary savings. >> it is 270 would entail that as people leave, that we would

not be backfilling certainty, two positions and whether at that time of year that will occur. and the one of the things that we try to do is that we try to perhaps reach an agreement that we met somewhere in the middle, you know, somewhere in the midway here and that was not possible. and the budget analyst refused to reduce... >> and we believe, that it is just not wise for us to say that we are okay with this reduction, and understanding that it would be under funding or currents. >> mr. chairman, and members of the committee, you heard the district attorney state that he is acknowledging that a portion of our cut is correct. he is saying that there could be a compromise, we compromise all of the time with the departments. which you see, during this budget process. and the reason why we didn't agree is because our numbers back up what we are stating. but at the minimum, the district attorney is stating that some portion of our

recommendations is correct. >> okay. >> so, let me suggest this. and we are do one of two things, we can have a roll call vote right now and on this recommendation, and then come back and i would suggest that we break for lunch and so the fire department can continue to work out the numbers. or we can go to lunch right now and supervisor breed, if you want further explanation from the district attorney office to decide after lunch. >> just quickly, there is no, i mean there is no further discussions between the budget analyst office and the district attorney? they are just basically i pay this and you pay this... >> so supervisor breed, the case right now, i think that we have options that we can do and take the budget analyst recommendations at full and we can take it at half. and we can do something. >> i would like to take a break before we move forward with that. >> why don't we do this then,

why don't we so we have time to understand what the budget analyst and the fire department, why don't we have a one-hour recess for lunch? and so we will come back at 2:15 and take up the fire department district attorney at that time. thank you. >> >> good afternoon, welcome back to the meeting, and we are continuing with item 6 and 7, we have the fire department and other departments out, i will call the fire department first. >> good afternoon, chairs, and members of the committee, we have worked with the budget analyst and happy to have reached an agreement.

>> okay. mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee. chief, is correct, on page 16 of our report, where we had a total including the unspended and the recommend now is to reduce the amount by $703,648, and in fiscal year, 1415, where we had previously reported 869,751, we recommend that you reduce the budget by 508,008. >> okay. >> and colleagues any questions for mr. rose or the chief? >> okay. seeing none, could i have a motion to set the budget analyst recommendations. so moved and we could do that without opposition. >> thank you, thank you, chief. >> thank you. >> oh, and excuse me, hold on, actually. and item number two we need to

take public comment on? >> correct. >> yes. if there is any members of the public that would like to comment. could i have a motion to move forward to the full board with recommendation. >> we can do so without opposition. >> i am going dao fast here. >> is that the fire department supplemental? >> correct. >> and yes, as i understand it, the department has concured with our recommended reduction of 19,894 dollars. >> could i have a motion to accept the recommendations on item two and do so without opposition and move item two as amended to the full board and do so without opposition. >> thank you, chief and mark. >> and last up we have the district attorney attorney's office and thank you for

staying. >> good afternoon, committee members, we are still where we were before we left off. >> okay. >> colleagues, any further discussion on this item? >> okay. so there is a certain amount in dispute and a certain amount, mr. rose, could you clarify, there is an amount in dispute, could you clarify what is not in dispute. >> we will take a motion to approve that first the >> actually it is $446 stsh 317 is the recommendation and that

included the 270,638. and if i have done this real quickly, 175 stsh 680 should not be in dispute and 13, 14. >> somebody might want to check this. >> excuse me, 446,318, was 23638. >> so that will be 115,680 and then in 14, 15, take your time and we will get this right.

>> okay. in 14, 15, it will be 100,344. >> yes. >> could you repeat the year one number? >> the 13, 14 number, i calculated 115, 380. >> sorry. we are doing them over here. >> 175,680. >> and 100,344 is still correct on year two? >> okay. >> does that sound right? >> yes. yes. >> colleagues, could i have a motion to approve the budget

recommendation of 175,680 in year one and 100,244 in year two, and we can move and do that without opposition and... >> commissioner, earlier to have a vote on that. and what we just cut out of the budget of 270,000. >> okay. >> or, for the attrition savings? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, could i just... i would just like all of the committee members to know, on that 276,638. the district attorney office did propose to us that they can do without $100,000 of that amount or $170, 638. that is not my recommendation to you, my recommendation to you is still the same amount, but the district attorney office in negotiations with us, as with the district attorney

stated today, we did not agree with the negotiation, they were willing to concede, $100,000 less which would have made our amount of 276, 038, 176,038. >> and so mr. rose mentioned it, mr. district attorney, if it was not the full amount, would there be a meeting of the minds. >> yes, we did agree, to give off $100,000, now i am not sure, and i am not going to argue, with just the numbers are 270,638. and we will give back 100. >> okay. >> no, i get it, but there is $100,000. but we are willing to go for $100,000. >> okay. >> so they are willing to give up to make it $100,000 less, which would have been 170,638 instead of 270. >> what we will do is have a roll call vote on the full

amount and if that does not pass we will have a roll call volt. >> supervisor weiner? >> or we could just come up with accommodation right now or either way. >> roll call vote? >> i think that there is a desire to have a roll call vote. >> it appears that we are talking about just 100 and fiscal year, 13, 14, and nothing in 14, 15. >> no it is the same thing in 14, 15, the way that they agreed to 100,344. but we continue to recommend the additional 275,04 they said this they would accept a $100,000 less reduction, or instead of 207, 504, in 14, 15,

104,504. so they have agreed to a recommendation. it is not just the amount that we are recommending to you >> why don't we have a roll call vote on supervisor avalos motion to accept the full budget recommendations of an additional 270,628 in year one. >> on that motion. >> mar? >> aye. >> avalos? >> aye. >> supervisor breed. >> no. >> breed, no. >> supervisor weiner? >> no. >> supervisor farrell? no. >> the motion fails. >> the motion fails. we have a separate motion supervisor weiner? >> i make a motion to cut $100,000. >> in year one and year two? >> yes. >> okay. >> and do you have...

>> mr. chairman, monique and i am not sure that supervisor weiner that is not the proposal that mr. rose had just stated that he was... what he stated is that they were willing to cut the 170,000. >> no i know that there is a miscommunication and i heard that they were willing to cut $100,000. >> we were willing to cut $100,000 for this fiscal year, 13, 14, under the 100,000 for 14, 15. >> i think that there was such some lack of klartty in the dialogue before but the motion to cut $100,000 from year one and $100,000 from year two. >> made the motion and could we do that without opposition? >> yes. >> okay. >> so moved. >> thank you, mr. district attorney. >> thank you very much. >> okay, colleagues. we are through with our departments and item 6 and 7.

and at this point in time, we do have gone through item 6 and 7, so and we have schedule meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. but we need to do some continuation and work here. so mr. clerk, just so to be clear and the state attorney, item one we sent forward to the full board. item two, we sent forward to the full board. item three, we need to hold over until tomorrow, so i believe that we are going to go into recess with that. 4 and 5 not acted on and 6 and 7 will continue to tomorrow morning. >> okay. and so we have to action on item 6 and 7 and 3,; is that correct?? >> so, mr. state attorney? >> i believe that you want to take action on 6 and 7 to continue those to tomorrow. >> right. >> and then you want to take a motion to go into recess to

reconvene tomorrow morning to consider item three. >> okay. so first colleagues, could i have a motion to continue items 6 and 7. >> so moved. >> tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.. >> i can do so without opposition. >> and then, mr. state attorney, is there any more detail that we need on this motion to recess item number three? >> the board's roll of order required that you take a motion, and identifying specifically which items will be continued and then all of the other items the clerk will process as decided items on the agenda. >> so we will have a motion to go into recess on item number three specifically. okay? >> colleagues could we do so without opposition? >> okay. so moved. >> okay, mr. clerk, are there any other items before us. >> that completes the agenda. >> we are ajournd. >> chairman, we are recessed. >> sorry, we are recessed. >> thank you.

>> good morning everyone welcome to the board of supervisors budget and finance meeting for thursday june 27th. i'm joined by other supervisors.