report? >> yes, mr. chairman, on page 28 of our report, our recommended reduction, and all of which are ongoing savings, and it would allow an increase of 4.2 million and 15.6 percent in the department's 14/15 budget and recommend closing out the prior year, that will allow the return of 9,646 to the general funds and together those two recommendations total 329,969 and recommend placing, 358,000 on the budget and finance committee reserve, and pending justification for these, and these funds were requested by the department and consultants to formalize the implementation of the criminal justice department, these funds were not included in the 13, 14, and the 15, 17, 18, information and communications and technology plan previously adopted by the board of supervisors and the department

has 528,000 in unspent funds that were appropriate ated by the board of supervisors and our recommended reductions 341,731 in 15, 16 and ongoing safe togs increase, of 2 million, or 6.5 percent to the department's budget, and so as i understand it, the department concurwise all of our recommendations, including the reserves shown on pages 29 and 30, with the exception of the attrition savings and the only thing that i will add about the attrition savings mr. chairman and members of the committee, one of our analyst josh low this year, and he gave me a copy of his notes, and let me just read you what he has in his notes. under attrition and savings, 510,000 in permanent surplus in 13, 14, and so they added 510,000 in surplus, and our

recommended reduction, our recommended cut is 105,073. with the department also did not comment on, is that in addition to the attrition savings, we have recommended an additional 2 positions. for the department. and so for these reasons, we believe that our recommendation is very reasonable, and we recommend that you accept it. >> mr. rose, again, what is the department, or the department's budget going from last year to this year in increase of how much? >> it is going up four million 465,988 or 16.8 percent and now in fairness to the department, let me be my own devil's advocate, when we made that presentation, of an increase in the department's budget, that includes salary increases and so that is some what misleading and that is not the basis of recommended cut and the basis

is based on a detailed analysis of what our analyst did and as i told you before, we are very conservative and it is why, supervisors in the report that you requested that we issued today, separately, it shows huge surpluses every year. in salary surpluses. >> okay. >> we have not even scratched the surface. >> thank you mr. rose. >> supervisor avalos? >> i would like a motion to take all of the recommendations including attrition savings. >> okay. >> yeah, okay. >> we can take that without objection. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> to our arts commission, please. good morning the stephenson arts commission and i want to thank the budget and analyst office for the dialogue over the past week and we are currently not yet in agreement with the recommendations for

the reduction of 110,790 and there is a reduction of 100,000 recommendation to the furniture and fixture and equipment to moved to the veteran's memorial building next year, we feel that we have gone through an elaborate process through the mayor's budget phase and we had a review of the budget through the department of real estate and we do have the project manager from the department of public works, here to help answer any questions. but we feel that the budget has already been reduced in the discussions that we have had today. and we feel like it is an adequate budget to fund the move to the war memorial for the arts commission and this is an important move us and allow us to care for the specific art collection and allow them the access to the space in the veteran's war memorial building. >> regarding the recommendation, we do have a staff member in this position and we do expect to fully expend the allocation for the temporary salaries in the next fiscal year and in fiscal year

16 and so we are not in agreement at this time. >> okay, just to understand the budget analyst is recommending 110,790 in year one and 7,000 in year two. >> you are objecting to all of it. >> yes. >> correct. >> mr. rose, your report? >> yes. mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 35 of our report, a recommended reduction to the proposed budget, 110,790, as he just stated of that amount, 10,790, are ongoing and 100 one time savings. and all of the recommended reductions are ongoing savings, and mr. chairman and members of the committee, this department, this is absolutely classic, burt wyman of our staff is here and i have his notes. and i mean, you can't make these notes up. that is how classic they are. let me read them to you.

the department has budgeted 21 percent eight more work stations and office chairs, than positions, the combined average cost of the chairs and work stations are $5300 or 42,000 more than needed. partners stated these additional desk work stations are for unattorneys and unpaid staff, the cost are ten percent greater than similar chairs recently purchased and approved by this board of supervisors, ten percent more. and the department is budgeting 81 additional chairs of 37,600 range from 36 percent to 42 percent more than similar chairs recently purchased by the public utilities commission, approved by this board of supervisors. 60 stackable chairs at 384 dollars per chair for a total of 23,040, similar chairs priced at $100 per chair on

staples.com. and furthermore, the chosen vendor which is herman miller, on-line, price, for the budgeted number of chairs, is over $1700 less than the budget's budgeted amount, including shipping and taxes. the department has budgeted 48 office chairs at $919 per chair for 44,112 dollars. similar high quality supportive chairs, were $250 to $400 less in staple's.com. and this was 919 dollars, that they budgeted. the chosen vendor, for the budgeted number of chairs is $5500 less than the department's budget amount including shipping and taxes the department budgeted 46 work stations of an average cost of $4400. that is 204,000 in total,

similar high quality work stations from vendors cost, $1500 to $2500 less per work station. one dishwasher at $1900, $1300 greater than the median dishwasher, on best buy.com, and two fridges at $1800 per, and $1,000 greater than the median price on best buy.com, and one lecturn, over 3800 more than the highest on office max and 2438 greater than median price on office max.com, the department has provided one vendor quote for movage and stoertage of the art collection, and our recommended reduction of 100,000 if it is accepted the department would still have over 600,000 or 68 percent of its total budget, to purchase furniture and

equipment, more than the amount based on the budget and analyst review. this is a classic example of what our analysts do. and as far as the temporary salaries are concerned, that was based on historical experience and reflect the actual expenditures. >> thank you, mr. rose, i appreciate that. >> supervisor mar. >> okay. >> i just wanted to know if he could respond, and i would like to thank our budget analyst and burt for the thorough notes and i have never heard that level of detail, but it sure what you are saying makes sense, but i know that the protection of the civic art collection and a major move are different than your usual shift of furniture and moves. >> yes, first of all let me address the specific addition of the work stations for our interns. you will see that our budget for general fund is going down for the next two years.

and given the current situation in the city and our response to needing to be able to look at the situation we have been very efficient rather than asking for new staffing position to bringing in the interns from the golden school of policy and other areas to assist in the work. i think that the additional work stations are to accommodate the unpaid staff and yes, there are additional stations that we have now and we are not asking for additional staff to sit in those seats, but we are asking for seats that we can have our interns and additional staff to sit in. in regard to the vendor selection, i will ask that tyler lamont from the management team speak to that issue. >> good afternoon, supervisors and i am tara and i am the project manager and i developed the budget for the furnishing for the arts commission. i am sorry that burt the analyst did not contact me before calling staples and a

number of others to find prices. >> we base our prices on several key criteria for the city employees, this is the functionsalty, what does the person do and dur ability and sustainability and these are critical issues and so one of the issues with respect to the arts commission is a small department and so it suffers from the economies of scale for the admin, for the veteran building is $4200 compared to $8600, down to $4,000. and we have we have done these project and old procedure jects and we have not gone out to bid yet, and these are, the one question that i did get from

burt is why someone in the basement have as decent a chair as someone in an office. well the basement is a critical function, it is going to have storage for the art materials and the priceless collection. and i was the project manager for the brand craft library several collections on the uc berkeley collection. >> a place for them, for the control and they have a critical job and for the chair is important. >> and investing in a chair has significant impact on health, and it is done by human studies, and we have basically for a small department, we would like the same chair throughout, because these chairs get moved around and the furniture gets moved around. and so, for that reason, these

are the... >> could i... >> i am sorry, i am going into too much detail. >> i appreciate it. first of all, i am a huge fan and i think that the department does an amazing job and we talked about the move and what you need to do. and so forth. the one thing and i am sensitive to this, we checked this and my office all of the time when we use the public funds to purchase any kind of equipment and we have said that we cannot purchase that because it feels like too much. and that aside, and did you actually have quotes from staples that are less for the same things to me, that is inexcusable, one quote from a high end vendor might feel great but it does not feel good. >> yeah, i am sorry, we did

have... >> be careful, high end show rooms, this is a public, and we have a contract staples and we can purchase, and i appreciate the urganomics and i get it all, but when the chair is double the price of the other one you have to have a reason for that. >> and again, this goes to the key of the leadership and terrific job, but in terms of the price differential and wanting to have the highest end chairs are maybe not the highest end, but to me, i have a bigger problem with that and i hope that you could talk about that. >> i would like to address that. >> herman miller and the two other vendors that we went to and we did not go to the high end and they happen to be the city vendors and used them for the police department and as i mentioned puc and so on.

the difference in price, and especially in the work station area, is because the work stations are not any lesser quality but they just have less in the way of cabinets and other accessories. and we really have paired down the work stations for the arts commission, so that as compared to an 8,000 dollar work station, it is similar and smaller in size and have fewer cabinets and so on, as far as the chairs go, we feel strongly about this, and this was the prices and you know, it is $1,000 for the police departments and these are prices that include the installation and the owners and we have not bid this and we feel that this is a reasonable number and we don't go to staples for chairs because these things fall apart immediately and there is a quality term. >> i have a problem, becausevy a staples chair and i have had for three years and it is just fine. >> i use it every day. >> these are urgonomic chairs,

and we just, we have numerous studies and this is what we have done at the puc and the unions are involved. >> commissioner avalos? >> i appreciate all of the discussion and the detailed work of the budget analyst, and harvey was in the middle of the discussion, my phone speaks to me every day at 12 noon, it is my dictionary and tells me the word of the day and today's word is parcamonous, and i have to follow the dictionary and i have to take this cut, and i know that the arts commission can find furniture that is, you know, less value that i think will work and be functional and be correct, and i also, you know, through the process of reallocating the fubds funds and i want to get more funds for the commission for programming and that is where the priority should be and i think that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i would maybe ask that we could consider, we are certainly open to looking at

the vendor selection and looking at economy in terms of our selection. >> two things, we asked that the art commission vendor selections be in parody, with the other departments if they were selected for the public safety building and others, we only ask that the arts commission receive parody, that said i would like to suggest that the board consider putting the funds on reserve, with the cost escalation and the potential for the cost escalation and i would love to insure that we have the funds available to fund the move and after taking the opportunity to go back and review the vendors and see where we have the cost savings. >> so let me suggest this. here, is a way to do this. why don't we split the difference right now. half of the cut and put the other half on the reserve and if you need to come back, and this budget committee will consider that. >> we will agree to that. >> i would rather take the whole, and >> half it is going to be a line item in the budget and we have the budget in reserve it

will just be available for that, and it will not be used for anything. >> i am fine with that as well. >> okay. >> actually would like to move that compromise, and putting that half of the amount on reserve, so i think that is a good compromise and it sounds like he and others are going to use staple and really look at, i know that you are saying, paron. dy with others, but also, utilizing staples and other lower cost vendors that to get the same product that you might at the other vendors that you have been looking at. >> all right. i will support that, and i guess that i didn't mention that first. and first of all, if there is any funds left over, we would anticipate that they go to problem items within this, and second of all, just know that when you come back, i just think that you need sensitivity and our staffs and reports and own offices that there is a

real careful scrubering here, i get the parody, we are not going to be looking at everyone and so forth, but, it is tough for a budget committee to swallow that type of stuff, i know that we will be ad hoc on that. supervisor breed? >> i have a difference of opinion in that i don't know why we would make a department come back for $50,000, if we are going to agree to a compromise, my preference would be that we give them the $50,000 and walk away from this now and i don't want to revisit this issue. if we are going to have a compromise, what is the point in putting it on budget reserve, for such a small amount of money, our time, and the department head's time, and we respect the work that the department does, and we have had this thorough conversation and we will be dealing with this budget again next year and at that time we can look at the issue but for 50,000, we might as well give them the money. >> i will commit that any

surplus will be dedicated and we can collect for the program and any surplus that we will commit to the program if there was agreement to that. >> okay nmre. rose? >> sorry, briefly. no, a transfer like that would take a for the board, and you will have to bring it back to the board for approval. >> i will withdraw my motion. >> make a motion. >> supervisor, breed? >> and i guess, that being said, i would have con comfortable doing that, given the discussion, i don't feel comfortable giving $50,000 for suped up chairs, i am happy if it comes back, and literally, there were quotes and we show quotes and we think that the chairs are whatever and we need $10,000 i will be receptive to that, but to give it cart blanch up front i don't feel comfortable. >> okay. >> so we could have reprogram

for problematic for him to do what he does with the arts commission, that would have been fine with me. >> supervisor avalos? >> i would like to motion that we take the budget analyst recommendations. >> and including, the cut, to it. >> okay, colleagues? >> is there a second? >> okay. i can second it, and we are going to be split on this. okay. do i, is there a different motion? we are two-two, here. >> i will make the motion that chair ferrill made that is the compromise that sounds like this committee may support. cuting it in half and putting the $50,000 or $55,000 on reserve, for its use, and that the department will do everything that they can to cut their costs and use the best

possible vendors to cut the costs. >> okay. so then, if we do that, then you will come back if there is extra, and you need to come back for a supplemental, or a board of that to make it program mat i can. >> just to clarify that we have to make an amendment to the line item so that if we don't choose to use it for that, it can be used for other purposes and so we have to make an amendment to our budget now in order to make that, and those funds available for other purposes. ; is that correct?? >> my question, to the controller's office? >> right. >> and mr., chairman and members of the committee, from the controller's office, if you reserve these dollars in the equipment line and the department does not need them for equipment, we would submit a reappropriation ordinance for the consideration to move the money into a program. >> is there a way to avoid the second phase and do something now that could... >> you could reappropriate ate the dollars now or you may cut

them now and reappropriate them during your ad back process. >> i am okay with that process, and i would like to move on here. >> so supervisor mar, and mr. rose. >> i want to clarify, are you accepting the temporary salary cut on page 36? >> supervisor mar? >> i think that i am okay with that cut, given the money that is going on reserve for the use for the move in the furniture. >> okay, there is a motion to accept the temporary salary reduction, and to take half of the budget analyst recommendation on the move and the half on reserve. >> supervisor mar, could i have a second for that >> could we take that without objection. >> so moved. >> thank you. >> okay. dph.

>> mr. chairman and members of the committee, greg with the department of public health, we are happy to report that we are in agreement with the budget and legislative analyst on the recommendations. >> no ff&e, discussions in >> i hope not. >> if you could talk about, how we, the budget analyst recommendations changed from last month to this week, regarding the nurses at sfgeneral. >> yes. absolutely, supervisor, avalos, and our primary concern which we worked through with the budget and legislative analyst was a proposed reduction to nursing, salaries at san francisco, general. and as part of the mou that we had entered into, there was a side letter, and with a commitment to add nursing staffing, and in specific areas, and it was part of that agreement, and so our concern was that we did not want to have an offseting reduction to

salary, we had agreed with the budget and legislative analyst, to remove that recommendation, so that is not part of these reductions, and with the technical adjustment from the mayor's office, that mou side letters going forward fully anticipated. >> thank you. >> and in our haurg hearing it was discussed that the department is doing a lot of work to expedite the hiring process to the department dhr and how is that moving along and how are we seeing that stream lining going forward? >> we are very focused on it from top to bottom and we actually just left the executive team meeting where we focused on that, so we have got, a new several, new hr team members, that are hired, as of about three weeks ago. and so, we have reorganized ourselves and added staffing in the exam unit that will help to facilitate to move that process along and we are restructuring the process and we are going to

go through a process to evaluate our systems for hiring, and so we have a tremendous amount of focus on the process, within the department. and we have seen some results starting to really come into place, and we anticipate over the next few months that we are really going to start getting some traction and getting the momentum going. >> and you have the real targets that you are looking to meet to determine ho have the staff at a certain time that we can expect to see. >> absolutely our target is to get ourselves to a 90-day period, and between the point where, a position requisition goes in and when we have somebody on the floor that is ambitious and we have gone through the process of identifying the exact numbers of positions, particularly within nursing that we would like to get to, to minimize our use of as-needed at san francisco, general hospital. and then we have also, targets

in a number of other position, categories throughout the department, particularly in primary care. >> great, that is great to hear and so before, i was told when i visit to the hospital it was about a year from the requisition to the hiring and longer than that, and in many cases and so what do you expect to have a 90-day, target? like, set up? >> well, our goal is to have that, done, within a year, and it is a very ambitious goal but as you say compared to where we are now, even if we don't get all the way there, we have a lot of progress that we can make. >> but the positions that we have budgeted for this current fiscal year, we will have them, hired this fiscal year. >> absolutely. >> we are focused from top to bottom within the organization, on getting our hiring done. >> okay. >> okay, colleagues any other questions right now for mr. wagner or dph. >> could you go to your report, please? >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, on

page 53, our reduction to the b*ulg 1 million, 579,383, of that amount, 644,000 are ongoing, 934,000 are one time and will alose an increase of 7 million, over 3.8 percent in the department 14, 15 budget and we recommend closing all the prior year fund that will allow the return of 517,000 for the recommendations todayal 2 million 97,000 in 14, 15, we fully recommend, placing 8 million, in salary and mandatory fringe benefits on the reserve, and until such time as the department can provide more detailed about increasing enrollment in san francisco, health network and the cost of ex-expanded services and our recommended reduction for the total, 1

million, 399,,000 and of that amount, 703,000 are ongoing, and 700,000 are one time and the department does concur with our recommendations. >> thank you, mr. rose. >> colleagues any questions for mr. rose. >> the department? >> okay, could i have a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendations? so moved and we can take it without objection. >> okay, thank you, mr. rore? >> good afternoon, committee members, director of the human services agency, and i am happy to report that we are in agreement with the budget analyst proposed reductions, to our budget, and however, we are not in agreement on additional recommendation regarding putting over two million dollars of salary money on reserve. and the budget analyst and the

department to give more information and i can provide that information to the committee today if you would like. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i am surprised that he can provide it today, we have been requesting that information, most respectfully and we have not received that information. but, do we have... our recommendations on page 64, our recommended reductions proposed budget 1 million 104,242, of that amount, 589,234 ongoing, and a one time safe ands these reductions will allow, increase of 86 million, or 11.7 percent of the department 14/15 budget and they will result in the savings, and regarding the reserve in fiscal year, 14/15, let me just read this