>> maybe our recommendations would have changed. it is a little difficult. but secondly, if i understand the department, they were referring to a 10 53 on page 33 of our report. if i understood that correctly, we don't have a 10 53 here. we're referring to a 10 54 position. >> i am going through, back to the original proposal and

explaining -- >> we changed the original proposal. that's why we wound up and reported to the committee that you've agreed with us. it's really difficult, supervisors. >> when we had our discussions with the budget analyst's office, although i know i understand what their job is to do and we understand what our job is to do, we were told that the only way that we could get our positions back was to make a cut in everything else in order to come up with a dollar value. that's what we gave. that's what was proposed, and that's what is on his list. in terms of reluctantly agreeing to that, we also feel that we had justification from the very beginning on the positions, cuts the budget analyst proposes and some of the cuts that we had -- we are

going through the process with the mayor's office this year. there wasn't a lot of leeway for us to be able to give anything to the budget analyst's office. we took the first set of cuts. we made cuts -- we agreed to some cuts that we could do without any substantial negative impact on our department. our point here is to say that when -- in what we were given in terms of either they won't change their mind on cutting the position so you have to give up dollars, we did that because the positions are extremely important to us. >> can i make the suggestion? we seem to have a nonagreement between the two budget analyst and the department. would giving everybody until wednesday to have a further discussion benefit the situation?

>> supervisor, the issue that we had was we were told in no uncertain terms that they were not going to take the cuts off the table unless we gave up the savings. so, unless something like that changes, we could certainly talk to them more. >> mr. chairman, i don't think we need any more time with the department. we respect whatever the committee decides on this thing, but we thought we were in agreement. these are our recommendations. we reduced our recommendations in the first go around. whatever the committee decide. it goes without saying we accept. >> okay. supervisor breed? >> i guess the problem i have is based on what i'm hearing, it sounds like the department is implying that they are being forced to cut a dollar amount. and i know that there have been budget and legislative analyst

reports that weren't done for other departments. i don't think any department is forced to make cuts. i think the various identified areas are not necessary for various purposes. so, i'm just -- i don't understand why we wouldn't just accept these cuts that are listed here unless there is some justification the department can provide us for why we wouldn't do it, and i haven't heard any just yet, so -- >> mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, to further what supervisor breed is stating, we would have left our recommendations alone in our first go around, but we modified those recommendations and modified them downward. i can show you, if the committee doesn't have it, how we significantly reduced it in the first go around. i have that here if the committee is interested with that. >> that would be fine. supervisor wiener? >> if we can get, the dispute,

whatever you want to call it, in terms of what is remaining in terms of what you quote-unquote reluctantly accepted? there was the research -- we have the research assistant. ~ kept the research assistant. >> we gave up things in order to keep the research assistant. >> can you restate? >> we cut our professional services budget. that's the budget that pays for the actuary, that pays for innovative contracting ideas. right now we're extending the blue shield contract to begin our wellness program. we're hoping to do a migration analysis to see if the new benefits we negotiated in hr in 93, 83% make an impact on migration, but we don't have the money to do that when the professional services budget is cut. we also trimmed the election budget. we got two different numbers

from elections. the elections department told us to budget at one level and we budgeted at what -- we cut it down to what san francisco retirement system said they just spent on their election. so, we're only hoping that we have adequately funded for our election. as you know, we elect the members of the health service board every third year. we also made cuts in the -- in the professional services and material supplies in the eap. we wanted to do more work with people who -- with our employees who are having mental health issues and depression issues which greatly affects productivity as well as wellness. and we completely eliminated a new program that they wanted to implement and just said we couldn't afford it. so, those are issues that both affect our employees, but they

also affect our ability to do work and to continue to be innovative. and i will point out again, we are -- if i were to bring the contracts to you today, the contracts would be $20 million less than they were last year, which is unheard of. that's the kind of innovation that we have delivered four years in a row. and in order to continue to do it, we need -- we need adequate resources. we accepted 68% of the budget analyst cuts on the first go around that put us below the $10 million mark, by which all the other departments were not reviewed, but there was no negotiating. neder, you have to come up with this money -- that was the negotiation, find the money. so, as i said, reluctantly, found funds in other parts of our budget. >> the items you describe in terms of the dispute or

nondispute are reluctant, what do they total? >> $77,000. and of that 32% is general fund -- i'm sorry. and then it's 133 for the second year. so, of that 23,000, of the 77,23,000 is general fund. ~ 77,000, 23,000 is general fund. >> can i ask you a quick question, mr. rose, to the report? [speaker not understood]. almost all line items are general fund in the line items. but it doesn't tally. is there only a certain percentage of these? >> [speaker not understood], budget analyst's office. several departments get work orders [speaker not understood] other city departments. [speaker not understood]. >> okay, thanks. >> [inaudible].

>> right, okay. supervisor wiener? >> yeah, i would be inclined to move to accept the budget and legislative analyst recommendations with the ~ budget analyst recommendations. i don't know how to rephrase it. it's a little [speaker not understood] at this point. but not to accept the 77,000 for year one, 133 for year two as outlined by [speaker not understood] and her staff. so, accepting the agreed upon cuts with the exception of those year one, year two line items. and, you know, it's always hard in this position where we hear [speaker not understood] between the department and the budget analyst. when you talk about what's necessary and what's not necessary as opposed to attrition savings, whatever else, it becomes challenging for us. but when i look at these are not large numbers and they seem

to be meaningful for the department, if they're not particularly large numbers for the general fund and, so, i guess i'll make a motion to [speaker not understood] as stated. >> second. >> mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, as stated we accept whatever the committee -- we don't know, supervisor wiener, where that 77,000 is in our cuts. we don't -- we can't identify it. i don't know what the department is referring to. if they could refer to one of our cuts [speaker not understood]. they have a copy of our report. >> i don't know if maybe ms. dodd can respond to that. the department is saying that encompassed in your proposed cuts are these amounts 77 in year one, 133,000 in year two, that will eliminate specific professional service contracts or projects. and, so, you're saying that those -- what ms. dodd and her staff just identified are not actually part of the cuts?

>> no, through the chair, supervisor wiener, we simply don't know the $77,000 add up from our recommendation. >> let me ask ms. dodd, if you can articulate on the microphone how we get to $77,000, i think what you have is general support from this committee now is to take mr. rose's recommendation with the exception of the $77,000 for [speaker not understood]. >> i can speak to how it is proposed on the allocation sheet. you have on second page of mr. rose's report, you have two reductions to professional services. >> yep. >> they are proposing to reduce those two combined cuts by the 77,000 in year one and 133,000 in year two, and we would reduce those cuts proportionally if that was the committee's wish. >> do you concur with that?

>> we feel that we need to have the professional services staff. the reality is we [speaker not understood] -- we agree with [speaker not understood]. >> okay. so, colleagues, we have a motion by supervisor wiener to take the budget analyst recommendations minus the $77,000 from the professional services in years one and two as articulated. we have a second. colleagues, can we take that without objection? supervisor breed? so moved. [gavel] >> thank you. okay. we have dpw. mr. nuru. >> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. since our last meeting last week, we are in agreement with the budget analyst's recommendation and [inaudible]. >> okay, thank you, mr. nuru. colleagues, any questions for mr. nuru at this time? okay. mr. rose, can we go to your

report, please, for dpw? >> yes, mr. chairman, members of the committee. on page 41 of our report, our recommended reductions for proposed budget total 536,0 56 in 14-15. of that amount, 265,2 41 are ongoing and 270 are one-time savings. these reductionses would still allow an increase of 58.5 million or 36.7% for the department's 15-16 budget. we also recommend closing out prior year general fund expended encumbrances, which would allow the return of [speaker not understood]. mr. chairman, if you look at the next paragraphs, those numbers don't add up to what the general fund is because it's only a portion that is general fund cut. so, together those recommendations will result in 363,746 savings to the city's general fund. i just wanted to point out to the committee in case they added it up, if it doesn't add up to that amount. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total 86

6,6 81 in 15-16. of that amount 298,0 78 are ongoing. 5 63 are one time. these reductions would still allow an increase of 12.1 million or 5.[speaker not understood] percent [speaker not understood]. savings to the city's general fund. as i understand it the department does concur with our recommendations. >> thank you, mr. rose. colleagues, any questions to mr. rose or to mr. nuru? could i have a motion to accept the budget analyst's recommendation? so moved, we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> thank you, mr. nuru. okay, fire department, chief [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon, chair farrell, members of the committee. [speaker not understood] fire department. i think this is a first, but

i'm pleased to report that we are in agreement currently with the revised budget analyst's report. i'd like to thank the director of the mayor's budget office, kate howard, [speaker not understood] mr. rose and his staff. i'd like to acknowledge mark [speaker not understood] who because i was out of town last week, presented on behalf of the department. >> he did an incredibly able job as well. >> yes, he did. >> colleagues, any questions for the chief? okay, mr. rose, can we go to your revised report? >> mr. chair, members of the committee, it is a first. [laughter] >> proposed budget total -- i'm on page 50 of our report, [speaker not understood]. of that amount, 601,646 are ongoing savings at 147,800. oneheim saving these reductions would still allow increase of 10,0 29,52 1 in the department's 14-15 budget.

our recommended reductions proposed budget total [speaker not understood] in 15-16 which are ongoing savings and as i understand it, the department does concur with our recommended reductionses. >> okay. colleagues, any questions for mr. rose? okay, can i have a motion to accept mr. rose's report with cuts for the fire department? a motion and second, we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> chair farrell, if i can mention one item i know did come up last week for your consideration. i had some difficult decisions to make, that is withdrawing funding for those positions. [speaker not understood] work load issues and safety issues [speaker not understood] fire investigation. used to be a two-person per shift unit and that funding was de funded in 1989 during the economic downturn. that is something we want to raise again. i know it came up last week. supervisor breed had also brought up the need, which i agree, came up at an analyst

report regarding future planning, strategic planning. that was another position. and i know you have difficult decisions to make. that is just for your consideration with respect. thank you. >> thank you, chief. supervisor breed? >> chief, i got an e-mail from your office with the information. i couldn't remember if that was distributed to the entire committee or just me. >> i believe it was to the entire committee. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, chief. we have department of emergency management up, [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon, chair farrell, members of the board who are here. ann crone enberg, department of emergency management. we have worked closely this past week with the budget analyst's office and are now in agreement with his report. >> okay. colleagues, any questions? if none, mr. rose, can we go to your report, please? >> yes, mr. chairman, member of the committee he.

office on page 58 of our report our recommended reductions of the proposed budget total 209,827 in 14-15. of that amount 90,118 are ongoing savings. [speaker not understood] one-time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of 6.6 million or 9.5% of the department's 14-15 budget. our recommended reduction of the proposed budget total 130,6 36 in 15-16. of that amount 96,793 are ongoing savings and 33 84 3 will one-time saving. these reductions would still allow an increase of [speaker not understood] or 9/10 of a percent in the department's 15-16 budget. as i understand the department concurs with our recommended reductions. >> okay, thank you, mr. rose. colleagues, any questions for mr. rose or ms. crone enberg? okay, can i have a motion to accept the budget analyst's recommendation? we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> supervisors, did want to take a second to introduce our

deputy director rob [speaker not understood]. i mentioned him last week ~. he's come on to head our communications 911 division. you will be seeing his face in front of you on a number of issues in the next couple months. >> welcome on board. >> thank you. >> all right, thank you. all right, last but not least, chief suhr. >> good afternoon, greg suhr, for the police department. i, too, or we, too, are in concurrence with the recommendations made by the budget analyst's office. i want to thank the mayor and his staff and mr. rose and his staff. certainly director gannon and [speaker not understood] from my staff. we were close last week, but they closed the gap in the week since. >> thank you, chief. colleague, any questions for our chief?

supervisor breed. >> that acb savings or abc savings? in the budget and legislative analyst's report. >> mr. rose, why don't we go to your report. >> mr. chairman, member of the committee, supervisor breed, which page are you referring to? >> i am not certain, supervisor. i think the chief would know. it's one of the abbreviations of one of their divisions. we could have the wrong abbreviation. i'm not certain. >> it is acb. >> it is. >> and even though we're a big acronym place, i can't put that one together. >> [inaudible]. >> nor i. >> mr. chair, members of the committee, on page 66 our recommended reduction to the

proposed budget total 1,507,3 61 in 14-15. of that amount 1,308, [speaker not understood] are ongoing savings. [speaker not understood]. these reductions would still allow an increase of 1.5 million with 3/10 of a percent in the department's 13, 14 budget. [speaker not understood] for 15-16. of that amount, 1,0 99,87 2 [speaker not understood]. these reductions to still allow an increase of 2.7 million, 5/10 of a percent [speaker not understood]. the chief does concur with our recommended reductions. >> thank you, supervisor mrrose. supervisor mar? >> i wanted to thank the chief for always giving us a good amount of information, especially on reducing overtime. the capital improvements and

your sworn hiring plan and all the data. i just wanted to ask you just so i can quantify a little bit more, how much does it cost for each police academy class which i know we're committed to to help increase the force? do you have any sense of how much each academy class -- >> the training and uniforms and accompanying exact costs to the class, about $890,000. the last salary is class is salary and fringe. it depends what point in the year they're hired and that carries through the rest of the year. >> how long does each of the academy classes run? >> approximately 30 weeks. >> and it's a small proportion that's the equipment and uniforms cost, and it's monthly staffing for the teachers and instructors?

>> $890,000 is the actual -- everything that goes into each class. and then the rest of the cost of each class is the salary and fringe of the actual members of the class. >> and then for the proposed three classes, how are they staggered throughout the year? >> september, january, and may. >> thank you very much. >> okay, colleagues, any further questions for chief suhr? >> i know one more. i know you had mentioned earlier the general average retirement retirees is it 80 per year from the department, or has that remained consistent? >> absent the drop years it's usually 60 to 90, which was almost double that during the drop years. >> thank you. >> the sunsetting of the drop years. >> colleagues, any further questions for mr. chief or mr. rose on the police department budget?

>> mr. chairman, would you repeat that question? >> i just said if there were any other questions. supervisor wiener. >> [speaker not understood] we have 300 officers short of full staffing right now? >> yes. so, just like last summer we're almost at exact the same -- our attrition broke even for hiring of 150 officers a year. but from this summer on, it will take us the next four years. if we can stay on schedule and get to the charter mandate. >> that's a key phrase. i'll take that four years if we stay scheduled. i know it's always tempting during the budget process to start moving, just delay all the classes by a few months to achieve savings. i know i just came from yet another community meeting this morning where it [speaker not understood] there aren't enough officers to respond to the calls that need responding to. so, i think it's important to

keep that in mind. >> it's critical we stay on schedule. >> colleagues, any further questions or comments? can i have a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendations for the police department? by supervisor avalos. and a second. we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> thank you. >> okay. colleagues, with items number 1 and 2, [speaker not understood] from our mayor's office, we have to do a few technical adjustments so we're going to entertain those right now. >> good afternoon, supervisors. kate howard, mayor's budget director. i wanted to today submit two technical adjustments to the mayor's budget. the first includes a number of different technical changes, correctly balancing work orders, moving funds within project code, grant code, their index code to allow for better tracking. the fund, adjusting equipment purchases at the department of public health, the recreation

and park department to more accurately reflect the department's needs, correcting grant feud that were inadvertently omitted, and adjusting salary and fringe benefits for a number of departments. i do have a hard copy of this, which i provide to each of you as always to the clerk and the board's budget analyst. these technical adjustments result in general fund savings of $12,000 in the first year and $353,000 in the second year. the second technical adjustment that i am submitting to you today is to address increases in staffing that are required at the department of public health to reflect the agreed upon labor negotiated agreement. these technical adjustments [speaker not understood] costs of $3.7 million in the first year and 5.1 million in the second year which will be funded from a combination of

the mayor's technical reserve and salary and benefit reserve. i have tables attached to the detail those changes and happy to answer any questions you may have about either of these today. >> thank you, ms. howard. colleagues, any questions? okay. seeing none, can i have a motion to accept these technical adjustments? >> do we have to accept them at all? >> okay. okay, colleagues, can i have a motion dealing with items 1 and 2 for today. we'll continue on bens. >> moved. >> supervisor avalos seconded that. okay, so moved. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call item number 3? >> item number 3, hearing to consider the findings and recommendations of the clerk of the board pertaining to the requested cost of living adjustment to the fiscal year 2014-2015 contract for budget and legislative analyst services.

>> okay, thank you, colleagues. this is an item that has been before us. [speaker not understood] did have to leave and i thought that would be okay because i think we've all technically mentioned support for this item that will be part of a technical adjustment at the end of our budget process. i will take public comment on this item. then, colleague, i have a motion to quickly table item number 3. so, could i take public comment, anybody wish to comment ontai item number 3? ~ seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> can i have a motion to table or file item number 3? we can take that without objection. gaul >> madam clerk do we have any other business in front of us? >> no, mr. chair. >> thank you, everyone. we are adjourned. see you wednesday. [gavel]